Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards 1435
inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"
Re:Would that not be protected information? (Score:4, Informative)
Why is this comment modded up?!? It is public information, so, yeah, it can be published by a "Public source..." If you want to debate the fact that it's public information, that's one thing, but you're not.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Informative)
So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....
Well, they may be saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc. Just like most of the civilized world do.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:5, Informative)
Said information is publicly available. If the second amendment protects gun owners, the first amendment protects this newspaper.
Re:Would that not be protected information? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't compare crimes from 2 different countries where one has lax gun laws and one has strict gun laws because those two countries are vastly different in their culture, their reporting of violent crime, and the people that make up those countries. If you compare those 2, you will end up with skewed data.
Instead, you can look at the data at a country that has gone from relatively lax gun laws to strict gun laws such as Australia. Depending on the source you will either find a slight increase in violent crimes or no major change.
Guns are not the problem. The problem is, unsurprisingly, people. Violent people will find ways to commit violence no matter what tools are in their disposal. Just look at the school stabbing in China, or the epidemic of knife violence in the UK.
Indeed if you look at the places where mass murders took place (Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.) you find a distinct theme: the attacker is the only one with a gun. If you want to have a massive body count, you don't attack someplace where people can defend themselves. Instead, you find places where law abiding citizens cannot legally defend themselves, places like schools. You look at attempted mass shootings like the one at the Oregon mall and you find it stopped by someone who was legally armed.
And you can't buy fully automatic (where you hold down the trigger and the gun fires until it runs out of bullets) weapons in the US easily (you have to have a massive background check and pay a large "tax stamp" to buy one, not to mention the price of the gun itself). What you are most likely talking about are semi-automatic rifles (where when one round is fired another is loaded in the chamber) which are used in many, if not most modern hunting rifles (personally I use a semi-automatic 30.06 for deer hunting, although for big bore rifles bolt action or a break-open design is better for example a
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
It also should not protect your ability to publish whether or not I legally purchased a gun, since that is very likely to result in me being unjustly harassed by anti-gun nuts like you.
Could you draw a line between which publicly available information (such as New York gun registrations) shall be reprintable and which you'd like the government to suppress?
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like CCW permit holders?
No, entirely unlike CCW permit holders, because you misquoted me, specifically leaving off the end of the line you quote. Here it is bolded for your benefit.
trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc.
Are CCW permit holders only allowed to carry on duty (whatever that might mean in the context of a private citizen) and (more importantly) not allowed to take their firearm home?
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:3, Informative)
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle".
LK
Re:Mommy... (Score:2, Informative)
It has the right to tax you, so therefore it does have rights. Consequently, the whole premise for you argument falls apart.
Re:Would that not be protected information? (Score:3, Informative)
Guns are not the problem. The problem is, unsurprisingly, people. Violent people will find ways to commit violence no matter what tools are in their disposal. Just look at the school stabbing in China
The one the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre? Where roughly the same number of people were attacked, but not a single one died?
How the fuck can you imagine that says guns are not a problem?
The truth is you want to own guns, and you'll make up any stupid argument to support your desire.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:3, Informative)
They've made pellet and bb guns illegal in various jurisdictions within the US too. There's no limit to what we'll try when told we should be very afraid.
Costly foreign wars that span a decade, blood spilt and trillions spent, TSA insanity, warrantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, thousands of various gun control measures tried all over the US... none of which have done anyone any real good. It's all just political theater, and we're suckers for it.
It's easier to pass a law, spend some money, claim victory, and forget you ever cared, than it is to solve real problems. Even if you have to take a Sharpie to the Bill of Rights. It's politicking of the worst kind.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:1, Informative)
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle".
I own a couple, and it's entirely real.
An "assault rifle" is an unofficial term for a scary-looking (military in design) carbine rifle with more magazine loading capabilities.
I should not have to say the next part, but...the difference between semi-automatic and full-automatic is in trigger interaction. If you pull the trigger and hold it back on a semi-automatic, it fires one round and loads the next round. A full-automatic does the same, except continues to fire the next and repeats said action.
Note that military M16 has select-fire which can choose between semi-automatic, 3 round burst, & full-automatic.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you seriously trying to associate a statist quote like ignorance of the law is no excuse with Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson?
The Thomas Jefferson who said The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive?
The Thomas Jefferson who said, Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny?
The Thomas Jefferson who said, I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master?
The quote you allude to is from some Briton a few decades earlier.
However you are correct about it being public information. Yet another reason to not live in New York.
Incidentally, here are some other Jefferson quotes:
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
Oh yeah, Jefferson was a mega-gun nut, but then all the founding fathers were in favor of unrestricted civilian gun ownership, since they had just survived a war started when the British began confiscating arms from the colonies engaged in peaceful protest, and won primarily by the effort of civilian militias.
I'm soooo getting on a DHS watch list for this.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Informative)
Note that military M16 has select-fire which can choose between semi-automatic, 3 round burst, & full-automatic.
This is incorrect.
The most widely deployed version of the M16, the M16A2 had three positions on the selector switch: safe, semi-automatic and three-round burst. There is no full auto setting, because the US military has decided that except in the hands of highly-trained troops full auto wastes ammunition to no effect (note that this is not the case for real machine guns, like the M60 and M243, which also burn through the ammo but can use it much more effectively).
The M16A3 does have full auto rather than three-round burst, but it's used only by very small numbers of highly-trained troops. SEALs and such.
The new M16A4, now standard issue for the Marine Corps and some Army units, has safe, semi and three-round burst. No full auto.
No M16 variant has ever had a four-position selector switch, which is what would be needed to provide semi, three-round burst, full auto and a safety position.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:4, Informative)
Hi,
I think you need to reexamine the history here. Based on historical writings, as well as years of SCOTUS rulings it was very much the intent of the founding fathers that gun ownership, above all else is to prevent the tyranny of the government over the populous.
Here's a great read on the subject:
http://ia601204.us.archive.org/14/items/Pre-revolutionaryOriginsOfTheSecondAmendment/Pre-revolutionaryOriginsOfTheSecondAmendment.pdf [archive.org]
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban [wikipedia.org]
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
In the U.S., the Federal government has limited powers -- ONLY those explicitly ceded to it by the United States Constitution. The Federal government has no rights whatsoever. We elect politicians to administer those powers that we ceded to the Federal Government - and that is IT.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:2, Informative)
How many of the US citizens will willingly DIE for freedom?
Would you die to prevent your children, wife or siblings from being gang-raped?
Would you die to prevent them from becoming slaves?
I would.
LK
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
In a black and white world, true. But I tend to vote democrat because on the whole, they are more useful to me, but on guns I totally agree with republicans. Because no party represents my interests uniformly, I sometimes have to vote for the guy who will screw me on gun laws.
But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership. For exactly the reasons the "victims" in this article highlight (not that I support threats, if they are indeed real). Someone just compiled a list of law abiding gun owners, and published it for everyone to see, in spite of it not being anyone else's business.
I fully support people who break laws in which there is no victim. From marijuana, to gun ownership, to speeding on the highway. Let the government bear the significant financial burden of policing this nonsense and paying for the necessary discipline.
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.
How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mommy... (Score:4, Informative)
Article I Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That seems pretty clear to me... As to whether te expenses to be paid for are justified is a different matter...
Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Informative)
Just because a group of thugs calls themselves a "government" does not grant them some magical rights apart from those possessed by the citizens who consent to be ruled by that government.
The consent is not a factor here. Most governments on the planet operate without consent of the governed. Mao was correct: the power comes from the barrel of the gun. The government can shoot you and get away with murder. You cannot. That's how it works.
Are you suggesting that might makes right? That if you can get 50.1% of a group to agree with you, then anything you and your representatives do is legitimate?
I don't like it, but that's exactly how the world works. As soon as a group has enough power to do what it wants, it goes ahead and does it. The 50.1% is often not a requirement; you could have 30% and rule over others - as long as those "other" are three distinct groups with 23% each. USSR was ruled by the educated elite who did not number more than 10% of the population. That was more than enough to keep the rest scared or imprisoned. As a recent example of the USA shows, 50.1% of voters can force their choice of the President onto the remaining 49.9% (I'm omitting the comparison of candidates here, it would be depressing in itself.)
To me, that sounds more like hell on Earth than civilization.
Welcome to the club. Machiavelli and de Montesquieu were not contemporaries, but someone [wikipedia.org] put together their dialogs when they met in Hell. The enlightened de Montesquieu was unable to come up with a model of the society that would work any better than the tyranny postulated by Machiavelli. Here is the formula:
bad dictator < democracy < good dictator
Democracy is just an insurance against the bad dictator. But the premiums are killing you. It's mediocrity forever, as opposed to highs and lows of monarchies and dictatorships. In Deus Ex merging with Helios is the wisest ending because the two other endings (giving power to humans) will only result in recurrence of the struggle.
Unless you redefine "right" to mean anything one group can do to another with minimal fear of reprisal due to greater number and/or better armaments,
That's exactly how ZANU-PF komissars understand the word. They are not alone in this interpretation - victors are usually merciless. In the USA the victorious left is already laying claim on your income and your guns - the stuff that separates a free man from an indigent.
Re:Assault Rifles (Score:4, Informative)
No, he wasn't. His party didn't even have the majority in the parliament. He was appointed as the chancellor by a senile president. A huge difference.
Re:Good Guys With Guns? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mommy... (Score:3, Informative)
The US is in trouble because of mindsets like yours - the belief, brainwashed into children from birth, that America is somehow a shining beacon of freedom, unique amongst the world. And in particular the belief that the Constitution is somehow better or more powerful than other countries equivalents. Reality check: many countries have constitutions. And most of the ideas that form of the basis of US government were formed by, gosh, foreigners!
It is especially a problem for you because as far as I know, there is no punishment in the United States Code for passing laws or regulations that are unconstitutional. Or if there are, they're apparently ineffective. The result is that the US Government, quite independent of any other nations, routinely wipes its ass with the entire document and passes laws that they know full well flatly contradict the constitution (in spirit, wording or both). Here are a couple of blatant examples from recent history.
(1) The Magnitsky bill. This is a bill of attainder - it enumerates the people it intends to punish. Bills of attainder are explicitly forbidden by the constitution because they were abused throughout history. The constitution says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Doesn't get any clearer than that.
(2) ITAR [cr.yp.to]. This was a law that censored free speech by cryptographers, in a ham-fisted attempt to stop knowledge of cryptography from spreading (apparently the USG believed non-Americans were too stupid to develop the maths themselves). It was struck down by the courts and then re-passed as EAR, which was struck down again. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Doesn't get any clearer than that. Yet what was the punishment for the Congressmen and bureaucrats who, on learning that their law was unconstitutional, immediately re-passed it? Nothing!
And that's ignoring all the other obvious problems like the abandonment of the warrant system (4th amendment).
You blow all this off as if it can be blamed entirely on "them". Get over it. The "us" versus "them" mentality that typifies US thinking will eventually cause your country to slide ever further into authoritarianism.
Re:Mommy... (Score:3, Informative)
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car?
Apples and oranges - There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own land or cars. There is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry guns.
[a car] is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Right, registered and licensed... by the states. I shouldn't have to explain to a fellow American the difference between state government and federal government, assuming said American actually passed 9th grade Civics.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles.
You can believe a banana is a yacht for all I care - your opinion doesn't change Constitution law.
Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them.
And the government does such a fantastic job of ensuring every motorist is fully qualified to take the wheel of a 2-ton death machine, right? That's why we have so few traffic deaths, right?
See what I did there? Yea ya do.
Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing).
Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion. Great concept.
FYI, there is a bevy of civil case law in which a person was wrongfully killed (i.e., not in the process of breaking the law), and their estate made out like bandits. The OJ Simpson civil suits are a prime example of that. Therefore, the idea of "gun insurance" is not only asinine, it's redundant.
Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party.
Protip: Stop getting your 'facts' from cable dramas - the vast majority of 'forensic science' is fraud and not based on anything scientific, [pbs.org] save DNA evidence (and they tend to fuck that up from time to time, somehow).
In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.
Taking it from a right to, well, anything else, would require a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to sign on for that one.