Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Privacy Your Rights Online

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:02AM (#42457647)

    I hope the paper dutifully publishes the names of the armed guards they hired.

  • by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:08AM (#42457689)

    Personally, I would be upset with both the Newspaper and the State. The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself. The State acted irresponsibly with the information releasing it to a Public source. I hope they get sued.

    The Newspaper on the other hand should know better. Publishing this was strictly for propaganda purposes to further the current massive push to disarm Americans. I won't tell you if I own guns or how many, but will say this. Any American not concerned with the push for gun bans should be extremely alarmed. Read some fucking history books and notice what happens when tyrants in control have nothing to fear from the peasants. Yeah, it always works out so well, which is why the article is in the US Constitution.

    Sue them both, and boycott the Newspaper to put them out of business! I'm sick of propaganda agencies supported by the Government. And bet your ass they got a check from the Government for running that article.

  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:09AM (#42457705) Homepage Journal

    Or ... perhaps if the average IQ of weapons owners didnt match the gauge they are shooting

    Yeah. Like Joe Biden. Yes, he's a gun owner. Stupid ass that HE is.


  • Re:Assault Rifles (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:44AM (#42458007)

    Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

    Hey, at least you still have semi-automatics, you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..

  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:02AM (#42458201)

    One of the local gun stores also offers training to both security firms and concealed carry holders (well, potential ones). They joke that most of the holes in their ceilings are from the security guards that come in for training. The "training" that most security firms are willing to pay for is to send the guys to the range and have them fire off a few dozen rounds from a revolver and then be sent back. Many security guards have never fired a gun before that and unless they're a gun owner outside of their job, many never will again.

    Now take the gun enthusiasts. Most people I know that are really into guns visit the range at least monthly. I personally do at least 2 practice sessions per month, 3 USPSA pistol matches, and 1 Steel Challenge match. Generally that's 800-1000 rounds per month. I've been through concealed weapons training, hunter's education, and NROI Range Officer training. I know a ton of people in the hobby who practice and train to similar degrees.

    Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

  • Re:They are assholes (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:07AM (#42458247)

    I don't worship the Constitution and I don't consider owning or possessing a private firearm to be a civil right. The 2nd Amendment was wrong and dangerous. It has no place in a modern country. But this isn't a surprise. Many things in the Constitution were stupid and idiotic (like slavery, women's suffrage, etc.). They have been fixed. This is just one more problem than needs to be repaired.

    Most of the developed world has gun control. Japan has less gun murders in a year than what occurred in Connecticut in one day. The United States has an incredibly stupid gun policy and an astronomical violent crime rate. Most of the developed world has moved on. Why are we so stupid? One possible reason is that many of us worship a document written by rich slave owners. Not that they did a bad job. They were enlightened for their day, but not ours.

  • Re:Assault Rifles (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:08AM (#42458265) Journal

    If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed itThat will happen only if all the Americans are true red-blooded citizens, and in reality, it just ain't the case.

    As we are already witnessing, even without a Saddam Hussein like dictator taking over the USA, there are already groups of citizens campaigning to take away whatever pissy weapons that you are allowed to own.

    the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan,

    Look at the 3 places that you've name - Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ... What do they have in common?

    * Poverty

    * People who are not afraid to die for whatever cause they think is right

    * Cultures which encourage vigilantism

    Does USA fit the above 3 criteria?

    How many of the US citizens will willingly DIE for freedom?

  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:10AM (#42458285)

    because dropping one clip and loading another takes so much time!

    Indeed. For anyone that thinks that loading a magazine is some major roadblock, take a look at the video I'm linking below. It's of Max Michel drawing his gun from a holster and firing 18 rounds - reloading twice (every 6 rounds on 3 targets) all in under 5 seconds. Granted, he's a grand-master ranked pistol shooter, but even the most ham-fisted idiot won't take more than 3-4 seconds to perform a mag change. []

  • Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by atriusofbricia ( 686672 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:10AM (#42458287) Journal

    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?

    I suppose the difference comes from why they wanted to print it and make such a big deal about it. All things considered it was another attempt to demonize a segment of the population they don't care for and would like to go away. It wasn't news. It was an attempt at intimidation.

  • Re:Assault Rifles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:32AM (#42458503)

    Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government.
    Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse.
    Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:33AM (#42458511)

    Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

    No. I agree. But there are many many law enforcement (and -esque) groups that do have at least cursory gun handling standards and require time on the range.

    Now take the gun enthusiasts...blah blah blah

    Ok, now take that minority of well trained enthusiasts and set them aside.

    Now take the majority remaineder all the people with guns who don't do any of that. At all. Ever.

    What about them?

    I can't really follow what your argument is, it seems to be trying to argue that random civilians can handle weapons better than law-enforcement-esque types and sure that's true for some handful of carefully screened and cherry picked group of civilians.

    So what exactly?

  • True, to a degree. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:38AM (#42458539)

    They're significantly more innocent than the violent assholes threatening them.

    First off, I wouldn't say they were *significantly* more innocent. They attempted intimidation first. They are more innocent than the people threatening them with deadly weapons but that it for that part.

    Secondly, they did not just post the names of the people who threatened them. They also posted the names of innocent people who had exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and who have NOT threatened them. They are less innocent than those people.

    So the final question should be whether 50%+ of the people they "outed" have threatened them or not. I'm going to guess not. But that's just based upon the people I know who own guns.

  • Re:Assault Rifles (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MagusSlurpy ( 592575 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:44AM (#42458591) Homepage

    Except that only people who are mowing down schoolchildren or watermelons for a youtube video use full auto. Burning through your full magazine in four seconds in any sort of conflict zone is the best way to get sent home in a pine box.

  • Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flaming error ( 1041742 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @02:21AM (#42458899) Journal

    In enlightenment philosophy, rights were those self-evident truths that all men had the same freedoms to life, to liberty, to self-determination. Governments don't have such "rights". Democratic governments have responsibilities. Other governments have force and caprice.

    As to "the right to tax you", If we were to read the original constitution we'd see that congress was delegated the power to tax imports, exports, and the states themselves. It provided a formula for how to share taxes among the states, which was based on the state population, broken down by indians, slaves, and everybody else. But nowhere was Congress delegated authority to tax individuals, until the 19th amendment.

    That new power to tax individuals was (and is) considered unconstitutional by many, because they believe the 19th amendment was not properly ratified - snuck through the system with The People largely unaware, with dubious and incomplete records of many of the requisite elections.

    Even if we accept the 19th amendment as legitimate, that tax regime is not a self-evident truth, it's a human invention, an arbitrary method of funding the government.

    Our government is just a glorified home owners' association that the home owners themselves formed and chartered, and can also revise, re-charter or (with some difficulty) disband.

    The federal government has the job of doing exactly what the States (via Senators and Representatives) tell it to do, nothing less, nothing more.

    I am pleased to support it when it provides me services, because I feel I share a duty. Not because the US government has a "right" to my labor and property.

  • by dbc ( 135354 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @02:55AM (#42459091)

    Now seems like a good time to inject some uncomfortable facts. According the the latest FBI statistics, law enforcement officers are perpetrators of violent crime at *exactly* the same rate as the general population. This is not counting "police brutality" or any other duty-related charges, real or imagined. CCW holders on the other hand, are perpetrators of violent crime at about 1/20 the rate of the general population, and therefore at 1/20 the rate of law enforcement officers, also.

    So, using FBI statistics, the chance of a law enforcement officer using his firearms for nefarious ends are about 20X that of your neighbor with a CCW license doing likewise.

  • Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chthon ( 580889 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @06:43AM (#42460101) Homepage Journal

    There is a background history to guns that U.S. citizens tend to forget, because they do not seem to understand the middle ages.

    The initial development of gunpowder lead to to weapons, specifically for war. The later development of portable guns was always in the function of killing people. It is probably only in the 18th century that guns became easy enough to be used as hunting tools (can't find references about this).

    People on the North American frontier needed guns to defend and to feed themselves. This was probably the first and last time in history that guns became a tool for personal support.

    I think that is the main difference in culture between the US and Europe. On the European continent, guns have mostly (99.99%) been part of the armies, which were directed by the kings and nobility. I think that there is a deep, unconscious suspicion against gun ownership in Europe. In Europe, guns have never been the tools of liberation, but always of oppression. In the U.S., this became the opposite.

    However, I would warn those people who think that their gun ownership make them safe for criminals or can be used against their government.

    In the first case, if a criminal wants to get you, he will take more time planning and be prepared to use means that he can get to, but you can't. In the case of petty criminality, citizen gun ownership will probably make a difference, but in the case of heavy criminality, you will almost certainly lose.

    In the second case, I suggest that people who think they can use their guns successfully against their government, study the Boer Wars. Yes, it was not easy for the English to succeed, but succeed they finally did. It is just a case of planning, time and means. Then compare the former English army at the end of the 19th century with the current U.S. Army.

  • Re:Mommy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ( 843637 ) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:04PM (#42462659)

    The government has the right to do, whatever its elected officials decide to do, and is not deemed unconstitutional. I believe its called democracy, or in otherwords 'the social contract', which makes you a lawless teabagger.

    WRONG. GOD DAMN WRONG. YOU are the reason the government has been able to incrementally erode our natural born rights. Let me ask you something. If the government decides you have to report your whereabouts every day, or else you go to jail, I bet you'll do that too, right? No questions asked, "I'ma lay on my back for the greater good because I was told to"...

    You are a shill of the -worst type-. Worst motherfuckin type! Read a history book, like, ever? Look up, yes, the Nazi takeover in Germany. The communist takeover in Russia, China, East Europe...that is a motherfuckin terrible way to live...under the boot of one guy who is simply obeyed because...what...he "has the right"? Ok, so let's say the government says that the constitution doesn't apply to you...or certain people anymore...then what?

    Oh...they already did that... [] Give yourself a round of applause...go ahead...thank yourself for it. You deserve the praise. Don't be shy.

    And the funny thing is that you won't save your loved ones...or even's the motherfuckin "teabaggers"...the libertarians...the guys and girls that stand up for motherfuckin LIBERTY that are fighting for YOUR motherfucking rights, too. Fighting so you have a right to be a douche all day long.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam