Latest Breaking News

Flatulo

(5,005 posts)

77. Because the value of my home, generally, cannot be used to cause harm. In general, this information

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:55 PM

Jan 2013

is used to assess similar properties in a neighborhood.

Firearms, like gold and jewels, have an appreciable cash value. I don't want the location of my gold made public. I don't want the location of my jewelry made public.

There's a secondary consideration - guns are the tools of choice for criminals. Since they are forbidden to own them, they resort to stealing them from legal sources. Making the precise location of these tools public information is incredibly irresponsible and can only serve a perverted agenda.

First ammendment issues do not enter into this. Would you like your local newspaper to publish the names, genders and whereabouts of your children during the day? This is all public information, but publishing a list is just craven and misguided.

The first ammendment, just like the second, is not a license to do whatever the fuck you want.

Adults understand this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

123 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Newspaper Takes Down Map of Gun Permit Holders [View all] Paul E Ester Jan 2013 OP

Be interesting to see how long the counter measures continue and what their impact will be ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #1

They shouldn't have published it in the first place. nick of time Jan 2013 #2

+1, glad it is gone. N/t alp227 Jan 2013 #7

Agreed. n/t TDale313 Jan 2013 #26

I'll go with that. Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #81

I totally agree. It reminds me of the nuts who put the names and addresses of abortion doctors out rainlillie Jan 2013 #90

Good analogy 1983law Jan 2013 #105

Our personal privacy needs to be protected beyond the profits of media elites. Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #3

Fuck Ron Paul. (nt) Robb Jan 2013 #5

Be sure to use some protection! pocoloco Jan 2013 #6

And the corporate media too - nt Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #8

Yeah, Thanks For That Oh-So-Progressive Post, There. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #11

Should I thank you or was it meant with a dose of sarcasm? Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #109

How weird. Property taxes are public info. So are marriage and divorce. mbperrin Jan 2013 #17

They took it down because of the new gun laws passed in NY state - lynne Jan 2013 #21

Yes, the new gun law insisted upon by the gun owners who are either ashamed, embarrassed or afraid mbperrin Jan 2013 #22

Marriage and divorce records are NOT public in NY bobclark86 Jan 2013 #24

Completely fucking wrong. Zoeisright Jan 2013 #31

People are afraid of being made a target... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #32

I agree with you, but here's a twist... 1983law Jan 2013 #106

Hmm. mbperrin Jan 2013 #59

So... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #116

Read it again. You need cause for some things, but not for marriages and divorces. mbperrin Jan 2013 #118

There is absolutely nothing weird about valuing ones privacy. It is Flatulo Jan 2013 #25

My point is that gun owners ONLY value privacy about their guns. mbperrin Jan 2013 #34

Nonsense. I value every aspect of my privacy. I don't believe it's anyone's business Flatulo Jan 2013 #35

So a gun is actually a MAGNET to crime, not a deterrent? Valuing every aspect? mbperrin Jan 2013 #47

No. Any deterrent value derives from the uncertainty. Flatulo Jan 2013 #50

What specific actions are you taking to make every piece of information about individuals private? mbperrin Jan 2013 #57

Your willful inability to understand this is simply adorable, but why dont you just admit Flatulo Jan 2013 #70

Find a single post by me expressing joy at harassment of gun owners. You can't. mbperrin Jan 2013 #73

Because the value of my home, generally, cannot be used to cause harm. In general, this information Flatulo Jan 2013 #77

Oh, you mean information about kids like this: mbperrin Jan 2013 #83

Your link is bad. Flatulo Jan 2013 #85

Sorry. Try this one. mbperrin Jan 2013 #93

I see a list of names, weights and player numbers. I don't see where they live. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #96

Oh, so if we give the workplace names and phone numbers and addresses of gun owners, you're cool mbperrin Jan 2013 #113

Your powers of extrapolation are a marvel. Flatulo Jan 2013 #115

I'm a gun owner and a card carrying member of the ACLU. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #40

So what are you doing about those other issues already mentioned by me? mbperrin Jan 2013 #46

Try using the search function of DU. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #48

What have you said on the topic of getting marriage announcements, mbperrin Jan 2013 #56

Just a few data points here - Not all of those things are quite as public as mbperrin presents them. slackmaster Jan 2013 #58

Here's some handy links for you. mbperrin Jan 2013 #62

I was a systems admin at a company that aggregates and sells public record data for five years slackmaster Jan 2013 #110

Now your flailing wildly. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #61

Now go ahead and tell me why my campaign contributions are public. mbperrin Jan 2013 #68

Your point holds less water than a sieve. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #75

Not taxed on household property? Really? mbperrin Jan 2013 #86

That applies to businesses, not to homes. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #88

I have never said once that I have a problem with privacy. mbperrin Jan 2013 #91

Good grief, you are no martyr. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #97

See? You've turned it around. They don't respect mine, because they do nothing about it. mbperrin Jan 2013 #101

None of those businesses are owned by people? mbperrin Jan 2013 #95

Ah, You believe Corporations are people! NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #98

I believe that businesses are owned by people. You? mbperrin Jan 2013 #112

*yawn* NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #114

I know, right? obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #66

Broadbush BS obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #65

Sorry you feel that way. I have been as specific as can be about at least ten other issues mbperrin Jan 2013 #76

See #58 above. Still want license plate info out there? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #89

If you want to dig, the name of every man and woman who ever brought Riftaxe Jan 2013 #38

Nope, many of those are sealed and not simply available to the general public. mbperrin Jan 2013 #49

Absolutely nothing, Riftaxe Jan 2013 #123

Many divorce PSAs are sealed obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #64

Thanks for some good specific information. mbperrin Jan 2013 #71

yet the staunch defenders of the constitution were nowhere to be found when george w bush.. frylock Jan 2013 #60

What a load of crap. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #69

i'm talking about the idiots on the right frylock Jan 2013 #92

Progressive *and* Libertarian? NeoConsSuck Jan 2013 #117

Most all of us are ideological hybrids Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #119

Actually, Libertarians were the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war, if anyone had been listening. Flatulo Jan 2013 #121

I imagine many people believe the 2nd trumps the 1st. LanternWaste Jan 2013 #122

2nd Amendment beats the 1st. And the idiots cheer. Robb Jan 2013 #4

Dontcha know? Folks here in the USofA would rather cling to their guns Piazza Riforma Jan 2013 #15

Quoth the bard: Robb Jan 2013 #51

Old frontier saying: Flatulo Jan 2013 #99

Looks that way to me. mbperrin Jan 2013 #18

Oh, please cut the crap. The Journal used their 1A rights to call attention to a Flatulo Jan 2013 #36

Dead kids are a "social agenda." Roger that. Robb Jan 2013 #45

How does making the exact location of firearms public information make fewer "dead kids"? Flatulo Jan 2013 #72

This is a confession that when people think you own a gun, it's a negative and amounts to harassment mbperrin Jan 2013 #55

Why not publish the exact location of where homosexuals live? Flatulo Jan 2013 #74

Psst. Here's a list of where large amounts of diamonds and jewelry are stored. mbperrin Jan 2013 #78

I'm a devout atheist as well, so no need to fear a religious angle from me. Flatulo Jan 2013 #82

See? You're trying to do the right thing by securing your guns. mbperrin Jan 2013 #87

If Adam Lanza's mom were alive, I would be delighted to see her spend her life in prison. Flatulo Jan 2013 #94

Ooops, forgot. Here's a list of where lots of homo-sexuals can be found. mbperrin Jan 2013 #79

And their names and addresses? Fail. Flatulo Jan 2013 #100

all the while relinquishing their 4th amendment rights without batting an eye frylock Jan 2013 #63

Good choice on their part. I favor personal privacy as a starting point in all things: petronius Jan 2013 #9

not so much. I'd like to know if I have a gun nut on my block; never'd let my kids go there pasto76 Jan 2013 #12

You would certainly have the right to ask. I don't have kids, but if I did and they were petronius Jan 2013 #13

Owning a gun = gun-nut? Socal31 Jan 2013 #19

Kellerman's research that produced that number (actually 43, not 47) is based on a lot of... slackmaster Jan 2013 #20

How about homes with prescription meds? Those are more likely to not be locked up. Flatulo Jan 2013 #28

Good and bad. iamthebandfanman Jan 2013 #10

Er, Flatulo Jan 2013 #37

This listing might interest you, then. mbperrin Jan 2013 #80

Oh sure, such things exist, even though I've never seen one. Not even remotely equivalent to Flatulo Jan 2013 #84

I guess it depends on what type of person u r iamthebandfanman Jan 2013 #120

Fuck the Journal News slackmaster Jan 2013 #14

Agreed, how would it have been accepted if they published Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #107

Now, perhaps many of these same newspapers can take down ... Newsjock Jan 2013 #16

That's a little different, no? They're being paid solely with my tax dollars, so I believe I have a Flatulo Jan 2013 #39

Nah. That was a jerk move also. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #41

I agree that the first approach should be maximum privacy. However, public servants Flatulo Jan 2013 #42

Higher levels are often required to file financial disclosures. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #44

I agree obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #67

Why would someone do that? that is just assinine..nr and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #23

Fuck them. Publishing that information in the first place was just hateful and served no public Flatulo Jan 2013 #27

How magnanimous of Jenoch Jan 2013 #29

Yah, after all the potential harm and lost privacy. Flatulo Jan 2013 #102

Oh gee, "threats against its staff", huh? Zoeisright Jan 2013 #30

I am trying to figure out what they're threatening them with. Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #33

If I were a subscriber I certainly wouldn't threaten them slackmaster Jan 2013 #53

I believe that someone posted the names and addresses of some staffers, which is exactly Flatulo Jan 2013 #43

Yes. Public record data. slackmaster Jan 2013 #54

The paper has never published any of the alleged threats, nor has anyone been arrested for them slackmaster Jan 2013 #52

I await the blizzard of arrests for threatening violence with baited breath. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #103

Insider hype intended to get them sympathy and armed security. OWS Cynicus Emeritus Jan 2013 #108

Why don't you just go ahead and enlighten us with the details of these threats Flatulo Jan 2013 #104

Milksops! Ian Iam Jan 2013 #111