Gun Control & RKBA

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)

226. Then you would be correct.

Reply to one-eyed fat man (Reply #222)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 02:05 PM

Apr 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

286 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Which Neighbors Have Concealed Weapons Permits? (Redwood City, Ca. publishes list) [View all] shadowrider Apr 2012 OP

Also a list of where to steal a gun. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #1

+1000 baldguy Apr 2012 #3

Good to see that you at least pipoman Apr 2012 #8

One way or another, all illegal guns come from "responsible gun owners". baldguy Apr 2012 #11

One way or another discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #18

There was also a story burf Apr 2012 #20

Yes, I remember. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #25

some come from straw buyers...not to be confused with responsible gun owners. ileus Apr 2012 #26

K&R n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #61

You do know that your reasoning implies that it is impossible to responsibly own anything. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #70

Who is the "she" you are referring to? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #109

also which houses you wont get shot at if you want to break in and rob. vr94rx7 Apr 2012 #141

Publishing a list like this is just a bad idea all around. geckosfeet Apr 2012 #2

I ain't seen a gun enthusiast yet Pholus Apr 2012 #5

Except they don't give you a name and address on the internet. krispos42 Apr 2012 #7

Given the entirety of the information, adding one more bit does nothing... nt Pholus Apr 2012 #14

It does a lot rrneck Apr 2012 #16

+ 1,000,000 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #19

So the rest is okay then? Pholus Apr 2012 #38

Pointless snark. rrneck Apr 2012 #45

tl;dr Pholus Apr 2012 #46

Whatever. rrneck Apr 2012 #47

tl;dr: too long didn't read. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #49

For a 34 word post. LOL! nt rrneck Apr 2012 #51

Not my fault you can be tedious in so few words. Pholus Apr 2012 #53

Rrady to deal with the issue yet? rrneck Apr 2012 #54

The moment you built your strawman I figured this conversation was not serious. Pholus Apr 2012 #56

I guess not. rrneck Apr 2012 #65

Which civil right is being eroded? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #111

Two come to mind. rrneck Apr 2012 #124

Doesn't divulge what they have on their person Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #129

Distinction without a difference. rrneck Apr 2012 #132

No right, and as I said, no interest. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #135

Until you can prove rrneck Apr 2012 #145

The drama is strong in this one. Pholus Apr 2012 #142

Are you familiar with the phrase rrneck Apr 2012 #143

Yet basically both of your other examples are already information our government takes. Pholus Apr 2012 #144

By what right do you clsim access to that information? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #146

Who said I even care? Pholus Apr 2012 #149

So rrneck Apr 2012 #150

Pretty much the same as you. Pholus Apr 2012 #151

It must be. rrneck Apr 2012 #152

Meh. I think I'll wait to see what else is on.... Pholus Apr 2012 #155

it would be difficult rrneck Apr 2012 #156

Yet you continued to reply...repeatedly. Pholus Apr 2012 #169

No less difficult now. rrneck Apr 2012 #172

I think if you put the question to the people you'd be surprised Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #193

And I'm sure they'd also like to know.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #198

I know what at least eighty million of them would say. rrneck Apr 2012 #201

I know one thing most gun owners would agree with. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #204

Wrong. More like more than half disagree woth you rrneck Apr 2012 #207

We all know how that worked. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #209

How? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #213

Not by any referendum, that's for sure. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #214

That post was pathetic. Even for you. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #215

I know. I think we're suffering from the same syndrome. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #216

Yep rrneck Apr 2012 #217

You really shouldn't eat that crap, it'll kill you. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #218

Whatever. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #219

no need to announce gejohnston Apr 2012 #208

Of course. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #210

"the details of their personal security arrangements" Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #113

Pointless question. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #120

Pointless question to a pointless statement. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #122

You're out of touch. rrneck Apr 2012 #125

I don't and don't care what they carry in their pockets. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #128

Are you a member of "the public"? rrneck Apr 2012 #130

Yes, and your point is? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #137

LOL! rrneck Apr 2012 #147

You are hiding out from your abusive ex spouse one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #165

Well that truly sucks. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #167

So the papers' libertarianism gejohnston Apr 2012 #173

Hold on. Which paper's libertarianism and who got killed? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #175

tabloid faux journalism gejohnston Apr 2012 #177

OK Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #183

what treats are those? gejohnston Apr 2012 #184

I think that was Orange County Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #185

The story is not "anecdotal" to the person who 's house burned down. PavePusher Apr 2012 #278

LOL Did you ever see a phone book? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #282

Phone books do not post lists of personal valubles and weapons.... PavePusher Apr 2012 #284

"Personal valuables"? Like what? Your gun? LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #286

Those cases are older. one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #182

"One has to wonder what would have happened had they not applied for permits." WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #191

It is in no essential different from ""If she didn't dress that way...". Situational ethics, IOW. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #196

Or as he asserted elsewhere, 'karma'. n/t X_Digger Apr 2012 #199

Not even close. Try some logic. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #223

beware of dog signs gejohnston Apr 2012 #224

Exactly! Thanks for explaining. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #228

The Ohio case is a bit twisted. one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #220

This list wasn't of gun owners, but licensed carriers. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #225

Distiction without a difference one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #229

I was referring to Redwood City Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #230

Are you sure? What method did you use to detect the 'enthusiasts' who never petronius Apr 2012 #22

I'm sure there are a few, but they're HARDLY some silent majority. Pholus Apr 2012 #39

Sure, I'd find a pressing need to be somewhere else too, if I'd met that guy petronius Apr 2012 #41

I appreciate the gun owners and CCWers who keep it to themselves when it is appropriate. Pholus Apr 2012 #43

I do veer away from people who seem to like stroking their guns a bit to much. gejohnston Apr 2012 #200

But that's a voluntary action. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #94

you haven't met me then shedevil69taz Apr 2012 #244

Dunno much about it. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #6

Hey, they have nothing to hide, right? TheCowsCameHome Apr 2012 #4

So you believe that the ex of a known violent spouse, pipoman Apr 2012 #12

Only if they want to carry a gun around. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #114

Brilliant pipoman Apr 2012 #154

What is with the histrionics? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #166

And what "greater good" would that be? pipoman Apr 2012 #202

No, it's not first amendment privilege Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #203

what does that have to do with us? gejohnston Apr 2012 #205

Not the drug culture or the gun culture Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #211

Wrong again pipoman Apr 2012 #206

The publishing of public information is not an invasion of privacy Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #212

I listed several examples of your theory being wrong pipoman Apr 2012 #221

The irony is thick DonP Apr 2012 #13

The reporter is finding out just how much of one it can be ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #15

I wonder how she likes it now. shadowrider Apr 2012 #23

Editor, publisher and the board will be next DonP Apr 2012 #28

We don't live in a world easy to hide in Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #115

How interesting. When the shoe is on the other foot. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #227

Does that analogy apply to the burf Apr 2012 #21

No matter the context, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is a nonsensical petronius Apr 2012 #24

You sound like a cop hassling someone into a search. Union Scribe Apr 2012 #57

You can't be serious. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #71

I have a lot of stuff to hide. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #96

the very name of the permit shedevil69taz Apr 2012 #245

Nice pipoman Apr 2012 #9

In non f'up states, no justification or perceived need is required for CCWs. ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #17

Publishing that information may be legal but it's fucked up like a football bat slackmaster Apr 2012 #10

"may be legal but it's fucked up" Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #116

Let me explain something about people who have CCW permits in Redwood City and most of California slackmaster Apr 2012 #131

It isn't a question of right or wrong Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #136

The exercise of rights always carries responsibilities slackmaster Apr 2012 #153

Why would someone with a gun be attacked? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #164

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of carrying a _concealed_ weapon slackmaster Apr 2012 #170

I think that is the whole point. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #176

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? slackmaster Apr 2012 #178

Am I being obtuse? LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #181

The fact that it has been published puts the CCW holders in much greater danger than a random thug slackmaster Apr 2012 #186

OK, let's say only their enemies know they are armed. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #189

Perhaps they already 'got out of dodge' and their location wasn't known to their stalker.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #190

In the local paper? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #192

You mean like the Memphis paper did, and published the whole state?? X_Digger Apr 2012 #195

It seems that your goal is to run people who have CCW permits out of town slackmaster Apr 2012 #194

Neither do I Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #197

Love it. Nobody needs to be carrying a gun around in secret. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #27

no they don't gejohnston Apr 2012 #29

Anyone carrying a gun should be known to the public. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #32

and if this disclosure causes any harm gejohnston Apr 2012 #58

That's a great idea ... spin Apr 2012 #59

I don't dislike cops Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #64

Everytime a cop conducts a traffic stop ... spin Apr 2012 #69

I was a cop, in a country where they don't routinely carry. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #83

You realize UK gejohnston Apr 2012 #93

Yes, unfortunately I do realize that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #97

Great point. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #100

I can relate to a degree gejohnston Apr 2012 #110

Anyone who works for law enforcement deserves respect ... spin Apr 2012 #101

Don't like cops carrying guns, move to England, they don't carry there rl6214 Apr 2012 #105

Classic right wing response Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #107

classic about what, proving you are wrong? rl6214 Apr 2012 #157

No, they mean classic like this: greyl Apr 2012 #158

Who's running away? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #161

"You don't like it here you can just fuck off to where you came from " rl6214 Apr 2012 #179

I like clarifying and interpreting and reading between the lines Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #180

You like making shit up rl6214 Apr 2012 #187

No. rrneck Apr 2012 #68

I may not have that right, legally Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #76

Bullshit. rrneck Apr 2012 #82

There should be a three day written notification period prior to a burglarly. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #73

Don't know what burglary has to do with concealed carry Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #77

Depending upon the state you may be required to obtain a CCW just to posses a handgun in your home. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #84

What state would that be? And a shotgun would serve better in the home IMO Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #85

You can't get a CCW for a scatter gun! Remmah2 Apr 2012 #95

Glad to hear that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #98

There you go, easy access to firearms. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #102

For someone who's *more* likely to misuse it than a CCW holder would... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #134

There's absolutely no reason to believe that any of the people listed in petronius Apr 2012 #30

Only information which is in the interests of public safety. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #33

But there is no public safety benefit from publishing this info - what reasonable petronius Apr 2012 #34

Public safety benefits from publishing, not deception. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #35

if you know of any of these gejohnston Apr 2012 #36

How would I know who they were? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #37

If a person has a concealed weapons permit ... spin Apr 2012 #60

I don't see this in terms of likelihood of being shot. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #63

And your fear of the lawful... PavePusher Apr 2012 #67

Show me where I ever said I was afraid of guns or anything else except hurricanes. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #78

It's the only possible explaination. PavePusher Apr 2012 #87

I don't have a desire to know. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #88

Then please explain what other excuse can be used for this vaporous "right to know". PavePusher Apr 2012 #92

If you don't know the difference, I can't help you. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #99

It is statistically reasonable to be apprehensive of criminals ... spin Apr 2012 #72

I don't live my life by statistics Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #79

True. However that doesn't mean that a person who is legally carrying a firearm ... spin Apr 2012 #103

I totally agree Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #108

True. However injuring or killing another person does not require a firearm. (n/t) spin Apr 2012 #112

Also true. See, we agree on lots of things. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #139

We do indeed agree on many things... spin Apr 2012 #140

If all who carry were endowed with that reasoning Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #162

Would you prefer that I carry a Kukri? Concealed of course. oneshooter Apr 2012 #148

Do you really want to know? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #163

Your statement exposes your bias: PavePusher Apr 2012 #168

Thats ok PP, his bias and inability to understand a different POV oneshooter Apr 2012 #171

In Florida you can carry a concealed Kukri ... spin Apr 2012 #188

LOL...Actually, that's a very poor analogy... ToolMaker Apr 2012 #252

Thank you for recognizing my total lack of aeronautical knowledge. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #253

I'm a bit confused... ToolMaker Apr 2012 #256

Let me attempt to clarify Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #257

with any freedom comes responsibility gejohnston Apr 2012 #258

I think it should be more visible than those little triangles. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #259

no they don't gejohnston Apr 2012 #260

C'mon GE. I'm not talking about hunters. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #261

check some of the other threads gejohnston Apr 2012 #262

No, most anti's are just opposed to the behavior Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #263

paranoid gejohnston Apr 2012 #264

I don't see any paranoia there, except maybe from the governor. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #265

you are joking gejohnston Apr 2012 #266

Well, why would they need to if they already have real guns? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #274

most of the extremeists gejohnston Apr 2012 #275

Well, they had to come from somewhere. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #280

There are no public safety benefits to publishing this - certainly none that outweigh petronius Apr 2012 #40

Your analogies don't work. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #42

My analogies work perfectly: you claim there is a public benefit to knowing petronius Apr 2012 #44

What does journalism have to do with anything? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #48

What the paper did had no believable effect whatsoever on public safety, petronius Apr 2012 #52

I applaud it because it exposes those who wish to carry guns. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #62

How exactly do disclosures like this one benefit public safety, and how do petronius Apr 2012 #74

How do the disclosures benefit public safety? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #75

So are you saying that the public benefit derives from pestering, shaming, petronius Apr 2012 #91

Time to give up trying to deal with this one petronius, rl6214 Apr 2012 #106

Such contradictions. beevul Apr 2012 #267

You might have noticed that I don't support armed law enforcement. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #272

I think just about everyone noticed that. beevul Apr 2012 #276

You could make them wear a sign one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #237

Maybe that's what you want for those who have no choice Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #239

not all gejohnston Apr 2012 #240

Gun owners have nothing to do with it Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #241

who said anything about Jews? gejohnston Apr 2012 #242

Maybe you were talking about gay Jews Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #243

different triangles meant different things. gejohnston Apr 2012 #277

At least we wouldn't have to wear pointy hats for being silly. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #281

Only to an extremist... beevul Apr 2012 #247

Very profound beevul. Do you ever think before you post? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #248

Only when its necessary... beevul Apr 2012 #249

Still posting your wingnut propaganda I see. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #250

Wingnut propaganda? beevul Apr 2012 #251

"inherently hostile behavior" PavePusher Apr 2012 #279

"You should call the police if they seem hostile." Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #283

"freak"? Really? PavePusher Apr 2012 #285

So much fail. beevul Apr 2012 #246

I'm shocked! one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #254

Asking them to wear a silly hat is hardly branding them Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #255

how about smokers wear a conical hat gejohnston Apr 2012 #269

Not really necessary Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #270

there are still chewers gejohnston Apr 2012 #271

And they stink too. LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #273

Then voting records should be public too, amIright? PavePusher Apr 2012 #66

Wrong! Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #81

The fuck it isn't. PavePusher Apr 2012 #86

I would love to have that conversation Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #89

If the state required a permit to purchase, like a FOID oneshooter Apr 2012 #231

I don't have any thoughts either way. I think you mean Illinois btw. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #232

Yea It was Illinois, damn night shift has me all screwed up. oneshooter Apr 2012 #233

Maybe. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #234

works both ways gejohnston Apr 2012 #235

I'm not denying that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #236

They're public alright. jeepnstein Apr 2012 #238

Two birds; one stone: Where to steal a gun and then who to use it on... OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #31

No shit, why not just publish their house floorplans too Union Scribe Apr 2012 #55

I don't mind if they publish my info. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #50

Good for you. I wouldn't mind either. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #117

But...but...you will be able to defend against the Criminals R US zombie horde with your Big Gun jpak Apr 2012 #80

Shit, my neighbors see me hauling half my 'arsenal' out to my truck to go to the range about once a AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #119

Those that like this, can we have access to *your* names and addresses? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #90

Sure you can, the moment we decide to carry loaded guns around. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #118

Ahh, but YOU own a gun, you've said so in this thread. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #127

Further, you are more likely to commit a violent crime than a CCW permit holder is. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #133

I don't own one at present, but that is irrelevant. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #138

If they're walking around, why does knowing their address help you? Union Scribe Apr 2012 #159

None of us like breaking the law Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #160

Accountable to who? one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #222

Then you would be correct. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #226

So this is how the antis want to remove their enemies from society. ileus Apr 2012 #104

Yup, all those "antis" are creeping up your garden path. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #121

I encourage it's use until and unless, use of "gun nut extremists" and the like are dropped as well. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #126

SCARLET LETTER. Sounds like how frothy wants to constrain porn on the web. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #123

Public lists are a bad idea.... Xela Apr 2012 #174

Did you think it was unforseen? beevul Apr 2012 #268