1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    A Newspaper Publishes Names of Gun Permit Holders, Prompting Outrage

     

    A screengrab of The Journal News's gun-permit map, which is concentrated in Westchester County.

    A newspaper’s interactive map listing the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two New York counties has drawn a gathering avalanche of outrage this week.

    As word spread across social media, thousands left comments expressing disbelief and anger at the map, compiled from publicly available information on handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties and published online over the weekend by The Journal News, a newspaper based in White Plains and owned by the Gannett Company.

    The clickable map is made up of thousands of dots, each representing a permit holder; by clicking the dots, users can view the name and address of each permit holder. Rifle and shotgun owners were not included because, the newspaper noted, those guns can be purchased without a permit. “Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so,” The Journal News cautioned.

    The map thrust the paper directly into the heated national debate over guns that has followed the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., further churning the already frothy argument between those seeking curbs on certain types of weapons and those advocating gun rights.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/a-newspaper-publishes-names-of-gun-permit-holders-sparking-outrage/?hp

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     one thing seems clear to me: If you explicitly tell them who doesn't have a gun, that might at least encourage burglars to target those homes. At least, to scope them and see if they have a security system.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Now, now.....Lets not place blame on the media.  After all, newspapers don't burglarize homes, people do.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ah, see now that gets into a potentially hairy distinction.

    “Now everyone knows where the LEGAL GUNS are kept, a valuable piece of information for criminals,” wrote an irate Facebook commenter who gave his name as Mike Pandolfo.

    Right. While it is debatable whether the knowledge that people might be armed deters criminals, one thing seems clear to me: If you explicitly tell them who doesn't have a gun, that might at least encourage burglars to target those homes. At least, to scope them and see if they have a security system.

    (Why do I say debatable? Look at our crime rates. Criminals know that plenty of people own guns and may concealed carry them, but that doesn't seem to stop them committing violent crimes against individuals).

     

    I don't think that rises to the level of danger that would allow government to censor the publication. Far cry from "fire" in a crowded theatre.

    So no real First Amendment issue. But, I think, a valid reason for people to be pissed.

     [/QUOTE]

    I agree; the non gun owners should be pissed!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    There's a difference in having a right to print something and knowing it's right to print something. The difference is called responsibility.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     one thing seems clear to me: If you explicitly tell them who doesn't have a gun, that might at least encourage burglars to target those homes. At least, to scope them and see if they have a security system.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Now, now.....Lets not place blame on the media.  After all, newspapers don't burglarize homes, people do.

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say the newspaper is at least an accessory in any crime where the criminal uses this information to conduct a crime, either to get a gun, or targetting homes without guns. 

    Same logic the moonbats use for suing the NRA.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    Latest development.

    PO'd gun advocates have published the names and addresses of all employees of the Journal News that published the gun permit info.

    Now the Newspaper is outraged over invasion of provacy of their employees; too funny!

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     one thing seems clear to me: If you explicitly tell them who doesn't have a gun, that might at least encourage burglars to target those homes. At least, to scope them and see if they have a security system.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Now, now.....Lets not place blame on the media.  After all, newspapers don't burglarize homes, people do.

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say the newspaper is at least an accessory in any crime where the criminal uses this information to conduct a crime, either to get a gun, or targetting homes without guns. 

    Same logic the moonbats use for suing the NRA.

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     one thing seems clear to me: If you explicitly tell them who doesn't have a gun, that might at least encourage burglars to target those homes. At least, to scope them and see if they have a security system.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Now, now.....Lets not place blame on the media.  After all, newspapers don't burglarize homes, people do.

    [/QUOTE]


    I would say the newspaper is at least an accessory in any crime where the criminal uses this information to conduct a crime, either to get a gun, or targetting homes without guns. 

    Same logic the moonbats use for suing the NRA.

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    Ironically, the Journal News is now armed and dangerous.

    http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/

    Do you suppose that they'll put themselves on their map now?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People like me supported suing the NRA?  That's the problem with too many conservatives you find one fringe lefty saying something stupid and you apply that to all liberals.  Now on the other hand, YOU suggested the idiot idea of suing tha paper for criminal negligence.  I certainly do not believe all conservatives are as stupid as that.  Just the fringe ideologues.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's a difference in having a right to print something and knowing it's right to print something. The difference is called responsibility.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree. Just like there is a difference between having the right to own a gun...and the NRA encouraging the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons to individuals. The difference is responsibility.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People like me supported suing the NRA?  That's the problem with too many conservatives you find one fringe lefty saying something stupid and you apply that to all liberals.  Now on the other hand, YOU suggested the idiot idea of suing tha paper for criminal negligence.  I certainly do not believe all conservatives are as stupid as that.  Just the fringe ideologues.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  I'm not going to waste my time going through the posts, but there were several.  You in particular?  Can't remember.

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO.  Potentially.  Key word.  I think there are limits on the 1st amendment, just like their are limits on the 2nd amendment.  It goes to intent. what was the intent of the newspaper doing this?  Just harmless information, like the location of shopping malls?  Hardly.  This newspaper sought to make trouble for gun owners.  Their intent, like most wooly-headed liberal ideas is slathered in hate for fellow people.  What they did was dsgusting, and if something bad happens as a result, I hope they are held to account.

    That's all.  Got your head wrapped around this simple concept yet?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's a difference in having a right to print something and knowing it's right to print something. The difference is called responsibility.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree. Just like there is a difference between having the right to own a gun...and the NRA encouraging the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons to individuals. The difference is responsibility.

    [/QUOTE]

    agree in princple.  the semi-automatic is just a liberal bogeyman, however.  I use the right tool for the form of protection standard. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People like me supported suing the NRA?  That's the problem with too many conservatives you find one fringe lefty saying something stupid and you apply that to all liberals.  Now on the other hand, YOU suggested the idiot idea of suing tha paper for criminal negligence.  I certainly do not believe all conservatives are as stupid as that.  Just the fringe ideologues.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  I'm not going to waste my time going through the posts, but there were several.  You in particular?  Can't remember.

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO.  Potentially.  Key word.  I think there are limits on the 1st amendment, just like their are limits on the 2nd amendment.  It goes to intent. what was the intent of the newspaper doing this?  Just harmless information, like the location of shopping malls?  Hardly.  This newspaper sought to make trouble for gun owners.  Their intent, like most wooly-headed liberal ideas is slathered in hate for fellow people.  What they did was dsgusting, and if something bad happens as a result, I hope they are held to account.

    That's all.  Got your head wrapped around this simple concept yet?

    [/QUOTE]

    Simple concept?  Apparently Freedom of the Press is too simple  concept for you to understand.  The information was factual.  Intent is irrelevant.  Got your head wrapped around the idea of freedom yet?  Hint: you and your prejudices don't get to define it.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People like me supported suing the NRA?  That's the problem with too many conservatives you find one fringe lefty saying something stupid and you apply that to all liberals.  Now on the other hand, YOU suggested the idiot idea of suing tha paper for criminal negligence.  I certainly do not believe all conservatives are as stupid as that.  Just the fringe ideologues.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  I'm not going to waste my time going through the posts, but there were several.  You in particular?  Can't remember.

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO.  Potentially.  Key word.  I think there are limits on the 1st amendment, just like their are limits on the 2nd amendment.  It goes to intent. what was the intent of the newspaper doing this?  Just harmless information, like the location of shopping malls?  Hardly.  This newspaper sought to make trouble for gun owners.  Their intent, like most wooly-headed liberal ideas is slathered in hate for fellow people.  What they did was dsgusting, and if something bad happens as a result, I hope they are held to account.

    That's all.  Got your head wrapped around this simple concept yet?

    [/QUOTE]

    Simple concept?  Apparently Freedom of the Press is too simple  concept for you to understand.  The information was factual.  Intent is irrelevant.  Got your head wrapped around the idea of freedom yet?  Hint: you and your prejudices don't get to define it.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, intent is irrelevant?  So, my intent for purchasing my bushmaster .223 is also irelevant, right?   

    Glad we cleared that up.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    So, intent is irrelevant?  So, my intent for purchasing my bushmaster .223 is also irelevant, right?

     


    How do you go from intent in a first amendment violation case to an individual's intent when buying a gun?

    Trying to be stupid for a reaction?

    Drinking at noon again?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    umm...look at the title of this thread...idiot.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Nota bene how the gun density increases the closer you get to Blue York City




    As does population density.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As does Democrat party affiliation.

    Checkmate.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO....It goes to intent.



    Negligence is failing to do something a reasonable person would have done, or doing something a reasonable person would not have done.

     

    It has nothing to do with what the actor actually intended. I can intend to turn left, but I do it negligently if I close my eyes or simply don't bother looking to see if there's oncomming traffic.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh, snap.  the law student read up on the two types of negligence.

    In the court of public opinion, the newspaper is doing this to cause harm. That's their intent.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NRA is being sued?  If it is really happening than that's stupid.  Just as stupid as someone suggesting that a newpaper is an accessory to a crime in this situation.  Stupid people are on the fringes of this debate.  But they sure talk a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    My mistake thinking that one would remember some of the posts where people like you claimed that the NRA is in line to be sued for Newtown.  Didn't mean to imply that they were already being sued.  Imperfection of the English language in conveying thought in summary.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    People like me supported suing the NRA?  That's the problem with too many conservatives you find one fringe lefty saying something stupid and you apply that to all liberals.  Now on the other hand, YOU suggested the idiot idea of suing tha paper for criminal negligence.  I certainly do not believe all conservatives are as stupid as that.  Just the fringe ideologues.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  I'm not going to waste my time going through the posts, but there were several.  You in particular?  Can't remember.

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO.  Potentially.  Key word.  I think there are limits on the 1st amendment, just like their are limits on the 2nd amendment.  It goes to intent. what was the intent of the newspaper doing this?  Just harmless information, like the location of shopping malls?  Hardly.  This newspaper sought to make trouble for gun owners.  Their intent, like most wooly-headed liberal ideas is slathered in hate for fellow people.  What they did was dsgusting, and if something bad happens as a result, I hope they are held to account.

    That's all.  Got your head wrapped around this simple concept yet?

    [/QUOTE]

    Simple concept?  Apparently Freedom of the Press is too simple  concept for you to understand.  The information was factual.  Intent is irrelevant.  Got your head wrapped around the idea of freedom yet?  Hint: you and your prejudices don't get to define it.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, intent is irrelevant?  So, my intent for purchasing my bushmaster .223 is also irelevant, right?   

    Glad we cleared that up.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, intent is pretty much irrelevant in both cases.  A free press used for its intended purpose (providing information) is a social good. An assault weapon used for its intended purpose (shooting people) carries an inherent social evil.  Cleared up now?

    Now do you still really want to prosecute newspaper reporters for publishing factual information?    

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The newspaper has potentially been negligent IMHO....It goes to intent.



    Negligence is failing to do something a reasonable person would have done, or doing something a reasonable person would not have done.

     

    It has nothing to do with what the actor actually intended. I can intend to turn left, but I do it negligently if I close my eyes or simply don't bother looking to see if there's oncomming traffic.

    [/QUOTE]

    oh, snap.  the law student read up on the two types of negligence.

    In the court of public opinion, the newspaper is doing this to cause harm. That's their intent.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You speak for the court of public opinion?  Now that is funny.  You speak for you and you alone.  And we don't have criminal cases based on popularity contests in any event.  You don't respect the idea of rights very much do you.  Maybe we should put some of your more divisive ideas to a vote and prosecute you?  Be careful where your version of logic and the law takes you...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: 1st Amendment Vs. 2nd Amendment

    The rightwingies think the Bill of rights has only 1 Amendment.

    Costas speaks out, and catches grief.  Piers Morgan speaks his mind about gun control, and a petition to kick him out of the country is started.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share