Uproar As U S Newspaper Publishes Gun Owner Details Online

[cloudhopper]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

What an ignorant statement. Owning a slave was perfectly legal under the US constitution long after the "Bill of Rights" was enacted.

[Chicog]

I can not see the point of doing this at all if there is supposed to be some kind of news justification.

[jpinx]

When they change the laws about gun control in a similar way as the laws for slavery were changed it will be a bright morning in USA

[Mudcrab]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

What an ignorant statement. Owning a slave was perfectly legal under the US constitution long after the "Bill of Rights" was enacted.

Tell my brotherabout the moralty of your statement.

His 15 year old son came home from school in Florida after breaking up with his girlfirend. Got his step fathers pistol (kept for "protection") and blew his brains out.

A gunshot is final...no coming back in this instance. Had he tried to slash his wrists or whatever there is a good chance he would have grown into old age.

Guns are for killing ...that was what they were invented for and are used for. The argument about shooting a rabbit for a feed is patently misinformation.

I never saw a rabbit, or deer or any other food source in LA, NY or Philly when i was there and even so what would be left to eat after a spurt from an Uzi?

[johnnynmonic]

“I grew up in Westechester [sic] I looked over the list and I am offended. Why are there so few gun owners?"

Well played.

[Chicog]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

[cannonball]

ok, now the bad guys know where the gun owners live. How smart would a bad guy be going into a house that they think MIGHT be empty of the inhabitants to walk into a legal, registered gun owner's home and find him home and pointing the very loaded weapon that was intended to be stolen at the bad guy? In my book, not too smart.

I'm also thinking the legal, registered gun owner has a gun safe to keep his guns in and when he leaves his home he takes his weapon with him. Most safes are too bulky and weigh more than one or two bad guys can handle and if they are anything like mine, it is bolted into place and the only way to unbolt it is from the inside. Good luck to the SMART bad buy in stealing guns in the majority of the named legal, registered gun owner's home.

CB

[Bwanatickey]

Have not got access to this map, just curious to know how many guns are shown in the White House. How accurate is this map.?

[Cardiff1963]

If you take away guns people will just use another tool to kill. But there is no reason why stricter screening, limited types of guns and proper safekeeping rules can't be introducted.

It's a lot more difficult to commit mass murder with a knife

[Cardiff1963]

Good on the paper. I'd like to know if there was a loony toon on street with a weapon of war as much as i'd like to know if I had a sex offender as a neighbour

[DocN]

ok, now the bad guys know where the gun owners live. How smart would a bad guy be going into a house that they think MIGHT be empty of the inhabitants to walk into a legal, registered gun owner's home and find him home and pointing the very loaded weapon that was intended to be stolen at the bad guy? In my book, not too smart.

I'm also thinking the legal, registered gun owner has a gun safe to keep his guns in and when he leaves his home he takes his weapon with him. Most safes are too bulky and weigh more than one or two bad guys can handle and if they are anything like mine, it is bolted into place and the only way to unbolt it is from the inside. Good luck to the SMART bad buy in stealing guns in the majority of the named legal, registered gun owner's home.

CB

Yeah right...and all those good, law abiding citizens with their guns, sit at home , in front of the TV , with a loaded gun on their lap , just waiting for a burglar to climb through the window.

As much as I do NOT condone this kind of journalism...you need to get a reality check!

[scorecard]

Have not got access to this map, just curious to know how many guns are shown in the White House. How accurate is this map.?

And you think that would be a valid comparison?

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted. Please stick to the topic.

[sunshine51]

America has enough gun control laws in place already. They need no more.

What America does need is a means of keeping guns out of the hands

of whacko's (Connecticut & New York shooters) and criminals. Banning

guns nationwide wouldn't do a dam_n thing...except perhaps starting

the 2nd Civil War. Yes America has a large percentage of its population

as gun owners (roughly 88%) however very few, if any of those 88%

commit the crimes that make headline news...Less than .003% (data

gleaned from Google searches....think of it as a learning adventure & do

it yourselves). The illegal gun market is huge not only in America but

worldwide. Example...Thailand has about 10 Million registered civilian

gun owners. The amount of illegal guns in Thailand is perhaps 5 times

that many. So to all of you who think that banning guns will eradicate

the problem...you're sadly mistaken. The criminals, or potential criminals

will always find the money & the means to acquire the gun regardless

of "What The Law Says".

And yes...I reckon the paper screwed up really bad and deserve to at

least receive privacy theft and other class action lawsuite if not banned

from publishing altogether....it was a massive cockup.

[chuckd]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

For all those getting their knickers in a twist about the morality of gun ownership, for a start, it has nothing to do with the constitution ( but at present Americans have a constitutional erg legal right to own guns ). There is nothing immoral about owning a gun, but using it to kill innocents would be immoral.

Cars kill more people than guns- are they immoral?

Knives kill- empty the kitchen drawer.

A ball point pen can kill- ban them.

People kill with fists- shall we ban the human race?

All this talk about nutcases and no one has brought up the primary reason the founding fathers guaranteed the ownership of guns- it is to prevent the tyranny of the government.

American freedom isn't guaranteed by a piece of paper ( the supreme court does not uphold the constitution in every case ). American freedom is kept because the government knows it can't win against an armed population.

[sunshine51]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

For all those getting their knickers in a twist about the morality of gun ownership, for a start, it has nothing to do with the constitution ( but at present Americans have a constitutional erg legal right to own guns ). There is nothing immoral about owning a gun, but using it to kill innocents would be immoral.

Cars kill more people than guns- are they immoral?

Knives kill- empty the kitchen drawer.

A ball point pen can kill- ban them.

People kill with fists- shall we ban the human race?

All this talk about nutcases and no one has brought up the primary reason the founding fathers guaranteed the ownership of guns- it is to prevent the tyranny of the government.

American freedom isn't guaranteed by a piece of paper ( the supreme court does not uphold the constitution in every case ). American freedom is kept because the government knows it can't win against an armed population.

Well Stated!

[simple1]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

For all those getting their knickers in a twist about the morality of gun ownership, for a start, it has nothing to do with the constitution ( but at present Americans have a constitutional erg legal right to own guns ). There is nothing immoral about owning a gun, but using it to kill innocents would be immoral.

Cars kill more people than guns- are they immoral?

Knives kill- empty the kitchen drawer.

A ball point pen can kill- ban them.

People kill with fists- shall we ban the human race?

All this talk about nutcases and no one has brought up the primary reason the founding fathers guaranteed the ownership of guns- it is to prevent the tyranny of the government.

American freedom isn't guaranteed by a piece of paper ( the supreme court does not uphold the constitution in every case ). American freedom is kept because the government knows it can't win against an armed population.

Why is it that among Western democratic countries US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government and attempt to block all controls to access semi/automatic weapons, limits on ammunition purchases and magazine capacity. Even statements that banning weapons may lead to a Civil War with all the horror that would create. Police associations that are for gun control legislation are accused of being corrupt. A very weird place...

Edited December 28, 2012 by simple1

[koheesti]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

What an ignorant statement. Owning a slave was perfectly legal under the US constitution long after the "Bill of Rights" was enacted.

I know the 2nd Amendment was about the Right to Bear Arms. Which Amendment was about the Right to Own Slaves?

Edited December 28, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

Why is it that among Western democratic countries US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government and attempt to block all controls to access semi/automatic weapons, limits on ammunition purchases and magazine capacity.

As mentioned earlier, even much of modern, democratic Europe was under dictatorial control relatively recently.

...

The Nazi regime rose out of a functioning—though deeply flawed—democracy, so even regular elections are an uncertain barrier to tyrannical rulers.

...

But even a perfectly stable democracy is no guarantee against the future. Not content to engage in mass murder within their own borders, totalitarian armies have exported mayhem to neighboring countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/5

[DocN]

Why is it that among Western democratic countries US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government and attempt to block all controls to access semi/automatic weapons, limits on ammunition purchases and magazine capacity.

As mentioned earlier, even much of modern, democratic Europe was under dictatorial control relatively recently.

...

The Nazi regime rose out of a functioning—though deeply flawed—democracy, so even regular elections are an uncertain barrier to tyrannical rulers.

...

But even a perfectly stable democracy is no guarantee against the future. Not content to engage in mass murder within their own borders, totalitarian armies have exported mayhem to neighboring countries.

http://reason.com/ar...s-bred-defian/5

Honestly, dude...get a grip!

Comparing the USA of 2012 to the Germany of 1933 is downright stupid and I am sick of reading this crap!

Check your facts!

It is not even the usual comparing apples to oranges!

It is comparing apples to elephants!

[DocN]

"For all those getting their knickers in a twist about the morality of gun ownership, for a start, it has nothing to do with the constitution ( but at present Americans have a constitutional erg legal right to own guns ). There is nothing immoral about owning a gun, but using it to kill innocents would be immoral.

Cars kill more people than guns- are they immoral?

Knives kill- empty the kitchen drawer.

A ball point pen can kill- ban them.

People kill with fists- shall we ban the human race?

All this talk about nutcases and no one has brought up the primary reason the founding fathers guaranteed the ownership of guns- it is to prevent the tyranny of the government.

American freedom isn't guaranteed by a piece of paper ( the supreme court does not uphold the constitution in every case ). American freedom is kept because the government knows it can't win against an armed population.

"

"Well Stated!"

No, not well stated!

The whole "gun- knives- car"- comparisson is not holding any water!

And do you REALLY believe, the US government -IF it were really to try it- "knows" "that it can not win against an armed population"?

Seriously?

We are talking about an ARMY!

With tanks and planes!

That is ORGANIZED!

Opposed by Joe and Jack with a gun!

Maybe, if they would announce "Guys...overthrow of the USA...we will start in 3 months! So...you better get organised and get together and start some combat training, because....we are out to get you!"...but not even then!

Edited December 29, 2012 by Scott

[samran]

I can't see the issue here.

The NRA types believe that guns promote safety. Then those houses are safe.

Ergo, those houses which are unarmed, will now go buy guns, in the belief that those guns will also make them safe.

Viola, you have a heavily fortified neighbourhood, in the best traditions of downtown Baghdad or Mogadishu, where nothing will ever happen again.

A gun lovers utopia.

[F430murci]

I read that the LA gun buy back program yielded two RPG anti tank weapons. Haha, need that for deer hunting!

[DocN]

I read that the LA gun buy back program yielded two RPG anti tank weapons. Haha, need that for deer hunting!

Well...you don't need to slice it anymore....

[GentlemanJim]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

It is rather more of a rare occurrence that any nation would be silly enough to try and govern itself on the contents of a document written 250 years ago, a time since when, we have seen the industrial revolution, leaps ahead in terms of technology and armed warfare and the introduction of global financial systems. I guess though when many European countries have houses older than the US constitution you have to hang on to whatever history you can. The gun laws are grossly out dated, simple as that, they were written 250 years ago be men in a different world, with different circumstances and if those founding fathers were all alive today and asked to write a constitution for the USA it would be drastically different to the one they wrote 250 years ago..

[F430murci]

I can't see the issue here.

The NRA types believe that guns promote safety. Then those houses are safe.

Ergo, those houses which are unarmed, will now go buy guns, in the belief that those guns will also make them safe.

Viola, you have a heavily fortified neighbourhood, in the best traditions of downtown Baghdad or Mogadishu, where nothing will ever happen again.

A gun lovers utopia.

Didn't Spengler who shot firemen and off duty cop steal Bushmaster from his neighbor. Guns can actually make you a target for robbery or break ins especially if you have the good stuff.

[chuckd]

What you anti-gun nuts don't seem to realize about the gun control issue being pushed by the Democrats is...

It isn't about guns, it is about CONTROL.

[chuckd]

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

It is rather more of a rare occurrence that any nation would be silly enough to try and govern itself on the contents of a document written 250 years ago, a time since when, we have seen the industrial revolution, leaps ahead in terms of technology and armed warfare and the introduction of global financial systems. I guess though when many European countries have houses older than the US constitution you have to hang on to whatever history you can. The gun laws are grossly out dated, simple as that, they were written 250 years ago be men in a different world, with different circumstances and if those founding fathers were all alive today and asked to write a constitution for the USA it would be drastically different to the one they wrote 250 years ago..

Relax. The current administration doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution anyway.

[OzMick]

I can't see the issue here.

The NRA types believe that guns promote safety. Then those houses are safe.

Ergo, those houses which are unarmed, will now go buy guns, in the belief that those guns will also make them safe.

Viola, you have a heavily fortified neighbourhood, in the best traditions of downtown Baghdad or Mogadishu, where nothing will ever happen again.

A gun lovers utopia.

Really. Throw in a little extra-marital sex, a couple of wild all-night parties, a few hyped up paranoid meth-heads, and a turf dispute over drug-selling rights into that mix and see what happens.