Uproar As U S Newspaper Publishes Gun Owner Details Online

[chuckd]

Thanks.

[F430murci]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

[chuckd]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

Nope, but I have two children and five grandchildren living in the US that I still have some concern over. I am a citizen and have voted by absentee regularly.

Can I still qualify to voice my opinion since I paid taxes to the federal government over 50 years of a working career?

How about you?

Now ask those non-Americans that are also so vocal about US politics and US problems why they are posting.

[sunshine51]

This thread has turned into not a thread concerning a newspapers publication

of who owns guns but a thread that bashes the US because of it's gun laws.

Let's get this straight from my POV...The USA has it's gun laws. The rest

of the world has theirs. That's all there is to it. If you non Americans don't like

the US gun laws that's your problem but don't come screaming to the US

if some other nation invades you and ask the US for help because you cannot

defend yourselves. They're America's laws...and nobody else's...regardless

of what the rest of the world thinks or expounds.

Aren't American citizens ardent supporters of free speech no matter how much you may disagree with a POV? To link criticism of US gun laws with refuting international defense alliances is OTP, don't you think? Or are you just having some fun on a lazy afternoon...

Yeah...Americans advocate free speech no matter how folks may disagree upon

a topic. However I shall continue to cristcize anybody who see's US gun laws

as "not normal" or whatever moniker somebody/group may give label in the

other's mindset. If I want to link US gun laws to so called international agreements

regarding defense I shall also do so....hey free speech right? And many people

both within the US and outside seem to miss what the whole argument is about

and that is not to simply ban all "guns" but to keep "guns" out of the hands of

seriously mentally disturbed people...which by the way...have been the only

people who have committed mass murders with firearms in the last 200

years in America. As for the criminal element...I have stated before that

criminals will always be able to get a "gun"...no matter what the law says.

Here's a good example...true story too....An old friend of mine was sitting at

home in the state of California...in a decent area of Los Angeles mind you...

at around 10PM when 5 yoiung men burst into his house via the windows.

So much for a quiet evening with the family. As these fellers were making

their entrance he noticed they were armed and he immediately went for

his shotgun kept in a locked gun cabinet, loaded said shotgun and confronted

the men...no words were exchanged...just shotgun fire...and 5 dead bodies

in his home when the shooting stopped. Had he & wife been unarmed then

there would have been only 2 dead bodies in his home...their own.

This incident is what is known as Home Invasion...perpetrated not by mentally

disturbed individuals but by people looking for anything of value that they can

easily get their hands on by any means...lethal or otherwise and sell for money

to mainly buy drugs or weapons.

There is no time to call the police...and the invaders may have already cut

phone lines. Plus by the time the police could arrive the crime would be

a forensic matter by then.

By the way...my friend is not the least bit happy regarding what he had to do.

In fact...he wishes he never had to do it....but that's water under bridge.

And another reason American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms

in the constitution...even though that constitution is over 200 years old is to

protect it's citizens from the government itself should the need ever arise...

akin to if you don't know how to turn your plowshares into swords you had

better learn quickly before they outlaw plowshares...they in reference to

government.

To recap all of this since my post #85...The OP was about what a newspaper

published not about America's "gun" laws and how they differ from other

countries laws but that became obfuscated in the quagmire of that age old

question nobody but an American will have the answer to or can comprehend

...Why so many guns in private cirizens hands in America? If some wise person

could come up with a solution to keep guns outta the hands of criminals and the

severely mentally disturbed then this entire thread and other simililar threads

will become nonexistant because the responsible gun owners in America

do not go around shooting people and only around .003% of the roughly 88%

of the American population who do own at least one firearm legally have done

so in the past...so not all legal American gun owners are whacko's...just a

miniscule amount and of those folks...none have committed mass murder.

Until that wise person comes up with the plan...the world will just have to

live with Americans and their "guns"....

[Baloo22]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

[F430murci]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

Cool. At least you a dog in the fight unlike some who flee here and just want to whine about the state of affairs somewhere they have not lived in over 10 years.

[submaniac]

Personally, I don't think one should be able to vote here if they have not lived here and have not paid taxes here in over ten years, especially when they gave no immediate plans to return.

1. No matter where you are in the world, a U.S. citizen is subject to paying taxes on earnings regardless. That's why Eduardo Savarin-Facebook-Guy gave up U.S. Citizenship.

2. Doesn't matter if you aren't living in the states (and I am) citizenship means you still get to vote. And my vote is just as valid as your vote. And from the number of Americans that have posted their opinions on this and the other threads, there are more of us gun owners that are not giving up our 2nd Amendment rights.

[OzMick]

Well, this has drifted way off topic.

So, tell me again why information available under a FOI request shouldn't be published in a newspaper?

[F430murci]

Well, this has drifted way off topic.

So, tell me again why information available under a FOI request shouldn't be published in a newspaper?

Haha, I agree it was bogus to publish that info, but it apparently must be public record.

[simple1]

"US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government>

Indeed they do. They only have to look at the limitations on freedom that exist in Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada to see what happens to people that cannot guarantee their freedom.

Another reason to support gun ownership. During riots and natural catastrophes business owners have saved their property from looting by lying on their roof with assault rifles. No doubt the anti gun lobby would be happy to see their businesses destroyed!"

Okay...I am from Europe! Germany, to be precise!

If this is off- topic, please PM me, what "limitations of freedom" there are!

I would really like to know!

But please: the freedom to buy a gun of whatever size and firepower does NOT count!

Name ONE other limitation of freedom.please!

Just ONE!!!

Not being from any of those countries mentioned I hesitate to bring this up since I have no knowledge of the facts, but I will ask the question anyway.

Which of those countries ( Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada) guarantee by law or constitution their citizens the right of Freedom of Speech?

Okay, so again and only in English and I guess we have to do without quotes then!

Article 5 of the German constitution grants the freedom of speech and expression, the free admission to public sources for information and the freedom of broadcasting without censorship!

I can not speak for other countries, but...here we go!

Does the Neo-Nazi party (if there is such a thing) have the same rights to freedom of speech as other political parties?

I honestly don't know and am curious.

Thank you.

In the USA the Nazi party is legal, not banned; see http://www.americannaziparty.com/

[F430murci]

Not being from any of those countries mentioned I hesitate to bring this up since I have no knowledge of the facts, but I will ask the question anyway.

Which of those countries ( Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada) guarantee by law or constitution their citizens the right of Freedom of Speech?

Okay, so again and only in English and I guess we have to do without quotes then!

Article 5 of the German constitution grants the freedom of speech and exp<b></b>ression, the free admission to public sources for information and the freedom of broadcasting without censorship!

I can not speak for other countries, but...here we go!

Does the Neo-Nazi party (if there is such a thing) have the same rights to freedom of speech as other political parties?

I honestly don't know and am curious.

Thank you.

In the USA the Nazi party is legal, not banned; see http://www.americannaziparty.com/

The Nazi party USA even has their own lobbyist for capital hill. One of their big platforms is . . . right to bear arms.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/platform/index.php

[chuckd]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

Nope, but I have two children and five grandchildren living in the US that I still have some concern over. I am a citizen and have voted by absentee regularly.

Can I still qualify to voice my opinion since I paid taxes to the federal government over 50 years of a working career?

How about you?

Now ask those non-Americans that are also so vocal about US politics and US problems why they are posting.

Personally, I don't think one should be able to vote here if they have not lived here and have not paid taxes here in over ten years, especially when they gave no immediate plans to return.

Please use that brilliant legal mind and show me where I said I haven't paid taxes in ten years.

Take the voting rights up with federal authorities. It is silly and has no place on this thread.

[chuckd]

Personally, I don't think one should be able to vote here if they have not lived here and have not paid taxes here in over ten years, especially when they gave no immediate plans to return.

1. No matter where you are in the world, a U.S. citizen is subject to paying taxes on earnings regardless. That's why Eduardo Savarin-Facebook-Guy gave up U.S. Citizenship.

2. Doesn't matter if you aren't living in the states (and I am) citizenship means you still get to vote. And my vote is just as valid as your vote. And from the number of Americans that have posted their opinions on this and the other threads, there are more of us gun owners that are not giving up our 2nd Amendment rights.

Unlike Eduardo, I doubt many single guys on here are raking in over $94k US a year teaching in Thailand. Hopefully, they are filing even though not owing US tax. Haha, Eduardo situation a bit different than you guys . . .

I respect your opinion on vote issue, but after 10 years and with no desire to return to US . . . Move on. Haha, kind of control freak if trying dictate how we should live in US when gone for ten years and no intent to return.

I have property in two other countries and I would never consider voting in either country even though I spend time there and have paid taxes in those countries. Not my purview or business.

Voting is a right of citizenship...NOT property ownership.

Edit it: You might be surprised just how many US expats are making more than $94,000 annually.

Edited December 30, 2012 by chuckd

[maidu]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

[chuckd]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

Why don't you let your kids play at home? But, in answer to your rather silly question I would send my kids east.

[submaniac]

Getting back to the original topic...

In NY, you have to get a permit to own a handgun, which is unlike most states. For, at the very least some of the people on that list, they probably had a good reason for requesting a permit. Even anti-gun folks should recognize that there are some professions that legitimately require a firearm. Examples: armed security guards driving armored trucks to pick up cash deposits to take to the bank, jewelry dealers carrying gems, licensed bodyguards, etc.

The fact is, the newspaper published EVERYONE'S name on the list, in that town. Under the law of probability, this means to me that somebody on that list was a security guard, gem dealer, etc.--> a profession for which someone won't appreciate having their name and home address disclosed.

[maidu]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

Why don't you let your kids play at home? But, in answer to your rather silly question I would send my kids east.

Kids can play at home, but it's also healthy for them to play outside. I admit it's a tough question (for some) whether you'd want to let your kids play on properties with loaded guns around, or play at places with no guns. Same dilemma for armed guards at school. Best case scenario is guards are all trustworthy and of sound mind. Reality is, guards are people, and people are known to have all sorts of emotional quirks, which sometimes erupt. We read about it every day in the newspapers. What if a guard is a Muslim exremist? We won't know until/unless the shit hits the fan. How easily is a guard offended? Did he/she just get dumped by a lover? Kids are notorious for taunting. .....the list of potential pitfalls goes on and on.

[gl555]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

Why don't you let your kids play at home? But, in answer to your rather silly question I would send my kids east.

Kids can play at home, but it's also healthy for them to play outside. I admit it's a tough question (for some) whether you'd want to let your kids play on properties with loaded guns around, or play at places with no guns. Same dilemma for armed guards at school. Best case scenario is guards are all trustworthy and of sound mind. Reality is, guards are people, and people are known to have all sorts of emotional quirks, which sometimes erupt. We read about it every day in the newspapers. What if a guard is a Muslim exremist? We won't know until/unless the shit hits the fan. How easily is a guard offended? Did he/she just get dumped by a lover? Kids are notorious for taunting. .....the list of potential pitfalls goes on and on.

So are policemen. So are soldiers. So is the guy who cuts your kid's hair with a big pair of scissors and a sharp razor. We really won't know will we until the shit hits the fan. So do we disarm policemen and cut our own hair?

[koheesti]

This thread has turned into not a thread concerning a newspapers publication

of who owns guns but a thread that bashes the US because of it's gun laws.

Let's get this straight from my POV...The USA has it's gun laws. The rest

of the world has theirs. That's all there is to it. If you non Americans don't like

the US gun laws that's your problem but don't come screaming to the US

if some other nation invades you and ask the US for help because you cannot

defend yourselves. They're America's laws...and nobody else's...regardless

of what the rest of the world thinks or expounds.

Aren't American citizens ardent supporters of free speech no matter how much you may disagree with a POV? To link criticism of US gun laws with refuting international defense alliances is OTP, don't you think? Or are you just having some fun on a lazy afternoon...

All "free speech" means is that you can say what you want and the government will not throw you in jail. You know, like most other countries in the world at one time or another. There are certainly mere words that if mentioned in Thailand will land you in jail in a heartbeat if heard by gov't authorities. The same was true for England at the time the US Constitution was written - and maybe to some extent still today. The Canadian gov't will lock you up for something their officials deem offensive.

Exercising free speech won't land you in jail (in the USA anyway) but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences. So sunshine51 is correct and I agree, whine about our gun laws but if you can't defend yourselves, please don't look to us for help. Instead, these countries should use their arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude as a shield against outside aggression and see how far that gets them.

The newspaper might have exercised free speech in printing what they did and the editors will not be thrown in jail for it. Now they still have to face the consequences if any.

Edited December 30, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

The thing that I find most irritating, is how all those "pro- gunners", those law abiding citizens, always only pick the laws, regulations and freedoms, that are convenient for them and their POV.

I absolutely think this newspaper- article is stupid and senseless and not one bit constructive!

It's rubbish, it proves nothing and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

At the same time, I also believe, that publishing the photos, names and adresses of pedophiles is absolutely the same thing.

Just imagine what harm you are doing, if a guy is fighting his "demon" and doing well...and you stigmatize him again and again!

Freedom of speech?

More a paranoid action due to a false feeling of security.

But ask right-wing America about that, what do you get?

"I don't want these monsters to live among us!"

Those evil right wing Americans! Good luck finding a left wing family with small children in any country who have no problem having pedophiles as neighbors.

[koheesti]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

Me, too. Fortunately, I lived in an area of the country where guns are very common so I never worried about some nut trying to shoot up the place.

[koheesti]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

Cool. At least you a dog in the fight unlike some who flee here and just want to whine about the state of affairs somewhere they have not lived in over 10 years.

Here's some free speech irony for you...you are allowed to write/imply that Americans who no longer live in America don't have the right to express their opinions about laws in America...but at the same time, no one is allowed to write/imply that a non-American who has never lived in America doesn't have the right to express their opinions about laws in America. Say that three times real fast.

[koheesti]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

I would want them playing in the neighborhood where the criminals weren't the only ones with guns. But more importantly than a map of gun owners, I'd want to study a map of people with traffic tickets and accidents. Few guns ever leave the owners house while cars are driven daily and kill even more people in America than guns. So from a statistical and common sense point of view, a person should be more concerned about their children playing on a street where poor drivers live, not law-abiding gun owners.

[gatorsoft]

So it's OK to publish this information because some people don't want their children playing in or near a house with guns? Or that they believe any gun owner is a potential murderer? Well, a lot of people wouldn't want their kids playing in or near a house with people in it who promote a behavior that goes against the teachings of their religion and/or could be a health risk. So it's probably a good idea for someone to publish an interactive map showing where they live. I'm sure that would be welcome by everyone, eh? If not that, then DEFINITELY please publish a list of people on certain medications or with a history of mental health issues. Those people are crazy and dangerous.

Good point! I wonder if publishing the names and addresses of all Muslims would be considered a good thing? After all they are potential murderers too (as are we all).

[gatorsoft]

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

Why don't you let your kids play at home? But, in answer to your rather silly question I would send my kids east.

Kids can play at home, but it's also healthy for them to play outside. I admit it's a tough question (for some) whether you'd want to let your kids play on properties with loaded guns around, or play at places with no guns. Same dilemma for armed guards at school. Best case scenario is guards are all trustworthy and of sound mind. Reality is, guards are people, and people are known to have all sorts of emotional quirks, which sometimes erupt. We read about it every day in the newspapers. What if a guard is a Muslim exremist? We won't know until/unless the shit hits the fan. How easily is a guard offended? Did he/she just get dumped by a lover? Kids are notorious for taunting. .....the list of potential pitfalls goes on and on.

I think you dropped one of those straws that you were grasping at.

[gatorsoft]

Getting back to the original topic...

In NY, you have to get a permit to own a handgun, which is unlike most states. For, at the very least some of the people on that list, they probably had a good reason for requesting a permit. Even anti-gun folks should recognize that there are some professions that legitimately require a firearm. Examples: armed security guards driving armored trucks to pick up cash deposits to take to the bank, jewelry dealers carrying gems, licensed bodyguards, etc.

The fact is, the newspaper published EVERYONE'S name on the list, in that town. Under the law of probability, this means to me that somebody on that list was a security guard, gem dealer, etc.--> a profession for which someone won't appreciate having their name and home address disclosed.

This is a classic example of the failure of logic in the gun-control supporters views. People that have taken the time to follow the law and apply for their permits, (presumably with some kind of background investigation involved) should be the least of the worries when it comes to gun owners. The gun control efforts typically effect the law abiding owners and not the criminals that should be targeted. In this case, the criminals have been given a big help by identifying where guns can be found and stolen, and where homes can be attacked without fearing lawful armed resistance. A very effective anti-gun strategy, wouldn't you say?

[Habs]

"US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government>

Indeed they do. They only have to look at the limitations on freedom that exist in Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada to see what happens to people that cannot guarantee their freedom.

Another reason to support gun ownership. During riots and natural catastrophes business owners have saved their property from looting by lying on their roof with assault rifles. No doubt the anti gun lobby would be happy to see their businesses destroyed!"

Okay...I am from Europe! Germany, to be precise!

If this is off- topic, please PM me, what "limitations of freedom" there are!

I would really like to know!

But please: the freedom to buy a gun of whatever size and firepower does NOT count!

Name ONE other limitation of freedom.please!

Just ONE!!!

Not being from any of those countries mentioned I hesitate to bring this up since I have no knowledge of the facts, but I will ask the question anyway.

Which of those countries ( Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada) guarantee by law or constitution their citizens the right of Freedom of Speech?

Canada

[tinfoilhat]

perhaps i miss the point, you want a gun, you apply for a permit and your licence becomes public record.

it is the same with house and car ownership.

why need gun ownership be confidential? is it something to hide?

one would think that owning a gun, you would feel "protected" and need no fear someone try stealing it.

i honestly don't understand the uproar, but i wouldn't have a gun in the house either.

[Scott]

Stay on the topic and the topic isn't about where your kids can play or about pedophiles. Not everyone who has a gun, has a LOADED gun. Not everyone who has a permit to have a gun owns one either. Some of the posts are nonsensically off-topic.

[beechguy]

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

Actually, I haven't had a permanent home in the U.S. since 1998, but I usually get back every year to visit children and parents. I work on military related contracts in aviation, 10 years in the Persian Gulf, and the past 4 working on projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. I live in Thailand when not on a rotation, but I still have to adhere to U.S. tax regulations, etc

Edited December 30, 2012 by beechguy