Media Intimidation of Lawful Firearm Owners

K

k_dawg

New member
Once again, the liberal media is trying to intimidate us.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/24/Lohud-New-York-gun-permits



The offending media

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/






Be careful out there.



Key elements of the 'impartial' media are now actively trying to intimidate lawful firearm owners based upon permit/registration data.



A Gannett publication just posted exact maps of all pistol permit holder in multiple NY State counties.



http://www.lohud.com/interactive/ar...gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1



Let the media know you will not stand up to such thuggery.



http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/



http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/160286/



http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/...pistol-permit-holders-published-in-newspaper/
 
As narrowly as I tend to view drive-by posts, this is not one of them. There is enough info given to understand almost exactly what the links refer to and why anyone should view them.

Nor is this unexpected. It further proves that the media has an agenda, and this agenda is driving the news.
 
Publishing the names and addresses of permit holders is a vengeful and petty. Responding in kind isn't much better.

I'd suggest getting in touch with the author's supervisors at the paper. This has happened in other states, and papers have been quick to pull the offending material if they get enough of an outcry.
 
The problem, as I see it Tom, is that the actual owner, Gannett Company, Inc, is notoriously anti-gun.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are making do with public information. The problem is to change the law such that the information is not public.
 
Publishing the names and addresses of permit holders is very possibly the worst case of irresponsible journalism I have ever heard of. It endangers the entire public not only gun owners, but non-gunowners. This publication needs to be closed down and the owner, editor, publisher, and reporter need to be sued into poverty at the very least. Jail time is not beyond the realm of reasonability. It is tatamount to terrorism by endangering the entire public.

I am upset to say the least. The first amendment is supposed to guaranty freedom of the press and I support this, but it must be tempered with responsibility. This act needs to be addressed swiftly and severely. This is as bad or worse than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
 
Public Service

A list of homes too dangerous to burgle?
Seems to me this is a criminal's advisory to keep them from a hazardous location?
Yes I am being sarcastic.
 
It would be interesting to see a list of everyone involved in publishing this information. Their home addresses, and whether they owned a gun, or suscribed to the services of a private security firm.

It would be even more fun to see that list published!:D
 
mcd_sports said:
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/

Here is a start
Click to expand...

Wow that is a lot of jounalists' names, addresses, phone numbers, descriptions if cars driven, Twitter and FB links with info on their families and travels.

So what thief wants to rob the home of a gun permit holder versus an anti-gun journalist making a good living and advertises their toys?

Besides publicizing the personal info, permit owners should also point out that all addresses other than their own are less likely to be armed or offer resistance.

In fact, if my name and address were already made public as a gun permit holder, I would do the yard sign thing.

"I own guns to protect my house and family. A nearby journalist who is against owning a gun lives at ..."
 
Marko Kloos has a great take on this:

http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/2012/12/26/the-impartial-media-and-virtual-scarlet-letters/

I find his closing points to be very salient:
No, there is nothing you can do with that sort of map that actually enhances public safety.

But like I said—that’s not what it’s for. It’s an attempt of a nominally impartial newspaper to influence a public policy debate by taking a side and clumsily attempting to stigmatize the other side by equating them with sex offenders. Regardless of where you stand on guns and private gun ownership, that sort of tactic should raise eyebrows.
Click to expand...

This is an attempt at stigmatization. The anti gun crowd knows guns have been getting more and more mainstream. They're trying to force us back behind closed doors, make shooting, gun ownership, NRA membership, and the like something to be ashamed of. THAT is their goal.

They want us to run and hide. Folks, take a stand. This is why many states have made the CCW permit process a closed record. Don't only write your federal legislators to stop a ban, write your state legislators (if you live in a state where this is public record) to close these records to prevent this kind of bullying.
 
This posting of people's personal addresses and phone numbers is bad news.

You really don't want to go there. Take it from me, once the target of sustained malice by just *one* person who had managed to get my address.

Magazine subscriptions are by far the worst - you can't change your address, and it's hard to find out even who to call to cancel them. All anyone has to do is put your address on one of those cards and drop in in a mailbox. Police are utterly powerless, as it's the magazine company being defrauded, not you. The post office can't filter it. Once the count gets over 50 you really don't have a mailbox, as it will runneth over when several appear at once with their bulk. Then all the invoices and bills for each, along with the cancellation warnings. You learn to fear and dread going to the mailbox, even after a year when the junk mail itself has trailed off to near-normal levels.

Phone ringing off the hook in response to inquiries about travel-cruises, beauty pageants, cosmetic surgery and various exciting goods and services. Phone is trickier in that you have the choice to toss the number; but then you lose all the people who already know it in the process. That said, when the call volume reaches a certain point, you really don't have a phone any more, and usually ignore/deactivate it. Are you one of those people that picks up and says "hello?" Not any more you aren't.

Your home isn't really your home any more, as you feel targeted, powerless, helpless, under siege - even long after the attacker has moved on.

This is an ugly, ugly business posting people's home addresses. Don't stoop to this level. Don't go there.
 
Don't stoop to this level. Don't go there.
Click to expand...

To whom is this directed? To Employees of Gannett that published thousands of names and addresses wholesale, not knowing a thing about any of them and for absolutely no valid public service reason or the people that have been a target of said employees?

If you are speaking to the latter (of which I am not yet one as I live a couple of counties north) Please tell me why it should not be demonstrated to the Journal News staff what they are doing to others. They have had plenty of opportunity to rethink their position and have chosen not to do so.

I ask this because I am of two minds. On on side I agree with you on "stooping" to their level while on the other hand I believe there has to be consequences to irresponsible actions. This may be the only way to illustrate to these irresponsible "journalists" what they are doing to others.


There are a couple of things I do NOT condone.
1) Bringing family members of the Journal News Staff into it. Do not publish any information about them.
2) Do not harass or threaten them. If you want to send a thoughtful message to their work or call them there feel free. I would avoid contacting them at their home at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top