The Journal News has hurt any hope for gun reform.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

MadHound put a post up that should make us think about the damage that The Journal News has done.
You can read it at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2096787

If you do go to read it I want you to think about what he is saying. Many have yet to see it.
This is my post in that thread, remember this is written by a person that does not own a gun and is very pro gun control reform. I was thinking I should have rewrote it, but it says everything already.

How many, after what The Journal News did, is looking at the same thing? The law does not make people in certain places register their guns if they have been acquired as MadHound has his. How many will now not do so, even if the law is changed, due to this type of attack?

We post register sex offenders, people who have broken the law, in this manner. We are now treating Law Abiding Citizens the same way? That is a BAD precedent.

Now let us look at this from the propaganda way. The NRA will use this stupidity on the side of THAT PAPER to strengthen their weak arguments (plural). Remember how the Bush administration used 9-11 as the answer for everything? Well here is the NRA's 9-11 answer! And do you really think the teaparty will let grass grow under their feet on this? Our side will take a pounding on this. The fight for better gun control has now hit a big problem, we just don't know how big at this time.

And let's take this to the nightmare point. How many gun sales will now be under the table due to people not wanting the world to know their business? Have we opened a bigger illegal market with this? Only time will tell on this, but the nightmare has a foothold.

So now what? The jinn is out of the bottle. I can assure each and everyone of you that the other side will fight to keep it out!

So there is the problem. We all know the NRA and others have some of the best Propaganda People money can buy. This has already started to knock Newtown out of the news. We are losing people to the other side that are law abiding because of this. We have a wound that is still bleeding. How are we going to treat it?

[datasuspect]

1. you know who else liked "lists?"

a certain austrian painter . . .

[RomneyLies]

2. First response goes all Godwin

[datasuspect]

4. tell me it isn't true.

they had ALL kinds of lists. Books of lists.

[Tien1985]

12. What does that have to do with godwinning?

The op puts up a thoughtful post. First comment Godwins.

There is a list of sex offenders too. Are they like Hitler's lists?

[datasuspect]

21. you realize that it isn't an actual law

i normally don't even make a comment to someone who reflexively farts "GODWINS LAW GODWINS LAW GODWINS LAW!!1111" whenever the third reich or hitler is mentioned.

but to answer your question: Hitler's lists (for lack of a better term) were comprehensive and part of the organizational ethos of the german government and military at that time. i forget the title of it, but for the invasion of britain, the state security apparatus published booklets with names of prominent Britons to be arrested.

they listed people: trade unionists, communists, professors, literary types, showmen, actors, musicians, business owners, etc.

they also had bills of lading that listed the human cargo they moved around europe to the death camps.

some NPO published some of these lists. rows and rows of names, towns, cities, villages or origin, profession/job, dates.

they were manifests for rail transports to buchenwald.

long story short: freedom loving people don't seek circumscription of existing freedoms.

[Tien1985]

28. Uh huh

"I like to drag hyperbole into conversations to ruin them."

Hitler doesn't belong in this conversation, and bringing into it doesn't advance either side's position.

Go ahead and have the last word.

[datasuspect]

33. "Hitler doesn't belong in this conversation, and bringing into it doesn't advance either side's

position."

why?

how does making a comparison to a historical figure or ideology affect advancement or non-advancement of a pro or con position?

and you folks are discussing an entity that is currently making an enemies list in an otherwise free society.

how is the comparison not valid?

what if i said Joe Stalin was fond of lists or Ho Chi Minh or Ghenghis Khan?

would it be okay to mention it then?

[RomneyLies]

69. I hope your name ends up on a publicly published gun owner's list

It would be a public service.

[datasuspect]

83. you failed to answer the series of questions

plus, i don't own firearms.

fail.

[loyalsister]

42. The US Eugenics Records Office also liked lists

including one that claimed to have sorted Jewish immigrants by geographic origin.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

87. There's nothing wrong with organizing information...

You can commit mass murder with or without it.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

5. I am of german decent. That was not nice.

Do you have an idea how to fix what damage is done due to that paper?

[datasuspect]

6. it's not about nice

it's about truth.

the nazi party in WW2 germany was really big on all kinds of lists.

so was joe mccarthy.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

9. Half of my family that was over there at that time was Nazis.

Now any ideas how to fix the damage done?

[datasuspect]

10. characterize or describe any actual damage.

aside: no one can make a reference to the Nazi party's proclivity for lists because your family was there?

what in god's fuck does that even mean?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

41. We are losing people due to that stunt by that paper.

It may have been a local paper, but what they did has gone national.
Many people with guns that were on our side are drifting away.
Look, if you want to get things passed in Congress, you need to play the public opinion and numbers game. If the other side get more backing, we loss. After the tragedy in Newtown, people were listening. But thanks to the paper crossing a big social taboo, we are losing backing. It has been slow right now. But remember that as we type the propaganda machine that is the NRA is working on making this gold for them.
How do we stop the damage?
I have only a BA in Communications, but I can see the tsunami coming.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Godwinned on the very first reply.

Nice one...

[datasuspect]

23. i can publish the ideas in coloring book format (.pdf)

for you if that helps.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. A singularly appropriate format for "ideas" of that sort.

There are so many good arguments against what those cretins at the Journal News that relegating overly facile Nazi comparisons to the kiddie table has a certain appeal.

Thanks for playing...even if you did play so very badly.

[datasuspect]

34. bless your heart

you win the internetz!!111!!11

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Same to you!

And yes, I speak "Southern."

[billh58]

48. You are conveniently ignoring the fact

that this "list" was already public knowledge as required by law. Guns must be registered in some areas. Religion, clubs, political affiliation, financial status, etc., not so much. So no, this publication of a list that was already in the public domain is absolutely nothing akin to the Austrian painter's lists, and certainly not for the same purposes.

Most Americans also appear on many other government lists which are available to the public, such as property records, automobile registration, business licenses, operator licenses (automobile, truck, airplane, heavy equipment, etc.), and many other government regulated activities.

[NYC Liberal]

56. Also, telephone companies and Guinness World Records.

[villager]

77. the NRA does - they have quite an expansive "enemies" list...

N/t

[JVS]

81. Klimt!

[RomneyLies]

3. Owning guns has consequences

One should be, eerybody in the damned country should have a right to know you own guns.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

7. Do you have an idea on how to fix the damage that has been done by that paper?

We have a problem. We are and will loose support for new gun control reform. Any Ideas ho to fix it.

[Hoyt]

14. Yes. Let gun owners dispose of them, and newspaper run free full page announcement of people

doing something positive in aftermath of Sandy Hook. Encourage others to give up their lust for lethal weapons, especially multiple weapons, public toting, promotion of more guns in more places, etc.

Damage repaired.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

25. You think a bunch of ticked off gun owners will do that?

There are echos of "From my cold dead hands" already starting.
We need to gt the disfranchised legal gun owners that were backing us back.
This is a war of public opinion and numbers.

[Hoyt]

32. No, but the ones left will be the bigoted right wingers.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. See, now there you go with a generalization that cannot on its BEST DAY happen statistically...

You just made the claim that every Liberal/Progressive/Democrat will give up their guns in exchange for some kind of kudos, when you fucking know that's not ever going to happen.

Unless of course, your litmus test for being a good Liberal/Progressive/Democrat is that they be just like you in respect to how they feel about guns.

[Hoyt]

74. What, you guys aren't as law-abiding/moral/responsible as you claim?

[RomneyLies]

53. They did a PUBLIC SERVICE

I, for one, am GLAD they are expanding it.

I only wish EVERY gun in EVERY house was published online for all to see.

[slackmaster]

88. What a load of self-righteous bullcrap

They're SELLING NEWSPAPERS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[bluerum]

8. They certainly are not helping. Which makes me wonder about their stated intentions.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

13. That is why we must put our minds together.

With all the people on this forum, there has got to be an idea how to fix this. The NRA guys are working as we type on how to use this.

[spanone]

11. silly. registered weapons should not be open to public scrutiny and won't be.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

16. The cat is out of the bag. The precedent has been set.

Now what do we do for damage control?

[Tien1985]

17. Public opinion

Doesn't care if the comparison is silly or not. There really has been bad backlash because of their posting that list. It's at least something to think about seriously.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

20. +1

Thank you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Jesus, only if you let them

Serious.

And actually the NRA can go you know what themselves. They obtained the data very legally think you very much. I guess we should cancel the first amendment now.

And yes, there are very valid reasons for a paper to acquire such a list... which is legal. You might argue whether they should have published it or not. but seriously, it was the SAME COUNTIES surrounding Sandy Hook.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

19. That's just it. They want us to go to sleep on this.

It will bite us. It has already started. Now what? The NRA boys are, as e type, working on this. We are starting to loss law abiding gun owner from our side. We have to keep them on the defensive. As of right now, we are the ones that are looking at be placed in that stance. That is if we don't do something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Go give some money to the Brady Campaign

and realize this is not going to happen this year, I don't care if the President makes it a priority. We need changes in the laws. I mean serious changes, but it will take time. (And sadly a few more shootings)

Every shooting though is putting more pressure... and it may take you and me marching on DC and NOT LEAVING.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

31. Not just that will help.

Keeping the conversation going helps. To keep public opinion on our side helps.
The Congress people watch polls. It is their bread and butter. If we sleep on this and let the NRA ( They are the point man for this on the other side) play this, we may not see it for a very long time. And what will be happening while we wait?

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Have you fed your congress critter?

I have.

And this is the reality. We will need to keep our eye on the price.

But the paper, they did what they felt they needed to do... they published the lists of people living around Sandy Hook.

I actually get it. As to gun owners. who are fearing being exposed. they are trying to have it both ways. Time we literally call them on the BS, period.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

46. They watch the polls to see how they can keep their job. To know what they should back..

make us happy. They may have done what they think was right, but the NRA will make hey with it. And guess what? Many are out their that don't own guns but the follow the NRA no mather what. And they vote. Once again the numbers game. The NRA can truly promise so many votes if you back them. We need to keep those that were with us before the paper thing, with us. We can not let them use them. The next election has started, like it or not. That is why we have to do damage now, if not, we could loss what we have right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. And it is time we play the same game

You got an A or B from the NRA, I ain't voting for you, regardless of party. A C maybe, D or F sure.

[Crackinrocket]

57. You must hate Harry Reid!

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. He is not my senator

And yes, NRA fans do this all the time. If I were in Nevada I would not vote for Reid at this point, you got that right.

[Crackinrocket]

65. You're such a principled individual. Bravo!

[billh58]

85. And another

NRA troll has been given a well deserved pizza...

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Yup, but also arming, no pun

Those who need money helps.

[beevul]

98. Oh, the brady "we don't push for gun bans" campaign...

"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html


The same group submitted an amicus in favor of the DC gun ban, supported the original AWB, and supports a new AWB.

Theres a group that people are sure to trust.

[Squinch]

22. The names of the local high school graduates are also published in the papers.

So are the names of those being married, those who have died, and a host of other groups. If there is no shame to owning a gun, what is the problem here?

If people are ashamed or want to hide the fact that they have guns, then that is another story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Gun owners are trying to have it both ways

that is part of the problem.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

27. There is a belief in gun culture that you are safer if no one knows you have it.

The news paper crossed that taboo. Now we have gun owners across the country mad as you know where.
Many of the legal owners that were on our side are starting to go over to the other side. We are losing the numbers game. How do we get it back?

[Squinch]

38. Why are you safer if no one knows? I thought the point was for people to know you are armed.

[Mojorabbit]

62. No, the point is for no one to know.

Or at least that is how I see it. Then you have the element of surprise on your side. It would seem that that would give one an upper hand in a stressful scary situation.

[RomneyLies]

70. It's a secret desire of gun onwers

Those who own guns for "home protection" secretly desire to kill somebody some day in the name of home protection.

[defacto7]

79. People who want guns for protection

are fearful or have a narcissistic bent or both. Any way you take it, if it is known they have a gun then they loose the most important aspect of owning a weapon for self preservation... the preemptive strike. That is where mental health issues become less important than simple human nature. It's human nature that makes guns an ultimately uncontrollable and a menace to all of us.

THAT is what is wrong with having guns that are not known to the public at large. In secret they allow fear and human fallibility to run amok. In the open, the owner is forced to a certain degree of limit and respect.

[slackmaster]

89. Yes, their names. But not their HOME ADDRESSES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[Squinch]

92. The phone book publishes home addresses. A host of public sources publish home

addresses. Publishing home addresses has never seemed like a problem before.

[slackmaster]

93. My home address doesn't appear in the San Diego phone book, and if I gave you my real name...

...you would have to do some footwork to get my address. There are sources where you could download it, but you would have to pay money. If I were to transfer the title of my home to a trust with a title not including my name, you would never be able to find the address without a subpoena.

People do have the option of keeping that information out of the eyes of anyone who wants it any time, unless you live in New York and have a pistol permit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[jmg257]

29. I thought, by definition, "law abiding citizens" don't break the law?

Either they are, or they are not...most lawful people really don't get to cherry pick only the laws THEY like.

Make penalties severe enough, and most law abiding citizens will likely remain as such...those that don't will become criminals and take the risks of other criminals.

It's necessary. As the NRA loves to say, gun control does not work. Only by substantially reducing the number of guns can we hope to seriously reduce the levels of gun violence.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

37. Their not, right now.

But if we push, it could go the other way. Remember many places one does not have to register there weapons in certain circumstance. Read MadHound post, he talks about it. So, if we want them to register, we need to make sure they feel the information is safe. If not, we can/will end up with a lot of unregistered guns out there. Even if the law is changed.
And remember there is a culture that has come to being around gun ownership.If they feel threatened, the will go over to the side that is "supporting them" (NRA). That news paper has already crossed a big taboo in that culture. That has hurt us.

[jmg257]

40. There are likely a couple 100 million unregistered guns out there right now.

I'd be more concerned about getting rid of them, then registering 'em. Knowing who has what won't really help much after they are used to murder a bunch of people.

And since most are against registeration FOR FEAR of confiscation, might as well just make certain types illegal and get them off the streets.

[jody]

39. Lady Freedom Returns what proposed "gun-control" solution do you support? nt

[Lady Freedom Returns]

43. Mine is a mix of many.

First of all we need to look at the person buying the gun. They need to go through not just a background check, but mental as well. There needs to be a check of the address to. When a person is classed as SMI (Seriously Mental Ill) here in AZ . it goes on your background check for any purchase of a weapon. Do a check of the address to see if anyone in the house has that. If so, sale denied.
Next is to make sure people with mental illness get to help and can get registered. That way the total home background can see this as well as getting people the help they need.
Next is to get the unregistered guns registered so the can be keep track of. We can not get this done if many of the owners feel as if they could have all the world know. It is a big taboo in certain parts of that culture for everyone know you have one.
And the big part is to make the rules slandered nation wide. Many states have different rules, there needs to be a consistent blanket, if you will, nation wide. same rules for every state. And make sure that you can not go to another state to buy due to them not having the paperwork that says you can't buy.
We also need to keep up with the buy backs. It is a great way to get the illegal and some of the legal off the streets and out of the hands of kids.

This can go on and on, but my biggest hope is the national sharing of the background info and to make all the laws status que in all the states. To get that we need a national consensus that The Journal News has hurt.

[jody]

45. Thanks. Problems and possibly solutions are different for cities with the highest

violent crime rate; i.e. 1. Flint, Mich., 2. Detroit, Mich., 3. St. Louis, Mo., 4. Oakland, Calif., 5. Memphis, Tenn.; and ranchers living in remote areas of Montana, Wyoming, et al.

[L0oniX]

44. Record gun and ammo sales right now.

[Robb]

49. LOL

I missed that thread. Yet another pro-gun screed from the "attack Democrats from the left" crowd.

I'm a little slow, but things start to add up for me eventually.

[quaker bill]

50. If a person is a "proud gun owner"

then they should consider having their name and ownership record published to be an honor. I proudly make art and was happy to be published as doing so.

[davidn3600]

55. They are afraid of the government, not criminals

They are afraid Obama is going to come and take their guns away if the government knows they have them.

[quaker bill]

67. But apparently the government already knows

because all the paper did was publish the public records. Getting a CCW permit is a license and I am sure requires name and address. That puts you in a public database. Publication of records that are already public does not change anything about what the government "knows". It only changes what the neighbors know.

I do not possess things that I would have concern over about becoming public knowledge. Being "proud" is not a private thing, by definition. They are more like "ashamed" gun owners.

Personally I think the CCW permit process should require public notice for issuance and each renewal.

[derby378]

72. One Quaker to another - are you a proud voter?

What if someone decides to make your voting record available for everyone to see in the morning news?

Being on DU, you and I may not know each other that much, but we both have a fairly good idea about the general tone of each other's political views based on our previous contributions to this site. That, however, was our choice.

And this remains a privacy issue at its very core. Violating someone's privacy and attempting to paint a scarlet letter on their house merely for exercising their Constitutional rights sounds, at the very least, odd.

[quaker bill]

82. One Quaker to another, that would be a yes.

Friends Testimony to Integrity commends a life that could be published in detail. I have no concern over my voting record.

I issue permits that require public notice for a living and am tasked to assure that the terms and conditions are met openly and honestly consistent with the Testimony to Integrity. I have no problem with any of it, and the permits I issue are far less dangerous to the public than a CCW permit. Every keystroke, note I write, or document I produce in this position is public record available to the press and subject to publication and has been for the last 20 years. Some in fact have been published.

If folks are truly proud and richeous in their exercise of this right, then I cannot paint a scarlet letter on their house. If ownership must be hidden to avoid the "scarlet letter", then it is no different in moral content than adultery and other things that people do and feel need to be hidden.

If it is the free exercise of their cherished rights, then they should be proud, and unconcerned about publication.

[derby378]

86. I would counter, that just because it CAN be published doesn't mean it SHOULD

Testimony of Integrity or not, you, as a human being, are still entitled to some measure of privacy. Your workplace aside, the revelation of details concerning your personal life require a choice on your part. To unveil your personal life without your consent requires a conscious act of force. It's not that far removed from being a peeping Tom.

I am a gun owner, but this revelation to you still requires me to make a choice. While you might have issues with my ownership of a gun, I make this information known to you willingly, and my conscience is clear. On the other hand, I have seen too many people who seek to use published records of gun ownership as a tool with which to socially ostracize those with whom they disagree with, a public approach to the "name and shame" concept. Psychological warfare on Main Street.

[quaker bill]

97. ...Carry thy gun as long as thou can'st....

Owning a gun could be a personal choice. I do not own and likely will never own one. That said, a number of biologist friends (non-Quakers) do own them and hunt for food. Some also use them to manage non-native species, wild boar and rock pythons for example. I have no problem with this and I am pretty sure they would not care if it became public knowledge, they don't seem at all shy about sharing the info.

Another friend and former staff member owned several weapons for personal protection and possessed a CCW permit to carry. I don't recall him being in the least concerned about privacy in this regard. He was pretty proud of his collection and would speak of it openly.

Here is the problem I have with the concern for privacy. A weapon is in fact dangerous to others. This is why many people buy them. They want to be dangerous as a matter of self defense. All sorts and kinds of things require pubic notice. If I want to build a fence over 5' tall and closer than 20' from my property limit along either street, I am required to post public notice.

My fence would be far less a hazard to the neighbors than a weapon.

[Kaleva]

51. I wouldn't care if my name was listed for having guns

People around here might look at me as being some kind of freak for not having any guns.

Edit; My guess is that those who are jumping on a story about what one newspaper did in one small part of the country are using it as an excuse to fight against registration of guns in general.

[mike_c]

52. oh for pete's sake....

The newspaper in my county did this FOUR YEARS AGO. Nothing awful happened. You didn't even know it occurred. It just did, and then it became obscure local history.

This is a tempest in a tiny, tiny teapot.

[Historic NY]

59. Exactly its happened in several other counties north of Rockland....

be glad you don't live in Westchester you have to renew you permit every 5 yrs.

As I said before it you really want to search you will find the database they used its up on lien....smart people police their internet presence by opting out when possible and scrubbing their unneed infomation....

[sarisataka]

54. I checked a couple gun forums

including OC proponents who obviously are not afraid to let people know they have guns. Some comments:

One more reason to never allow the slippery slope to even begin.

*************

But so many conservatives and gun owners over the years on various forums I've hung out on have always said, "... if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide."

*************

These so called conservatives don't understand rights and don't understand that it isn't about having something to hide.

**************

I've attempted over the years to convince them of this, especially with such instruments of privacy infringements as the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. Few are willing to pull their heads out of their hindquarters and make an attempt to understand the natural right to privacy (or any other natural right for that matter).

***************

Of course this can always be avoided by simply having Constitutional Carry and zero paperwork.

I find the comments re conservatives interesting, be it as this is a pro-gun only forum...

As you note LFR, rather than supporting any registration, it pushes towards Constitutional carry- no permit, no test, no registration of any sort.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

75. Some mind some don't

Give the NRA some time to finish what they are working on as we all type and it will all change all because people refuse to see. An I will be singging I Told You So.

[NYC Liberal]

58. Don't publish *public records*?

Whatever you say.

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. So you don't mind the publisher, editor, and several reporters getting doxed, either?

Public records, and all that...

[NYC Liberal]

80. Not if they're all public records

that are already available for anyone.

[Lizzie Poppet]

95. Thanks for the reply. And the consistency.

Appreciated...

[slackmaster]

91. Sometimes public records are too easy to access

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[timesamillion]

60. They were wrong, but they're not representative of us all

The Journal News was obviously wrong for what they did, but they're in no way representative of people advocating for gun control. They're just a news outlet who did something shocking and outrageous for attention, as media outlets are wont to do.

What we need is to move beyond what they did. Discourage it, make it known we do not condone that, and move on. But whatever we do, we can't let the Newtown shooting die down in discussion until real measures are taken by our government to prevent further incidents like it.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do

it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it nope not gonna happen just tryin to help because theres no point nope dont bother so dont do it cant do it wont matter cant do it no specific definition of assault weapons nope cant do it so

please stop talking about

TAKING TEH PRECIOUS AWAY

[Zoeisright]

64. Oh bullshit.

Whining isn't going to do any good.

[uponit7771]

66. lol ........no it hasn't

[JDPriestly]

68. Makes good sense to publish the names of gun owners. Let's neighbors know who has one, who doesn't.

If your gun makes you safe, you have nothing to fear if your name is published as one of a number of gun owners in your community.

If your gun does not make you safe, get rid of it.

There is no reason not to publish these names.

We publish people's names, addresses and telephone numbers in many places.

We publish the names of people who own property in the Recorder's office in each county.

Why not publish the names of gun owners?

If you are ashamed that you own a gun, get rid of it.

[derby378]

73. The burglars and home invaders of America lend their moral support

All things considered, if someone wishes to break into your house, he'd rather do it with minimal possibility of staring down the barrel of a gun. Down here in Dallas, we've recently had a few attempted burglaries that were foiled in this exact way.

[madinmaryland]

78. Huh? The NRA has hacked your DU account???

[Union Scribe]

84. Publishing names is just a petulant and vindictive act

They know it won't make anyone safer, and it will come up over and over as an argument against registration. I think you're right that they're making it harder to sell reform.

[slackmaster]

90. What's really messed up is New York's laws that allow the newspaper to access that information...

...in the form of a whole database rather than specifically named individuals, and without a subpoena.

We FIXED that problem here in California, but only after vehicle registration information was used by a stalker to locate a popular young actress, who he murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[crazyjoe]

94. I would love to know what they were looking to accomplish by publishing the names

of registered gun owners?
They must of had a reason, I would like to know what it was. If it was to lessen support for new gun restrictions, I would say the were very successful.
NRA and gun owners will fight even harder now, and many who were on the fence will side with the NRA, and they will use the actions of the paper to gain support.
Hope the editor of the Journal is happy.

[slackmaster]

96. It's not hard to figure out. They're trying to sell more newspapers by ginning up controversy.

And the publisher has a track record of being opposed to private gun ownership.