Gay Patriot Header Image

GOProud Statement on the Aftermath of the Sandy Hook Shootings

From GOProud today:

(Washington, D.C.) – “Words fail to describe the horror of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family and friends of the victims of this incomprehensible attack.

“As policy makers begin to look at how we can prevent further tragedies like this, we felt that it was important for us to weigh in as an organization. GOProud is an organization of constitutional conservatives – gay and straight alike. We believe that our Constitution is a sacred document and that the rights it grants should be protected and defended.

“In the weeks and months ahead, policy makers in Washington and in state capitols around the country will look to find ways to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening – these will be important and necessary debates. We hope that as they debate issues like preventing gun deaths, the impact of violent video games, and the role of our mental health system in this country that they will also remember our 1st Amendment right to free speech, our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and our 5th Amendment right to due process.

“We urge lawmakers to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin, who cautioned: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Share

86 Comments

  1. #48/Alan, agree, this issue deserves honest, forthright discussion, not emotional zealotry. Regarding the high capacity magazine topic, I tend to agree that while I don’t see a “need” for such an item in the hands of anyone not in the military, I also don’t see the “need” for a lot of things humans can buy or make or have. That doesn’t mean they be denied them so long as they are law abiding citizens. Using an automatic weapon on wildlife is sheer cruelty in my opinion and anyone who thinks they should use an AR-17 to hunt with is incompetent.

    Well yeah. Any household item could be used to kill somebody. But nothing quite matches the efficiency of guns, which give people the capacity to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. Whenever you’re talking about giving people the potential to wreak so much havoc, I absolutely think there is a compelling state interest in regulating that product.

    However.

    As long as totalitarian and fascist regimes exist on the planet, no people can be certain that it can never happen to them.

    What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs. Is this a realistic possibility? Maybe. Is it so realistic that we ought to sit on our hands after people get massacred? I don’t think so. Especially when you consider that if ‘it’ ever does happen, the best self-organized militia providing its own firearms will be going against attack helicopters and ICBMs.

    Therefore, just because America has posse comitatus doesn’t mean it could never be summarily tossed aside or simply ignored by a determined administration knowing it will be met by no meaningful resistance. Exactly like a school.

    We live in a different world than the one that existed when that amendment was written. We’d just won a war that depended heavily on soldiers providing their own weaponry, but that’s not how wars are fought anymore. The third amendment (about quartering soldiers) is really useless, and demonstrates how the reasoning and justification behind the Bill of Rights is somewhat out-of-date. The framers could not have anticipated modern advances in firearms and warfare, so it’s not justifiable to interpret the amendment as saying that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on owning handguns or high-capacity magazines.

    Bad men with guns commit evil. Good men with guns stop them. That’s how it has always worked and always will.

    I wish I could have this convo at liberal sites that I like, but, well, it is just not tolerated.

    And never have bad men with guns been so enabled by machinery to commit unprecedentedly evil acts. I mean honestly, if you wanted to go on a murder spree in the 18th century, a gun is the last thing you’d want. If your goal was to kill a roomful of people, you’d be better off charging in there with a bow and arrow. Or throwing knives. With modern technology, you barely have to think about it. This is a significant difference, and I think it the amendment being seriously reconsidered. Times change.

    Comment by Levi — December 21, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - December 21, 2012

  2. What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs.

    Oh, not at all, Levi.

    For example, we have psychotic liberals like yourself who want to murder conservatives.

    None of us are naive enough to believe that Obama supporters like yourself will disarm; we see inner-city DC and Chicago, both Obama-controlled, both with stringent gun laws, and both with liberal police and liberals allowing gangs to rob, rape, and murder at will.

    Why should law-abiding Americans be disarmed to make it easier for criminal Obama thugs, the Obama Party gang-banging base, to prey on them? We already know that Obama thugs murder, rape, and steal on a regular basis all over “blue” cities like DC and Chicago; now you and yours are demanding that law-abiding suburban citizens be forced to disarm while your gang-banging Obama thugs keep their weapons.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 21, 2012

  3. So, if Matthew Shepard had had a Sig Sauer and blown the heads off those two meth-heads who robbed and beat him to death… that would have been bad, right?

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - December 21, 2012

  4. “Are cars ‘assault weapons’?”
    [Only if they are automatics or semi-automatics…]
    “What is your objection to semi automatic weapons?”
    [I can put three high velocity rounds into a two cm center mass group in two seconds]
    “A [semi-automatic/automatic] “assault” rifle [does] shoot bullets differently than a [single shot] rifle [e.g., recoil, reconfiguring aim, etc].”
    “But you should register it so they know where it is incase it gets stolen.” [Agreed]
    “The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment as the 1st, which [is constrained by a large number of exceptions]. If so, then…….”

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 12:55 am - December 22, 2012

  5. It only makes sense that the same people who want women to kill their unborn babies, who don’t hesitate to send drones overseas to slaughter women and children, who incite racial hatred, who stand up for regimes that see women as second class citizens, slaughter homosexuals, and use children for shields, will now use the murder of children to advance and agenda to take away everybody’s RIGHT to defend ourselves from the monsters who would kill them.

    Also, isn’t it intresting that if you switch the “l” in Levi to the end you have, “evil” and he is someone who wants to disarm good people and drag us kicking and screaming into tyrrany, just like the rest of the Progressive scum.

    Comment by Paul — December 22, 2012 @ 12:56 am - December 22, 2012

  6. *to defend themselves…

    Comment by Paul — December 22, 2012 @ 1:03 am - December 22, 2012

  7. ““The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment”

    Let’s just say that … “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” and that individuals can “keep and bear” guns. Now, … there’s no contorted stretch of definitions that can make “keep and bear” mean “buy and sell.”

    That’s where Article 1, Section 8 comes in. It’s the Commerce Clause, and it gives Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” That pretty clearly says that when it comes to buying and selling, there can be regulations. It’s a direct correlation – selling something? That activity can be regulated.

    Justice Scalia, … wrote in his Heller majority opinion, “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” So one of the only mentions of the sale of guns in the opinion pretty much says, “Yeah, go ahead and regulate it. That’s your … jobs.””

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 1:56 am - December 22, 2012

  8. What part of “shall not be infringed” do parrots like Passing By miss?

    The courts have been… inconsistent to say the least.

    The Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun can be banned because it’s not a ‘military weapon” link. Yet they also allow the banning of automatic weapons, but they are military weapons.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 22, 2012 @ 10:04 am - December 22, 2012

  9. “What part of “[keep and bear arms (as opposed to buy and sell)]” do parrots like […] miss?”

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - December 22, 2012

  10. #29: “Sean – Yes. If I had my druthers, I would say that glocks and their ammunition would not be sold. Though I would guess that you having a glock in your house is as safe as me having C4 in my house. – Both would serve no risk to the general populace as neither of us are evil enough to use them in some attack. – And I wouldn’t advocate the gov take your gun away. But you should register it so they know where it is incase it gets stolen. Its 100% impracticable to take whats out there out of society. I would however, like to stop any new ones from hitting the shelves.”

    mike,

    You say you would not ‘advocate’ the govt confiscating my gun, but we all know that you would support (and have supported) politicians who entertain that possibility as a way of ridding the world of evil and creating the utopia of their leftist dreams.

    Also, it’s funny that you would bring up the hypothetical of my gun being stolen. If you had your ‘druthers,’ Glocks and their ammunition would be banned ‘to stop any new ones from hitting the shelves.’ Consequently, if my gun were stolen, I would be prohibited by law from replacing it. Thus, you’ve pledged your full support for measures that would create a scenario in which a criminal has my gun, I’m unarmed, and I’m not allowed to buy another one. That’s a brilliant plan, mike. You’ve probably heard (and scoffed at) the saying “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Well, congratulations, you’ve just unequivocally demonstrated that it’s TRUE & that you support gun restrictions that would help bring that reality to fruition.

    Honestly, leftist O-bots like mike are equal parts raging narcissism and blazing stupidity. They presume to be the smartest & most reasonable people on Earth, but they’re really just stupid, arrogant control freaks.

    Comment by Sean A — December 22, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - December 22, 2012

  11. #51/Levi:

    “Well yeah. Any household item could be used to kill somebody. But nothing quite matches the efficiency of guns, which give people the capacity to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. Whenever you’re talking about giving people the potential to wreak so much havoc, I absolutely think there is a compelling state interest in regulating that product.”

    Cars, airplanes and derailed trains are staggeringly efficient. And none of those conveyances are rights.

    “What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs. Is this a realistic possibility? Maybe. Is it so realistic that we ought to sit on our hands after people get massacred? I don’t think so. Especially when you consider that if ‘it’ ever does happen, the best self-organized militia providing its own firearms will be going against attack helicopters and ICBMs.”

    I didn’t talk down to you, don’t do it to me, I don’t deserve it. I didn’t spell “it” out because I thought you were intelligent enough to figure “it” out. My bad. “It” is totalitarianism or fascism or the like. Got “it”? I am not talking about an invading foreign army at all. I am talking about our very citizens, voters, voluntarily handing over the republic to such oppressive regimes, unwittingly. I have never proposed we sit on our hands, do nothing. Quite the contrary, I argue that we do the *right* thing in response to such tragedies, address, at last, the true causes. In this case, in many rampage killings, it is the mental health of the perpetrator, or inadequately dealt with lack thereof.

    “We live in a different world than the one that existed when that amendment was written.”

    But wasn’t the 1st Amendment written at that time, too? Don’t we still use it with gusto, not thinking for one second that it might be outdated, no longer useful? See, the guns the writer’s of the Constitution wielded were considered state of the art and highly technically advanced. Some day, the guns we wield now will be seen as rather ho-hum.

    “If your goal was to kill a roomful of people, you’d be better off charging in there with a bow and arrow. Or throwing knives. With modern technology, you barely have to think about it. This is a significant difference, and I think it the amendment being seriously reconsidered. Times change.”

    If your goal? Just how many law abiding citizens have that goal? You continue to ignore the fact that bad people with horrible intentions will do what they want how they want and get away with it so long as we make it easy for them to do so. I remind you of the worst slaughter of American school children: by a bomb. Bath, MI, 1927. See, a whole lot of helpless babies killed by one determined man, long before AR-15s. Focusing on the tool instead of the toolmaker is a classic, tiresome mistake. And more babies will die as a result of the lack of honesty by such as you to employ the most direct, most honest, most effective solution: make the soft targets hard. Arm the guardians. Watch how fast a different soft target gets picked next time. Hello shopping malls.

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - December 22, 2012

  12. #54/Passing By:

    ““The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment as the 1st, which [is constrained by a large number of exceptions]. If so, then…….”

    You think the 1st Amendment is constrained by a large number of exceptions? Please, do list those numerous and prohibitive constraints on our speech, which exert the same restrictions on mere access to it as that exerted on firearms. Do you require a license to speak?

    As for your regulation of commerce suggestion in #57, it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce commerce. Is that what you’re suggesting?

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - December 22, 2012

  13. I neglected to add, I believe the Constitution writer’s intended that the regulation of firearms by the government would lean toward easing citizen access and use of the 2nd Amendment, not away from it. I think they envisioned that our government would regulate subsidized training in firearms, like a dairy subsidy, see that guns would be easy to buy, not priced so high that only rich people could arm themselves. As in the government should regulate standardized levels of competence in all citizens so that should a militia require formation, additional training would not be needed. Collateral benefit of the easily obtained training and easily acquired firearm is triumphant self-defense and defense of others.

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 11:44 pm - December 22, 2012

  14. “You think the 1st Amendment is constrained by a large number of exceptions? Please, do list those numerous and prohibitive constraints on our speech,”

    [Ignatius]
    [Fighting Words; treason; shouting “fire” in a cinema, copyright, etc]

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]”

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 2:05 am - December 23, 2012

  15. I didn’t talk down to you, don’t do it to me, I don’t deserve it. I didn’t spell “it” out because I thought you were intelligent enough to figure “it” out. My bad. “It” is totalitarianism or fascism or the like. Got “it”? I am not talking about an invading foreign army at all. I am talking about our very citizens, voters, voluntarily handing over the republic to such oppressive regimes, unwittingly.

    And so the moment arrives: Iggy, meet the real Levi.

    Focusing on the tool instead of the toolmaker is a classic, tiresome mistake. And more babies will die as a result of the lack of honesty by such as you to employ the most direct, most honest, most effective solution: make the soft targets hard. Arm the guardians.

    Agreed. Well said.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 23, 2012

  16. Leftist O-bots like mike are equal parts raging narcissism and blazing stupidity.

    When people admit that their ultimate goal is to prevent private citizens from owning firearms, I don’t see why we should see any policy they advocate as anything other than a step toward that goal.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 11:51 am - December 23, 2012

  17. Nice job, Ignatius; you forced the fascist idiot to out itself.

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]“

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 2:05 am – December 23, 2012

    The fascist Passing By admits that the fascist wants to strip people of their rights when they have committed no crime and to violate their right to arm and defend themselves when they have done nothing wrong.

    Meanwhile, as is seen in cities like DC, Chicago, and LA, the fascist Passing By has not called for wholesale enforcement of existing gun laws against the Obama Party base, and instead has demanded that non-Obama voters in the suburbs be forced to disarm further instead.

    Nothing more needs to be said. The fascist Passing By does not respect the Constitution or Constitutional rights, and the fascist Passing By wants to use the power of government to punish the law-abiding who do not agree with the fascist’s worldview. The fascist Passing By clearly does not enforce or believe in the enforcement of existing gun laws against the Obama base, and instead is demanding that the innocent be disarmed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - December 23, 2012

  18. If there are restrictions on the 1st amendment on the books, that is abhorrent. The freedom of speech and thought is universal, and has been abhorrently restricted in Europe and Canada. These restrictions are illegal and they are bad enough already; they shouldn’t be used as justification for more restrictions on human rights.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 23, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - December 23, 2012

  19. And it’s official: Obama puppet Cuomo acknowledges that the Obama Party and Barack Obama intend to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

    Now, where are the fascist defenders here? Passing By? Concern-troll mike? Levi? What do you have to say about the Obama Party and Obama’s plans to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - December 23, 2012

  20. #64/Passing By: “[Fighting Words; treason; shouting “fire” in a cinema, copyright, etc]”

    So you are a fascist. Ok, well now we know your agenda.

    Seriously? Rather short list, ain’t it. None of the examples you list are restrictions of lawful conduct. And even then, none of them require license. And when was the last time the Westboro Baptists were tossed in jail for their speech? But that’s not your point, is it.

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]“

    Not surprising. If you have legitimately considered all the ramifications of that position, you left out all evidence of having done so. Let’s see if you mean it. Let’s apply it to something else… you know where this is going, right? Because it–where this is going, just to spell it out for you–is exquisitely vulnerable to the exact same challenge. Abortion. Because it is designed do to one thing, and one thing only: kill. And kill only the very, very young. OOOOPS!

    Ok, then you MUST tolerate the liberal and uninfringed access to a much longer lived logical, natural, civil right, under Constitutional protection since long before the medical tool for tossing off the yoke of careless pregnancy. See, to me, the difference is gargantuan: one defends innocent life and national sovereignty, even at ease, while the other attacks innocent life, by personal fiat.

    You otherwise want to prevent the loss of innocent life, correct? Restrict and reduce the sale of cars. Allow no one under the age of 18 to drive. Will that save lives, many more than rampage killing, or not?

    We all know the answer.

    And I’m stopping here because I don’t think you’re really interested.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full/

    You just want me to waste my breath on you. But, maybe I’m wrong. If I am, you’ll bother to flesh out your arguments. If you don’t, then like all fascists, you are a fraud. I’ll let you figure out what kind of fraud.

    #65/ILC — Levi is as interesting as olive loaf. And thx. I think some schools will quietly install armed guards anyway. Over at B5, it is heartily suggested and I agree, that we hire returning veterans (most of whom do not suffer anything except being resented by ingrates). Ding. Gov Christie is just wrong about that. Kids are not idiots. They see that mostly it’s them who get mowed down, not the adults. They’d love having an armed guard (who looks and acts like a warrior, not a mall cop). They’d be so relieved. And, frankly, stoked.

    #67/NDF — Agreed.

    Merry Christmas all.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 23, 2012

  21. #69/NDF, and so it begins. Which is exactly what haters of the republic are after, all the time distracting us with pseudo reasoning and assurances that it isn’t what it appears to be, we mustn’t be paranoid. Uh-huh.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - December 23, 2012

  22. “The fascist [North Dallas Thirty] admits that the fascist [North Dallas Thirty] wants to [misrepresent arguments Passing By never made and ignore the legal enforcement of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution].”

    “Nothing more needs to be said. [Amen to that!]”

    [Ignatious],
    “Seriously? [Seriously]. Rather short list, ain’t it. None of the examples you list are restrictions of lawful conduct. [Consider continuous talking loudly on a cell phone in a cinema–do the owners/others have the right to expect them to quiet down? Why?]”

    “Abortion. Because it is designed do to one thing, and one thing only: kill. And kill only the very, very young. OOOOPS!”
    [If you assume that a fetus is a human being, you are right. If you assume not, you are not right. You assume the thing you wish to prove. Both sides of the abortion do this. Sorry.]

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 5:59 pm - December 23, 2012

  23. #72/PB: Ridicule/Alinsky Rule #5. If only we didn’t know.

    “[If you assume that a fetus is a human being, you are right. If you assume not, you are not right. You assume the thing you wish to prove. Both sides of the abortion do this. Sorry.]” Alinsky Rule #11.

    What other kind of being is it? Frauds are easy to unmask. FTW.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - December 23, 2012

  24. “The fascist [North Dallas Thirty] admits that the fascist [North Dallas Thirty] wants to [misrepresent arguments Passing By never made and ignore the legal enforcement of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution].”

    Wrong, fascist liar.

    You want to confiscate all guns from law-abiding citizens, and we have you and your Obama Party on record as saying it.

    You want to confiscate private property from law-abiding citizens, yet refuse, absolutely refuse, to enforce laws against Obama supporters in inner cities who gangbang and use/purchase/sell illegal guns in activities such as Fast and Furious.

    And now you sit here and blather that the Commerce Clause gives the fascist Obama Party the right to completely overrule the Bill of Rights.

    You are a desperate and sick fascist, aren’t you, Passing By? You don’t believe people have the right to do anything with which you disagree. You claim that the Commerce Clause gives the Obama Party the absolute power to rule dictatorially, and that all rights listed in the Constitution are subject to whether or not Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party decide to grant them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 7:56 pm - December 23, 2012

  25. “Wrong, fascist liar. [North Dallas Thirty]. … we have you on record [lying about me saying] it.”
    “You are a desperate and sick fascist, aren’t you, [North Dallas Thirty]? You don’t believe people have the right to do anything with which you disagree.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 2:16 am - December 24, 2012

  26. NDT. It’s clear that Passing Gas has nothing substantiative to add.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 24, 2012 @ 9:18 am - December 24, 2012

  27. Livewire, that’s been clear from the first time she posted.

    Comment by V the K — December 24, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - December 24, 2012

  28. “NDT. It’s clear that [The_Livewire & V the K have] nothing substantiative to add.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 24, 2012

  29. And isn’t it fun to see that Passing By and the Obama Party are now calling for assassinations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 24, 2012 @ 7:23 pm - December 24, 2012

  30. “NDT. It’s clear that [The_Livewire & V the K have] nothing substantiative to add.”

    Us Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?

    Comment by V the K — December 24, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - December 24, 2012

  31. “And isn’t it fun to see that [North Dallas Thirty is lying again].”

    “Us Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 8:37 pm - December 24, 2012

  32. [Is] Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?

    I was thinking the same thing when I saw that comment.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 24, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - December 24, 2012

  33. So, here’s a good question: Are the calls for mental health/defect screening going to lead to the renewal of leftist eugenics in America? How many will be imprisoned because some bureucrat just doesn’t like them? Will women be sterilized again? Cas Sunstein, after all, was a big proponent of forced sterlization and it happened in several US states in the 1930s.

    Comment by Paul — December 25, 2012 @ 1:37 am - December 25, 2012

  34. What I want to know is, if the left enacts legislation preventing anyone who has received mental health counseling from owning a firearm, would that prevent a domestic abuse victim who received counseling from owning a weapon to defend herself from the man who beat her?

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - December 25, 2012

  35. Good questions both of you.

    Don’t forget the cries from the left that Conservatism is a mental disorder.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 9:32 am - December 27, 2012

  36. Meanwhile, under the First Amendment, a Westchester County newspaper, The Journal News used its Freedom of Information “rights” to target the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    How?

    The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record. …….

    Then, the Journal News created an interactive map showing each permit holder and when you click on the dot, you get the name of the permit holder and the address.

    The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which 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.

    ….Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released.

    Wow! This real journalism. It is not, of course, an invasion of privacy in any way, whatsoever. Anyone who ever, ever thought that gun registration would help the enemy know exactly where the guns are is still an insane, paranoid lunatic. (Attention Progressive reader: The foregoing statement is pure sarcasm. Now, however, you might understand why gun owners fight the concept of gun registration. Your self-righteous friends at The Journal News have made the point.)

    An abused woman with a licensed pistol who has moved and is in hiding from her abuser is perhaps placed at risk, but the public’s right to know what she has hidden under her bedroom pillow is of far greater importance. (Attention Progressive reader: That is more sarcasm. She has the right to be a lesbian, but not a lesbian with a gun. Clear?)

    If a person has a permit, but has not bought the weapon, well …. intent is 99% of the problem anyway. (Attention Progressive reader: If a person has a permit for a gun, then the person is already guilty. Not having purchased the gun is minor stuff, the big stuff is that the scum-bag thought about buying a gun. Right? It is always the seriousness of the charge that warrants the full investigation, not the facts.)

    Rifles, shotguns, long barrel guns do not require a permit. Maybe, they are not assault weapons. Maybe just pistols are assault weapons. I don’t know, because I can’t think like a Progressive. (Attention Progressive Reader: If I hold a rusty razor blade to your jugular, is it an assault weapon? Then, why, pray tell, did you invent the term assault weapon for some guns, but not all guns?)

    So, now the crooks wanting guns know where there are females with pistols. Or, on the other hand, maybe crooks will just rob the house next door on the assumption that it is a gun-free zone. (Attention Progressive reader: Actions have consequences. Some unintended consequences are worse than the intended actions. Please try to learn to think of more than one plane at a time. OK? Think, for instance, about attacking millionaires over your petty covetousness, greed, cupidity, and small mindedness.)

    And maybe, the crooks will head out to the counties where gun permits are miles apart. (Attention Progressive reader: Do you guys ever have a plan or do you just act on emotional impulse?)

    But in the final analysis, what need to know was the Journal News actually pursuing?

    Now that a blogger has published an interactive map of all the reporters and editors and publisher of The Journal News do you suppose he will be excoriated for violating their rights to privacy?

    How about someone publishing an interactive map on women who have had abortions and how many they have had? After all, these are people who have had to protect their health in extreme ways and some have had to do it more than once. Shouldn’t the public need to know who they are and where they live?

    And, shouldn’t the public also know the names and addresses of women who did not get abortions, but are relying on welfare to raise their children? Since we are trying to bring down the costs of medicine, what better way than to keep women from having babies they can not afford?

    Am I getting any warmer in trying to think like a Progressive?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 27, 2012 @ 5:09 pm - December 27, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.