Why many gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have guns

As we know, a newspaper printed the names and details of local gun owners.
Some of those gun owners have managed to prove why they shouldn't be allowed near a potato gun, let alone a firearm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/n...-owners-journal-news-is-a-target.html?hp&_r=0

The interesting bits:

So, in the good old US of A, there's freedom of the press as long as local gun owners don't get upset.
Then, it's freedom to shoot the reporters and threaten their children.

Nicely done. I hope the emails and so on can be traced so these morons can be locked up where the public will be safe from them.
And, of course, take away their firearms permits for life.

 

Nice to hear from yet another socialist elitist hypocrite.

You will be pleased to know the newspaper that wanted to publish the names of people who have permits to carry weapons to defend themselves with, hired armed guards to defend their own establishment. But, allowing elite people to have guns to defend themselves with is the common practice in Indonesia.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/lawa...wont-stop-issuing-civilian-gun-permits/516453

No one can really say what the true crime rates are in corrupt, 3rd world ****holes like Indonesia are. At least the people at the top are better protected than lower classes.

 

It seem as if both sides are abusing the 1st amendment. The gun owners have a right to be mad and to boycott advertisers of the paper. The death threats are uncalled for but I hope they do lose advertisers and those responsible their jobs.

I do not have to worry with registration or permits(exception of concealed weapon) were I live neither do most other Americans. This shows one more reason why we should keep it that way.

 

nobody is trying to end freedom of the press
the liberal progressive democrat run news paper is trying to intermediate American Gun Owners into giving up their guns
So how would you like it if someone made a List of Abortion Clinics online?


As for your other false claim
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious."
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

 

Gun owners have a right to be mad about that. I'm not condoning what they did (gun owners), but that newspaper's actions led to this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/13/house-identified-on-ny-papers-gun-map-burglarized-and-the-robbers-went-straight-for-the-guns/

You're allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, however, you're liable for any injuries or damages that may occur from that. I think that same principle should apply to this case.

 

Seems to me that, if gun ownership really deterred crime targetting the owner, that these people would be more than happy to have their homes advertised as "protected"...

 

Ok, not sure religion bashing is what this forum is all about, but since you opened that door let's not leave out the Christians...
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, not sure religion bashing is what this forum is all about, but since you opened that door let's not leave out the Christians...
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

 

"I absolutely agree with Gun Control advocates. The Government should take all guns away from everybody.
start with the Gangbangers, but next, take the guns away from all those hunters. All they do is kill pretty animals and unbalance the ecosystem. It's also a well-documented fact that 85 % of all hunters are wife-beaters; at least 575,000 hunters shoot their wives to death every year. We don't need people like that in America.

 

And your point here is what? Are you equating this story about the Lord slaying people to the passages in which Mohammed sends forth his believers to slay all who will not be converted? The two do not seem parallel to me.

 

At least one of the names published is a women who had to move and change her entire life to get rid of a stalker. Since the names were published, the stalker has been able to locate her and has resumed making threatening phone calls. This woman is in fear of her life yet again thanks to this paper.

 

Here is Liberty and Freedom giving it's response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZhHyA9z_vI


[video=youtube;JZhHyA9z_vI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZhHyA9z_vI[/video]

 

If it was ok for the paper to put gun owner information online, it was also ok for gun owners to put the newspaper employee information online.

 

about 1/4 of gunowers should not BE gunowners, for a fact. Those 15-20 million are drunks, dopers, morons, enfeebled minds, etc. However, there is no way to weed them out, without grossly violating the rights of the other 45-60million

 

It's a shopping list for those who want to steal guns when no one is home.
They are trying to shame legal gun owners like when they publish the names of sex offenders.

 

why do you necro threads that have lain dormant for years?

 

So how about we publish the name and address of every person who owns a TV valued at least $700?

Does anyone see how advertising someone's valuables, without their consent, is stupid?

There is no need to be aggressively stupid here.

 

Prison guards' information was published as well. Now the gangs know where the guards' families live if the guard owned a gun. I guess policemen were exempted from the list? Why is that?

 

Likely due to the fact that a police officer could very well arrest anyone who posted their information, while the general public cannot.

 

Well, necro thread or not, it is those who should not be allowed to own guns who have compelled me to gather up my current collection.
I used to be a varmint hunter, and a generally outdoorsy type o' guy. All of my long guns were either bolt action or single shot. I was out developing my current load of interest one day. Someone who should not be allowed to own a gun of any kind backed his van in next to my truck. He opened the back doors, and commenced to shooting at me with his AR. I dove behind a berm, and responded with a full magazine from my pistol, all fired into a concrete shooting bench very near him. He hurt himself, and his van, getting outta' there.
I have 5 or 6 similar stories. That's enough to convince me that I HAVE to be prepared to defend myself from those who should NOT be allowed to own guns.

 

So you're saying gun ownership actually attracts criminals... Interesting.
Of course, if the guns were secured when not in use, this wouldn't be a target for criminals.

Your reliance on an appeal to motive fallacy does not lend credibility to your position.

 

Well while when it comes to Presidential elections I voted 99% of the time Republican; I am for gun licensing and I am for banning the sell of automatic weapons defined as "a firearm that continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed and held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber." The reason being that it shouldn't be used to hunt game, is not required to successfully defend ones self or property. You are required to obtain a fishing license, license to hunt various game and therefore it is not unreasonable to need a license to purchase any weapon that requires bullets.

As far as banning firearms all together, I am against that form of legislation. #1. It is our Constitutional right, #2. there may come a time, given recent events, that we may need to defend ourselves and/or family against terrorists or even combative factions of our population. #3. given the fact our Federal Government has failed to adequately perform its number one Constitutionally mandated job of protecting our borders, it may become necessary for us to do so under extreme conditions. And, the Constitution affords us this right. It is obvious that criminals and terrorists will always have access to arms and I for one don't what to find myself defending my families life with a lessor form of arms. Do you?

 

So your saying don't worry we told everyone what you own but no need to worry. If they come while your home they'll know to come heavily armed and shoot first, you wouldn't be able to stop them anyway. If they come when your not home don't worry, if you've bought an expensive safe the guns are safe. They'll break in, get the rest of your stuff, etc. but if you have a safe they won't get the guns.

These two paragraphs completely contradict each other. You think there will be a time when we have to fight but don't think a fully automatic would be useful?

 

And yet government believes the police need them.

Except firearms ownership is a right, while hunting and fishing is not.

You speak of terrorists always having access to firearms, and not wishing to be forced to defend your family with lesser firearms. Only after you talking about banning machine guns, because they are not needed for defense.

It would be appreciated by all if you could exercise some form of consistency in your posts, rather than rambling.

 

What happen to "What is good for the goose is good for the gander?" If the papers, press, what have you publish things about me, I feel free to publish things about them. After all the first amendment is not just about free speech for the press, but for everybody.

Sounds like the this newspaper was pushing its political agenda and doesn't like it when the other side of the agenda mirrors what they did. But that is life in America today, leaders saying "do as I say, not as I do."

As for the threats on being shot, track them down and throw the book at them. But in anything there is always the lunatic fringe.