(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your newspaper office

02 Jan 2013 03:44 AM   |   9577 clicks   |   Rockland County Times
Showing 1-50 of 419 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Millennium     
Watch two years pass without a single incident, and yet they'll still be convinced that the Big Bad Gun Guy will kick in the door at any moment, an AR-15 in one hand and an AK-47 in the other, and shoot the whole place up.

01 Jan 2013 07:26 PM
GAT_00     
Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.

01 Jan 2013 07:35 PM
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  
I came here to make fun of the headline, but now I'm thinking...

Wouldn't armed private security employees by definition be private citizens from the surrounding community who have pistol permits? Did they think this whole thing through?

01 Jan 2013 07:37 PM
propasaurus    [TotalFark]  
Gun owners are all peaceful and responsible, and they'll shoot you if you say otherwise.

01 Jan 2013 07:39 PM
BSABSVR     
I herd you like guards.

01 Jan 2013 07:48 PM
The_Sponge    [TotalFark]  
Guard the whole thing?

01 Jan 2013 08:07 PM
maxalt     
I don't worry I am armed, loaded, cocked and sighted in. I won't give you my guns, but I have some lead I'll send your way if you wish.

01 Jan 2013 08:39 PM
whither_apophis     
The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.

01 Jan 2013 08:57 PM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  
Hey subby, I heard you liked guards so we got a guard to protect your guard.

01 Jan 2013 09:46 PM
The_Sponge    [TotalFark]  

fusillade762: Hey subby, I heard you liked guards so we got a guard to protect your guard.



I LOL'd.

01 Jan 2013 09:57 PM
redmid17    [TotalFark]  

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


That explains why the police investigated both threats sent to the newspaper...oh wait, they determined there had been no threats.

01 Jan 2013 10:23 PM
cretinbob     
Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.

02 Jan 2013 12:00 AM
quickdraw     

cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.


Principal caught say of

02 Jan 2013 12:03 AM
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier    [TotalFark]  
Guard the guard? Is that like sacking those responsible for the sacking?

02 Jan 2013 12:16 AM
Makh    [TotalFark]  
Once again, I'd like to point out that the local news from that area is often more interesting than the national stuff.

02 Jan 2013 12:26 AM
Adolf Oliver Nipples    [TotalFark]  

whither_apophis: The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.


Alternatively, stake the place out until they're sure that nobody's there, break in and try to get some free guns. Or, go to every other house on the list because they know that the occupants are unarmed. The latter would be a bit of schadenfreude, but the truth is that no matter how inappropriate their actions were I wouldn't wish ill on anybody in any incident that stems from their irresponsible reporting.

Freedom of the press allows the press to report without fear of government censorship. That is not the same as making correct and proper editorial decisions. Should there be a crime as a result of their actions, the editors will be individually and collectively exempted from consequences, yet they will still be responsible. I hope, though I can't be certain, that they ponder that before they decide to do this the next time.

02 Jan 2013 01:03 AM
cretinbob     
So yep, they changed it.
I'd like to know if there is someone in charge of going back through and farking all the headlines after they are greenlit or what?

02 Jan 2013 01:23 AM
BarkingUnicorn     

quickdraw: cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.

Principal caught say of


It's "sayof," you revisionist!

02 Jan 2013 01:32 AM
BarkingUnicorn     
Journal News is milking this one for all it's worth.

02 Jan 2013 01:33 AM
propasaurus    [TotalFark]  

BarkingUnicorn: quickdraw: cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.

Principal caught say of

It's "sayof," you revisionist!


It's "Pricipal."

02 Jan 2013 01:41 AM
Valiente     

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


Well, their penises would hardly suffice, would they?

02 Jan 2013 03:47 AM
untaken_name     

Valiente: GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.

Well, their penises would hardly suffice, would they?


Mine's .40 cal, so it would.

02 Jan 2013 03:49 AM
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom     
Gourds?

02 Jan 2013 03:52 AM
BarkingUnicorn     

propasaurus: BarkingUnicorn: quickdraw: cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.

Principal caught say of

It's "sayof," you revisionist!

It's "Pricipal."


That, too.

02 Jan 2013 03:55 AM
BarkingUnicorn     

Valiente: GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.

Well, their penises would hardly suffice, would they?


The newspaper folks never claimed they were threatened with guns or penises.  The cops didn't find any threats.

02 Jan 2013 03:58 AM
WhoopAssWayne     
These fascist thugs must never be allowed protection from firearms ever again. Eat your own dog food, or else show us all what sniveling, hypocritical little biatches you really are.

02 Jan 2013 04:04 AM
phrawgh     
Hardy-har-har. What's really great is many, if not most, of these armed guards (and I'm assuming the aforementioned guards were hired locally) were probably on the list of guns owners the paper published.

/profit?

02 Jan 2013 04:09 AM
RabidJade     
Do as I say (pointing out gun owners in a negative slant), not as I do (hiring gun users to protect ourselves).

The actors and celebs clamoring for gun control from behind their armed bodyguards are no different.

02 Jan 2013 04:11 AM
FourBlackBars    [TotalFark]  
Its like they are ashamed of what their public records say. 

You'd think they would be proud and feel even safer after their "armed to the teeth" status was made known far and wide. As we've all seen: screaming about all the guns you own and how armed you are is the best way to deter crime.  Often have we all heard the very well hung, uh, I mean very well armed point out that if you want to make sure schizophrenics cant buy weapons, you should post a sign in your yard telling everyone your house is unprotected.

02 Jan 2013 04:15 AM
BarkingUnicorn     
I really cannot understand why the Journal News did this.

One look at that map would tell them how many readers they were going to lose.

The information will do nothing to help prevent another Newtown.

No gun permit holder is going to be shamed into giving up his guns.

There will be no restrictions on where gun permit owners can live, as there are for sex offenders.

I don't believe criminals will take advantage of this info.

It can only engender fear and mistrust among neighbors.

02 Jan 2013 04:16 AM
Real Women Drink Akvavit    [TotalFark]  

propasaurus: Gun owners are all peaceful and responsible, and they'll shoot you if you say otherwise.


At  least we won't shoot your dog. That would be the cops' job.

/peaceful gun owner
//srsly, dudes
///unless you're a pepsi can or similar, then you are like SO DEAD

02 Jan 2013 04:17 AM
WhiskeyBoy     

RabidJade: Do as I say (pointing out gun owners in a negative slant), not as I do (hiring gun users to protect ourselves).

The actors and celebs clamoring for gun control from behind their armed bodyguards are no different.


This. But don't forget to add politicians, and journalists. Why is it ok for someone who is anti-gun to hire a responsible user of a firearm to protect them, while at the same time trying to make it against the law for me to become a responsible firearm owner to protect myself, my home and my family? How do they not see the irony and hypocrisy in that?

02 Jan 2013 04:22 AM
RoyBatty     
I love our modmins, but I wish they would leave the headlines alone.

02 Jan 2013 04:23 AM
Snargi     

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


I bet you're one of the first people complaining about the "we should ban it" posts.

/pot calls kettle black

02 Jan 2013 04:27 AM
juvandy     
/Begin Rant

On a related front, many gun control activists push for publishing gun owner information at a national level. The simple fact is that most states (with states like NY, IL, CA, etc. being exceptions) don't actually keep records of gun ownership, nor do they register guns. Neither does the Federal government. All that the Feds require (which all states enforce) is that the FFL-licensed dealer who sells the gun to the public keep a hard paper copy of the record of sale in a secure location. Then, if/when a gun is used in a crime (and captured as evidence), all they can do is trace the serial number from the manufacturer/distributor to the FFL-license holder who sold the gun originally, and from there to the first owner. The ATF has kept records of some gun purchases, but only since 2003 and only about 4 million records exist. If the gun is subsequently resold to an FFL-license holder, then it will be re-recorded as a secondary sale, but tracing it may be difficult. Private owners are also not required to keep records of who they transfer, give, or sell their guns to, but can be held responsible if the gun is used in a crime and the perp was shown to be legally ineligible for firearms ownership.

Registration itself has been argued to be unconstitutional in several court cases, and is prohibited at the federal level by the firearms owner protection act, hence the government depends largely on private FFL-owners to keep records, for at least 10 years if I remember right (maybe forever).

So, when/if they try to ban "assault weapons", good luck to them to find all 2-10 million of them already in private hands (and that's just the range of estimates I've seen for AR-15s, and may/may not include various kalashnikovs, FN, HK, SKS, rugers, etc. makes). They won't know where to start, and the subsequent house-house searching is going to be interesting to watch. Or, they could just repeat 1994 and grandfather in all of those existing weapons, but I don't think that is going to solve the problem the way most gun control advocates foresee/would like.

Gun control at this point truly is a slippery slope, because by the time you actually have legislation that would truly ban guns (ie remove all existing functioning weapons of a given type from the populace, bar none), you're likely going to violate a number of other constitutional rights while simply enforcing the ban.

Some gun control advocates have argued that we should have an Australia-style buyback. Well, living there right now I can tell you there are still several shootings a week in the Sydney area alone. They also only had to buy back about 700,000 guns. Sounds like a lot until you realize that is just over a quarter of the low estimate for the number of assault rifles in the US. Also, while Australia did have a gun "culture" comparable to that of the US, they never had a 2nd amendment, and all of the political force that has generated in the use/misuse by the NRA. I doubt most American gun owners, especially those who legally own "assault weapons" and have done so without breaking any laws, are going to feel nearly as eager to have that which they perceive as a right (rather than a privilege) taken away.

I'm truly open to the idea/discussion of gun control, because I agree with the basic idea that more guns = more gun injuries/deaths. You'd have to be a simpleton not to realize that the two are correlated at least to some degree (if to no other level than no gun death would be possible if no guns existed). That said, I don't think most gun control advocates realize the practical and political nightmares that would come if they truly achieved what they advocate. This is especially true when every mass shooter has been shown to have mental issues/life disrupting events that contributed at least in part to their actions. We should absolutely work to ensure that guns cannot fall into the hands of those who exhibit an increased risk to harming others, however that can be done.

However, the one argument I've heard gun control advocates use that I absolutely disagree with is "I don't want my child to have to live in fear". There are two arguments against this- first, the chances of being shot, even with 300 million guns in the country, are still far lower than a number of events that could result in equal injury/death, like being electrocuted, hit by a car, or falling down a flight of stairs. Second, I truly believe a little fear is a healthy thing. The world, once you cut away our polite society, is a ruthlessly dangerous, yet beautiful, place. A little fear can go a long way to build respect and knowledge of a danger, which may mean the difference between survival and injury/death when placed in a dangerous situation.
End Rant/

02 Jan 2013 04:28 AM
filter     
Chickenshiat paper. What places them at higher risk than a month ago?

02 Jan 2013 04:29 AM
BarkingUnicorn     

juvandy: However, the one argument I've heard gun control advocates use that I absolutely disagree with is "I don't want my child to have to live in fear".


I'm with you.  A person without fear is a psychopath, or one of those goddam brats who runs screaming around a restaurant while I'm trying to eat.

02 Jan 2013 04:36 AM
generallyso     
What a grand display of hypocrisy.

02 Jan 2013 04:46 AM
sethstorm     
Then perhaps a thorough investigation of the Rockland Times would be in order.

02 Jan 2013 04:48 AM
The sound of one hand clapping     

Adolf Oliver Nipples: whither_apophis: The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.

Alternatively, stake the place out until they're sure that nobody's there, break in and try to get some free guns. Or, go to every other house on the list because they know that the occupants are unarmed. The latter would be a bit of schadenfreude, but the truth is that no matter how inappropriate their actions were I wouldn't wish ill on anybody in any incident that stems from their irresponsible reporting.

Freedom of the press allows the press to report without fear of government censorship. That is not the same as making correct and proper editorial decisions. Should there be a crime as a result of their actions, the editors will be individually and collectively exempted from consequences, yet they will still be responsible. I hope, though I can't be certain, that they ponder that before they decide to do this the next time.


I would have hoped that they had the sense to consider their actions before making the same mistake again. Apparently they didn't though. In the article it says that they since attempted to get the listings of all pistol permit holders so they could post a map of those as well. It would seem that this time they were prevented from going full retard by the county officials who, so the article says, have said they will not comply with the request.

I wonder what is going through their heads. They have caused a massive uproar already. They have shown a level of hypocrisy by siding against gun owners and then hiding behind armed guards when things get too tense for their liking. Now they'd throw fuel on the fire and try and post details of yet more private citizens.

Perhaps they are secretly supporters of gun ownership. What better way to help than pretend to be the opposition and then act like complete idiots.

02 Jan 2013 04:49 AM
James F. Campbell     
Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.

Gosh, it's almost as if gun owners are limp-dicked, immature, and terrifying paranoiacs who only understand the world through a black-and-white, violence-filled filter.

02 Jan 2013 04:54 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

juvandy: I doubt most American gun owners, especially those who legally own "assault weapons" and have done so without breaking any laws, are going to feel nearly as eager to have that which they perceive as a right (rather than a privilege) taken away.


It's a right that "shall not be infringed" according to the constitution. There's no perception about it.

02 Jan 2013 04:55 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.


Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Who's providing the security? Private citizens with guns.

Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.

02 Jan 2013 04:58 AM
HindiDiscoMonster     

FourBlackBars: Its like they are ashamed of what their public records say.
You'd think they would be proud and feel even safer after their "armed to the teeth" status was made known far and wide. As we've all seen: screaming about all the guns you own and how armed you are is the best way to deter crime.  Often have we all heard the very well hung, uh, I mean very well armed point out that if you want to make sure schizophrenics cant buy weapons, you should post a sign in your yard telling everyone your house is unprotected.


...and I didn't think derp could be turned up past 11. Just goes to show what I know.

02 Jan 2013 05:01 AM
RediixOne     
Could care less if the public knows I am a gun owner. Infact, I find that an advantage. Kinda like a list for robbers of the houses NOT to break into.

02 Jan 2013 05:05 AM
HindiDiscoMonster     

doglover: James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.

Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Who's providing the security? Private citizens with guns.

Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.


not to mention, this was already addressed with GAT... it's almost as if James F Campbell can't read or something.

02 Jan 2013 05:06 AM
HindiDiscoMonster     

RediixOne: Could care less if the public knows I am a gun owner. Infact, I find that an advantage. Kinda like a list for robbers of the houses NOT to break into.


unless they are shopping for guns that is...

/can't be home 24/7/365

02 Jan 2013 05:07 AM
James F. Campbell     

doglover: Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.


Yeah, those nobodies made so many no-threats that the newspaper had to hire a private security firm:

FTA: Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

It doesn't really speak well for gun owners that their first reactions to someone exercising their perfectly justified right of free speech are to threaten others with violence.

doglover: Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.


My hypocrisy? What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead? The permits are public record. The newspaper did nothing that no one couldn't already look up on their own. But I guess the Second Amendment is the only one that matters.

Are you going to cheer if one of those oh-so-law-abiding gun owners shoots up the newspaper's office?

02 Jan 2013 05:08 AM
Real Women Drink Akvavit    [TotalFark]  

RediixOne: Could care less if the public knows I am a gun owner. Infact, I find that an advantage. Kinda like a list for robbers of the houses NOT to break into.


In my area, most break ins happen while people are at work, in broad daylight. It's one of those "solidly middle class"  problems. Everyone is at work in your neighborhood and the bad  guys already know that. So now the baddies know where to get the primo stuff, as in guns, if your address is published with a very helpful map to your place and just may hit it first. Not cool, dude. Not cool at all. If you don't mind your address being published, publish it yourself. Leave me out of it, though, because I do mind.

02 Jan 2013 05:11 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

James F. Campbell: What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead?


And you suck at alliteration, too.

02 Jan 2013 05:11 AM
Showing 1-50 of 419 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined