QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW
Member
if it truly was sarcasm them i retract my statement and appogise, if not then it stands.
My CCW was outed today...
- Thread starter B yond
- Start date
- Status
Trust the Old Fuff... 
She was being sarcastic, and I often do the same.
However people that make a sarcastic post should include thisrolleyes at the end. It should make it clear that the message is indeed intended to be sarcastic.
She was being sarcastic, and I often do the same.
However people that make a sarcastic post should include this
rolleyes at the end. It should make it clear that the message is indeed intended to be sarcastic. czbegenner
Member
Well this is happing because we are allowing people to hold office who realy don't have our best intrest at heart,they only want the money,and the perks.
czbegenner
Member
Oh guys sorry i havent been posting
for a while just been working 6 days a week,long hours(man)
for a while just been working 6 days a week,long hours(man)
searcher451
Member
Does anyone else find it interesting that many forum members here who are such vigorous supporters of the Second Amendment are ready to trounce the First Amendment on this issue? In point of fact, you can't cherry-pick the amendments, folks: "I'm OK with this amendment, but that one is not for me so I'll ignore it ... or threaten a lawsuit (or revenge) against those who use it."
The First Amendment allows the press barons to operate freely in this country. When you consider the alternative, that's not a bad thing. Sometimes the press boys do it well, and sometimes they do it poorly (as is the case here). But you can't throw it out entirely because a newspaper editor made a horrendous call, anymore than you can toss out the Second Amendment -- as the many anti-gun folks advocate -- when a Virginia Tech blows up.
The First Amendment allows the press barons to operate freely in this country. When you consider the alternative, that's not a bad thing. Sometimes the press boys do it well, and sometimes they do it poorly (as is the case here). But you can't throw it out entirely because a newspaper editor made a horrendous call, anymore than you can toss out the Second Amendment -- as the many anti-gun folks advocate -- when a Virginia Tech blows up.
The First Amendment has limitations, just like all the other amendments.
You can't maliciously yell "fire!" in a crowded auditorium when there's no fire.
You (or the news media) can't incite a riot.
You (or the news media) can't libel or slander someone.
You (or the news media) do NOT have a blank check to invade privacy, and place some people in danger by publishing their names, addresses and other private information.
Several states have already passed laws that make concealed carry permit lists unavailable to the public and news media. Thus far, not one of these laws has been overturned on first amendment grounds.
What was the quote-“Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”?
The writer/paper swung their fist with the story, and it landed squarely on the nose of the CCW holders they outed.
The 2nd Amendment says I can have a gun, but if I use it as irresponsibly as the paper did the 1st Amendment in their story, I won’t be allowed to own that gun (or my freedom) for very long!
I don’t think anybody in here is in favor of coming down on the 1st Amendment-just those who irresponsibly use and try to hide behind it, especially when they’re pushing an agenda (which I have no doubt the paper was doing).
blo0dyhatchet
Member
My input. Things like that make me angry.
"Just because you do not understand something is not a reason to fear it, or call it out and be against it. For all you know, one day you may be in a situation to where one of these upstanding folks have to use a concealed weapon to save your life. You have to undergo a background check from your states bureau of investigation to apply for one, its not like criminals have these permits. How about finding some real news to report on instead of creating an opinion based article about law abiding citizens?"
"Just because you do not understand something is not a reason to fear it, or call it out and be against it. For all you know, one day you may be in a situation to where one of these upstanding folks have to use a concealed weapon to save your life. You have to undergo a background check from your states bureau of investigation to apply for one, its not like criminals have these permits. How about finding some real news to report on instead of creating an opinion based article about law abiding citizens?"
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW,
Be mindful of the words you sling,
Keep them soft and sweet.
For you never know at the end of the day
Which ones you will have to eat.
Selena
Be mindful of the words you sling,
Keep them soft and sweet.
For you never know at the end of the day
Which ones you will have to eat.
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
It was not 'sarcasm' Slow Dog, it was satire. The diff may be slight but it's important.
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Searcher,
According to the Federalist papers the reason behind the 1st amendment was to keep the light of public opinion on those in government that may wish to work in the darkness. The 1st is a balance to government not the individual. However, I am not a Constitutional scholar, please show me where the Founding Fathers meant the 1st to negate the individual right to be secure in the homes, persons and papers. I'm all ears if you have something to teach.
Selena
According to the Federalist papers the reason behind the 1st amendment was to keep the light of public opinion on those in government that may wish to work in the darkness. The 1st is a balance to government not the individual. However, I am not a Constitutional scholar, please show me where the Founding Fathers meant the 1st to negate the individual right to be secure in the homes, persons and papers. I'm all ears if you have something to teach.
Selena
WheelchairBandit
Member
B yond,
I live in Eureka.I was running errands in Old Town and happened to glance at the free paper rack for the North Coast Journal.I saw something about CCW on the cover,so I just grabbed one and then read it when I got home.
To say I saw red,was an understatement!
Funny,they didn't post a list of the names of all the registered sex offenders in Humboldt County.There are no less than 10 living within a 2 mile radius of my home.
But nooooooo,the Journal won't do that because they want to protect the pervert's privacy.Give me a break.........
WB.
I live in Eureka.I was running errands in Old Town and happened to glance at the free paper rack for the North Coast Journal.I saw something about CCW on the cover,so I just grabbed one and then read it when I got home.
To say I saw red,was an understatement!
Funny,they didn't post a list of the names of all the registered sex offenders in Humboldt County.There are no less than 10 living within a 2 mile radius of my home.
But nooooooo,the Journal won't do that because they want to protect the pervert's privacy.Give me a break.........
WB.
In light of this thread, I found this interesting.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4241
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4241
leadcounsel
member
If the "permits" are a matter of public record - then it's a HUGE reason why we shouldn't need "permission" or "permits" to carry.
It's for the very reason that we carry them CONCEALED - so it's shhhhhh a SECRET!
It's for the very reason that we carry them CONCEALED - so it's shhhhhh a SECRET!
cleardiddion
Member
Wow, this is...so amazingly disgusting. As if I really needed another reason to dislike the media...
CoRoMo
Member
Disgusting, yes.
Surprising, no.
Expected, yes.
Surprising, no.
Expected, yes.
WardenWolf
member
In most states, that type of information would be considered private (just like peoples' SSN, driver's license number, etc.) and they wouldn't be able to get it. It would not be accessible under Freedom of Information as it would be considered a breach of personal privacy.
moi_self26
Member
I would love to see gun owners in CA (or any other state where it is public record) unite and fight to change that. This article is dangerous..... Nothing like issuing a memo to all criminals out there on where to steal a gun from. I wonder how many people on that list's homes were broken into/gun's stolen. The person who wrote that article should be ashamed.
searcher451 said:
A very good point. That's why I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA.
But you are allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium when there is in fact a fire. We are not talking about a newspaper publishing anything untrue - it is publishing information that they know (or have a good reason to believe) is true.
I would be interested to know what current case law is on the "inciting a riot" laws. I thought most of those laws required an "overt act" (I think something more than speech), and I think that you have to be inciting someone to do something illegal. It's not clear to me that
In the US, truth is a defense against or libel or slander.
Not sure what the case law is, but I am 100% confident that my hometown newspaper could report my name, address, and any "private" information - as long as it is true. I know the can do it with real estate records (how much I paid for my house, etc), because they do.
Is there any case law on this issue at all?
I am strongly in favor of freedom of the press and strongly opposed to any attempts to restrain freedom of the press - including attempts to prevent publishing the names of CCW holders. If the government was in fact discriminating against some group when awarding CCWs (for example people who held "extreme" positions with regard to gun control), how would we find out? From a vigorous free press!
The framers and the ratifiers got this one correct - if it's true, you have the right to publish it.
Mike
Officers'Wife
Member
Persons convicted of certain crimes that make them 'in the public interest to know' have their names & addresses published and available under the various state and Fed "Megan's Laws." All the court challenges have been answered on Constitutionality of this. Now it's being argued that those licensed to carry concealed weapons are also within the public interest to know. It's simply the natural progression.
- Status
