Shared publicly  - 
Journalists’ addresses are posted in revenge for newspaper’s Google Map of gun permit owners -
Todd Norden's profile photoDennis Rivard's profile photoTrina Taitano's profile photocollin patricia's profile photo
Noze P.
yeh that will help it....
There's a lot of irony in this one. This guy posts these journalists' addresses and thinks he's proving a point? He is, actually, but not the one he means to prove; he is irresponsible with something he is legally entitled to posses but should use more wisely. Since he can't responsibly handle powerful information, why should we trust him with firearms? He might as well be shooting himself in the foot. 
Whether it's him or anyone else, he is demonstrating how easy it is to abuse powerful 'weapons' even if you're legally entitled to have them. He posts other things in regards to gun control and libertarianism that make him look rather foolish for being so irresponsible with powerful information. 
Oh America, stop your petty little arguments and focus on the fact your just so blinded by current affairs! Hows the gun laws going? Climate change? Hows your treatment of the needy? Carbon offsetting? Hows your obesity? Whats happening with the financials?
+Paul Hosking it wasn't. Not that I don't agree with their point, it just didn't strike me as responsible. Nor did the response though. 
+Jeremy Osborne it strikes me as being a debatable point.  I'm inclined to think the newspaper was being malicious in its zeal to make a point.  When criticism was raised, the paper defended its actions and many in the public have rushed to defend the position.  So either everyone is wrong in this or everyone is right.  It doesn't feel like everyone is right to me.  But I am genuinely curious where others are on the issue.  And whether the paper will be defended but this individual lambasted.

I do find it amusing that +Jennifer Newell is trying to equate information with firearms.  It is poetic, I suppose.
Have to agree with you +Billy LaRocque. Republishing the content turns it from being an informative piece that is looking to open up debate to something that just feels a lot more like linkbait.
Actually, its important to note that while its legal for NY residents to use the public records to find out who carries permits for the firearms, it isn't necessarily legal to share that data online the way the news outfit did. Even more legally grey was the posting of the journalists' information... I'm not entirely sure neither party in the fiasco hasn't technically broken at least one federal wire-tapping law or internet regulation...
Everyone is being stupid. 11 kids died from a murder by car in China recently. Have proper controls and responsible gun owners. Anything can be a child killing weapon for crying out loud. 
+Paul Hosking sure, poetic I suppose. But this guy claims himself to be a libertarian, and personal responsibility is part of that game. So would he pass responsibility off to someone who takes advantage of this information and harms one of the journalists? Who holds responsibility then? Seeing as he clearly has no respect for those boundaries - even if the newspaper initiated this idiocy - I'm not sure I could trust him with anything else important. And that definitely includes firearms. 
Neither the gun owners nor journalists list should have been made public. There is a voting booth and a supreme court for a reason. Individual petty likes and dislikes are NOT relevant.

well i have a solution all those for on one side all those against on another side journalist in the middle...and have a civil war ....sitting in my space chair and watching....
we could televise it this time and make money out of it...or send it to Hollywood....
wait let me run off and patent this idea....oooohhh noooo I forgot you also griping about that...
oh well is there anything you aren't complaining about....mmm let me think...oh it might take a carry on in the mean time.
At the end of the day no-one should be giving out personal information about anyone, whatever their excuse, its wrong on every level.

just had an idea we could call the for side dumb and the against dumber.....well the one in the middle 
Impeach Oboma and Cuomo !!!!! Filthy politicians who will use tragity to forward thier agenda 
The Journal News should have expected some tit-for- tat, but that begs the question of why personal information would be publicly available in the first place! And then publishing names and addresses of private citizens was idiotic, irresponsible, hate based journalism and an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 
@Steve Houston: to forward their agenda? Call me when you'll be shot by a mad man and no one will accept to heal you because you have no health insurance. Is that the country you wanna live? >.<
I believe Gun permit's are a matter of public record in this state... what's the problem, if you registered the gun you should have known this was a possibility, if you didn't bother to understand the law before agreeing with it who's problem is it. Retaliation for others exercising what is legal is desperate/irrational/childish... change the law if you don't agree...
The problem is it was underhanded,sleazy,and exactly what one expects from
liberal and biased journalist.
I have no issue with either of these postings, I want to know where potential mass murderers live and I may want to visit a journalist one day. Although I don't think I would ever visit the house of a potential mass murderer.
It wasn't journalism, the reporter is emotional about this topic and allowed that emotional connection rule over the story. Therefor the person is an activist and not a reporter. A real reporters like scientists must be emotionally detach from their work or it will influence the story.
A reporter is supposed to report the news NOT make news.
+David Farris. So because I own a gun im a potential mass murderer. And do the number of guns multiply the potential for me to be a mass murderer. Thats just idiotic. 
The best part is they want to ban "assault weapons" when there are rifles that are functionally identical but are OK because "they're not painted black and look like military weapons"
+Matthew Horwath Actually some of us know the difference and would like them banned anyway. Pretty soon it is not going to be gun owners choice anymore. And yes I said choice. I don't believe in the constitution. It was a piss poor failed document from the start and has only been interpreted worse.
I have owned plenty of "assault" rifles in the past but I've never shot anything that wasn't a target or an animal. Just saying. Stop blaming the weapon and start blaming the person using it. I've never found a brain in a gun I tore down. I don't believe anybody can say the same about a person.

I totally forgot that when the govt made Meth and Heroin illegal, they just comepletely disappeared and no criminals ever touched them again...Idiots. All you're doing with these gun control laws is taking the protection from an honest persons possession. If somebody wants to shoot up a school, or a movie theater or whatever, they will find what they want. Who's to say they won't just start blowing shit up instead if your stupid ideas do succeed? Let's try evaluating those who want to purchase a gun instead of trying to band them altogether. Like I said earlier, we're the ones who'll lose. 
Some folks who have actually served in the military ( myself included ) happen to believe the constitution is a great form of government (belief and idea ). If you don't like the constitution why don't you move to China or Russia ?
Why not ban your constitutional right to free speech ?
+Rickey dos Ramos, where do you think the line on arms should be drawn and why?  What sorts of arms should and should not be available to the general public?

Further, should any citizen have access to any arm?

I highly doubt you want a complete lack of restriction on arms.
+David Farris. I could never gun down innocent people for any reason. I dont think that way. Maybe you could never own a firearm because you do. But not everyone is like that. I never want to actually have to kill anyone. I would not how ever, hesitate to defend my family or loved ones or even you if we were both at the same place when some psycho decides he wants to start a shooting spree. 
I still haven't figured out why everyone assumes that if everyone knows you own a gun that makes you somehow less safe.  It seems to me at least as likely this list makes gun owners more safe.  Potential threats could stay away knowing you are well defended compared to your neighbor.  Personally I'd rather be on the list and everyone know that I'm armed, then to be the poor fool who lives next to me, unarmed, unprotected, and now everyone knows it.
+Fernando Silva. What magnificent country do you live in? Take a walk down to the barrio and tell me how awesome people in your country have it. If you make it back. 
+Jeremy Osborne Sorry I can't believe you. Submit to a mental screening and I may think you are sane enough to own a gun. A crazy person is the last to admit they are insane and want to commit mass murder. So you can see I won't take your assurances at face value.
Lol I honestly had one 15 years ago when I was 15. I was fine then. How often should I get one done
Im not racist. I was only judging his nationality like he was judging ours. The color of his skin had nothing to do with it. And he immediately agreed with my point. I am from the south and I can be considered a redneck but my parents arent related. I am not how ever a dumbass redneck. 
Fernando, you better hope the U.S. does not crumble, because it it does who will bail out your banana republic ?

Henry Michael Imler. Tried to responond to your questions twice but Google said my comments could not be posted. No vulgarity was used just common sense, which seems to be uncommon now a days.
Henery Michael Imler. Last attempt to answer your question.

When murders and child molesters are no longer released back into society then talk to gun owners about restrictions.
Pete Hayworth do not confuse me for one that cares what you think. I don't.
Why are these journalists going after legal gun owners? I'm not sure I'm following the "logic" here. "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from people who didn't do it." --William Burroughs
+Jennifer Newell Your logic is utterly incoherent. The published map of gun permit owners was clearly done for malicious purposes. No one likes getting bullied. Good of this blogger to hit back. The sheer arrogance of old media knows no boundaries. 
+Fernando Silva perhaps your country would have excelled without the blanket protections from Communist aggressions provided by the terrible US? Much like Cuba, east Germany, and all the other countries that fell to the Soviet Union. Yea dream up some shackles there. Its our fault your country never had to spent a dime on defense. Good call man!

Also youre right, I shouldnt take my wife there, as then Id be viewed as to masculine for domestication . And I dont seem to recall many women selling themselves to get out of America, but to get in? Well, we all know that answer. 
+david suycott, I understand that gun permits are a matter of public record, a legislative decision I expect was made to discourage gun ownership. Even so, early lessons most of us learn are respect for the privacy of others and only telling some of what we know. "Tit-for-Tat", whether it's mature or not, is proven effective game play. So long as you play nice, I'll play nice, but if you want to play dirty, okay, I can do that, too.

Playing nice is better. Sane people play nice when possible, but they know how to play dirty. Kindred idea to the Russian proverb "Trust, but verify." (Yes, Reagan liked it too, but it would pain me to give him credit).
+Christopher Cotton , it's pretty basic. My faith teaches differently, but fighting fire with fire is what game theory teaches. Playing rough and then counting on your victim's Christianity for protection seems foolish. 
Feel free to call, write or show up at the Authors' and editors of this 'story's' home. since they dont think anyone with opposing views should have privacy, and since they think their identities should be laid bare for people who would do them harm, then i think its only fair it works in both directions. so without further ado, here is the reciprocal information on the fucking idiots who posted this map. feel free to do with it as you please.
That for Sanford for the Nike went to on a driving to nick's Red Car that for Google Maps
Guns don't kill people. Stupid people with Gus do. Eliminating the weapons won't do anything. If someone wants a fire arm, they will find a way to get it and no one can stop them.
who's winning exactly?
Two wrongs do make a right in this case. turn about is fair play. if they want to publish info, they can reap the benefits of having their own info published. They made the decision for someone else, they should have no problem with it being done to them. tough shit.
+eQuibbly, sometimes it's too late for winning and it's all about pay-back. Now let's hope everyone has the sense to stand down.
+Billy LaRocque How do you balance individual rights? By advocating responsibility. Read what he's posted on his blog. It will make sense.
+Billy LaRocque I think you are taking this far too seriously. It was most definitely not a personal attack. I don't really care for Internet pissing contests, I was just replying with my opinion... and for that matter was really only reading your replies, not so much others' replies... so, adios! Have fun!
+Paul Delano it isn't perfect. He may not be a gun owner. What I said was by no means a defining statement on the topic. From my perspective, I find such abuse of information - whether or not it's in retaliation - to be very telling, and in this case, somewhat ironic, considering my - my - perspective on the entire gun control debate.

Disagree, whatever. I don't really care. It was my 2 cents.
Add a comment...