Guns Are Good For Journal News But Not For Those Whose Addresses They Published

If you’ll remember, The Journal News published a Google map containing the names and addresses of those in 2 NY counties who have handgun permits. This was purely done in an attempt to shame and expose those who expressed their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course, what it did was tell criminals which homes they should not rob, namely those with guns. But, what about The Journal News itself?

(Rockland County Times) Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.

A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester.

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

There you go. She was concerned with safety, so she hired people packing guns. Which is the primary reason law abiding citizens obtain a handgun permit and purchase a handgun, for safety. And here’s some serious sarcasm from one of comments by Cody Allen

I do not see how they justify armed guards. Newspaper offices should be gun free zones. They simply need to develop a plan in which a code red blue or whatever is issued. Employees should close their doors and hide under their desks. Do not open the doors or come out from under the desks until a police officer comes into the room to tell you your safe. Impress on them the importance of being quiet. The police response time should be within minutes and given this plan the odds of a particular employee being killed is minimized.

Liberals like McBride expect Other People to be disarmed and to depend on police showing up after the crime, but, for themselves? Armed guards. Humorously, many of the same people they exposed in their map are probably law enforcement and employees of the company they hired as security.

Weasel Zippers calls this “assploding irony”.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

35 Comments

Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 10:24:06

I call it typical liberalism on parade.

 
Comment by john
2013-01-02 10:48:15

the people who were hired are trained professionals ALL of whom have passed tight background checks

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 10:56:53

and that is how much different than people who have CCWs?

But then troll-y boy here hates for even the smallest woman to have her own protection from big abusive males. Just tell your granma or your little sister, that when she’s getting her face beat in, that cops can be there within 10-30 minutes. Heck, if you live in a big blue city, they may not be there for 1.5 hours. So, be comforted in that.

 
Comment by john
2013-01-02 10:57:35

And again Teach are you currently openly carrying ? And if you and your fellow workers are carrying should how do you think this would effect your business? Increase or decrease ? And if guns are good and you do carry please post where all could see that fact.

Comment by Johnnygard
2013-01-02 21:04:46

John, Do you have a sign out front of your house saying “We have no guns, we would NEVER shoot anyone no matter what?

 
 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 11:06:20

I really hate to speak to this antisemitic woman-hating Troll, but here goes…

If a person has a concealed handgun permit, the whole point of the word “concealed” is to keep the handgun concealed. And in order to placate liberal ninnies like yourself, some states have laws against even the showing of the gun.

However, there are some states that now have returned to the days of Open Carry where those who have passed the same level of CCW checks and certifications area allowed to carry certain sized weapons openly. However, there are still laws enacted to placate ninnie wind-bags like the Troll here, to keep people from removing the gun and showing it in public.

Now, please tell me how many criminals will abide by these types of laws? How many criminals have gone through the time and effort to get a CCW? How many don’t care about the “show” clause and openly display their weapons when they are robbing homes and convenience stores?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-02 11:28:59

And again Teach are you currently openly carrying ?

Once again john, whether Teach or anyone is carrying is not the issue.

The issue is that people of your ilk want to prevent others from making the decision to carry or not. Instead of being able to defend themselves with the method of their choice, you want them to be victims.

Tell us john, are you for depriving people of their rights?

(No need to answer, that is a rhetorical question as we know the answer to it.)

 
Comment by pat
2013-01-02 12:36:42

It now also turns out that one of the employees at the paper, a writer that contributed, has a permit for a .357 Mag. He neglected to include his name and adress in the story. source is The Daily Mail.

 
Comment by Tadashi
2013-01-02 13:14:29

 
Comment by Jeff B Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 13:15:52

That is expected of a liberal to say this kind of thing. One more time …. it is ok for them to have protection but it is not ok to protect your own family. What a crock!

 
Comment by Ed
2013-01-02 13:35:19

Writer William Teach is being overly kind and perhaps not as discerning as he should be in declaring that publication of gunowners’ names and addresses was “purely done…to shame and expose” gunowners. And also that such publication would tell criminals which homes were unarmed.

The truth is more vicious than that. Since guns are highly desirable acquisitions for criminals, and since most burglaries occur during the day, when no one is home, public identity of gunowners is to set them up for robbery and possible physical harm.

Therefore, the newspaper staff should be charged as accessories in any crime committed against those gunowners’ households.

 
Comment by Jeff B Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 13:47:27

What if someone (God forbid) gets killed as a result of this irresponsible act. Hope the editor has some good lawyers. She should be canned and anyone that had any say it it should be canned right away as the newspaper could cease to exist due to this ignorant decision made in haste!

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 14:22:52

Very good point Ed.
Jeff B, good point as well. Will be interesting to see if lawsuits come about. However, their decision was not made in haste as they defended their actions and promised to come out with more names and addresses.

 
Comment by JJM123
2013-01-02 15:06:19

I would think that anyone harmed by a criminal who admitted the paper influenced his choice of target would have a chance in court of becoming the new owner.
It may be publically accessible info, but the paper has removed any inconvenience of acquiring the info thus making it readily available to any and all for any purpose.

 
Comment by Dolores
2013-01-02 16:29:16

The News Paper and any employee who handled that article needs to be sued for INTENTIONALLY exposing the people whose names and address were published to possible harm.

They should have their names, address and photos posted on every available space around the city.. Most preferably in high crime areas with the message
” GUN FREE ZONE”
I wonder how they would like that???
Bet they would burn up the phone lines hiring a lawyer???? Gutless hypocrites

 
Comment by Archangel
2013-01-02 16:32:01

Good, keep it up, eventually the’ll go broke either hiring security guards a foghting lawsuits!

 
Comment by Dave C
2013-01-02 16:46:24

“Police response time would be within minutes” according to one spokesman for gun control. What bonehaed wrote this crap? I wonder how many people could be killed “within minutes”? One citizen with a legally registered gun could take the bad guy out for good.

2 things to remember here (forget about Congressional high-sounding rhetoric, because they do not live in our neighborhoods):

1. If all law abiding citizens give up their guns, then the only folks in society to have them will be the thugs;

2. The rate of recidivism for criminals killed in the act is … zero. Once dead, dead for good.

Enough whining from the left.

 
Comment by Cognizant
2013-01-02 18:38:16

The Federal government has every right to take the guns from US citizens. US citizens have no Constitutional protections. US citizens have unknowingly given the Federal government permission to take the guns, and anything else the government wants to do.
The only thing stopping the US government from taking our guns is, our guns. We outnumber them at least 300 to 1.
Do you want to know how the US government has gained permission to take our guns? click the link below.

http://noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 18:49:49

While not clicking on your link (I’m suspicious like that), I do find your argument interesting.

One part I can discuss, is the notion of Preeminence. The Feds and judges have taken a position of preeminence over any other level of government. We’ve noted this determination recently with regard to Arizona and its attempts to help fight illegal border runners.

This would imply that just because the FEDS have made a law or policy, then the states, and thus the people, have no more rights in the matter.

We’ve also seen the slow erosion of personal property rights. You no longer own your property and the states can take your property for any reason. A major university near me recently seized several square miles of homes so that they could expand. The state ruled that they could. Most of that area was student rental houses. After 6 years now, most of that area is still vacant after the University bulldozed all the homes.

You can’t build what you want on your property. And yes, even if you live out in the country side. Cities and counties have now gone to overflights or google maps to conduct property searches for property valuation. Feds are now using drones to spy on farmers. Feds are using street cams to spy on you walking down the street.

Our inherent right to own a gun is now licensed to certain types of guns. Our speech is now permitted and regulated as well. The right to “freely” assemble for speech or religious purposes has been permitted and denied. You now need permits to conduct your rights!

 
Comment by Oldpatriot
2013-01-02 19:38:30

Do I laugh now or later? This newspaper and it’s management are a total joke. Hypocrite does not begin to explain their behavior. Example ‘A’ that liberalism is, indeed, a mental problem.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-02 21:20:22

He doesn’t know Johnnygard. He is afraid to leave his mom’s basement closet. He’s happy with his kkk and wife-beater magazines.

 
Comment by Blick
2013-01-02 22:00:27

The newspaper, being anti-gun, surely hired guards armed with baseball bats. They would not be scared of their readership and neighbors?

 
Comment by Dan Santos
2013-01-02 23:12:42

Unfortunately for the American public, a large number of journalists believe that they have the right to act irresponsibly in the name of the freedom of the press which the Bill of Rights grants them. Conversely, they object to other citizens availing themselves of the same
Bill of Rights to exercise freedoms with which they disagree. The fallacy of their position is that
unless freedom is upheld for everyone across the board it is denied across the board to everyone.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 00:15:24

again, it is interesting that while we have the freedom to print anything we want and to even distribute that where we want, we do not have the freedom to broadcast it via radio or tv. Should we attempt to, we would be arrested. Those that do broadcast do so under strict protected permits and oversight.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-03 01:09:49

Gumball,

While I think you have somewhat of a valid point, your point is not absolute.

….again, it is interesting that while we have the freedom to print anything we want and to even distribute that where we want,

To an extent this is true. You may print what you want but printing what you want doesn’t shield your from consequences. You are free to print and distribute “person “X” is a pedophile, but the freedom to print doesn’t prevent you from being sued for libel. It doesn’t prevent you from being arrested if your print treasonous material. You can’t put up banners or signs over a certain sign in many areas due to size and safety concerns. The freedom to print anything is not absolute.

Furthermore, even with printed materials, there can be “time, place and manner” restrictions.

we do not have the freedom to broadcast it via radio or tv. Should we attempt to, we would be arrested. Those that do broadcast do so under strict protected permits and oversight.

I think a case can be made that the permitting process is not for the content of your speech on radio or television, but rather if you are broadcasting on the same frequency as another person, you are in effect limiting their freedom of speech as well. The reverse is the true as well. If you are broadcasting and someone blasts over your frequency, they have prevented your speech.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t see it as much of a black and white issue as you do.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 09:54:46

True enough gitarcarver. My assumption was that “your” exercise of speech would not necessarily infringe upon others’. My unmade point was that even if my caveat were true, “you’d” still be arrested for trying to broadcast. The state and feds have clamped down the “public” airwaves.

And yes, I do understand that we’ve agreed that the public electronic space is a public good and thus must be monitored and regulated for public consumption. Much like hunting and water access.

It’s still one of those things that still puts a limit upon our rights.

Notice too, that we have now enshrined a new right. A right to be offended and be compensated because of that.

 
Comment by Tom K.
2013-01-03 10:34:07

The Journal News has ” serviced ” their community as a bull services a herfer. Any and All negative consequences resulting from this Liberal Rag’s irresponsibility must be corrected by swift and stiff legal action. NOW the paper is protecting themselves with armed guards – How Fitting. Subscribers, advertisers and the parent company need to totally withdraw financial support. The Journal News is NOT too big to fail and they HAVE failed.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 10:42:54

According to john the Troll and his ilk, that paper has done the community a service. It has pointed out those who they view are violating the liberal beliefs. They are not being hypocritical by hiring out professional protection who are armed. That is the “militia” that they view are the only ones, that are not LEO, who are allowed by them to own and carry a gun.

It is our response that is confirming their beliefs.

and yes, it is a psychosis.

 
Comment by Bob Da Grouch
2013-01-03 12:29:08

Well said Mr. Gumball

 
Comment by Bob Da Grouch
2013-01-03 12:33:47

Two thumbs up for you Mr. Santos.

 
Comment by Bob Da Grouch
2013-01-03 13:00:43

Me again Mr. Gumball. Massa, er Taxachusetts is a prime example of a jurisdiction that only permits or licenses certain types of firearms. Another thing which I found to be, not only ludicrous, but a bit humorous, as well. The fact that the powers that be, refused to approve the Taurus ‘Judge’ for sale here in Mass, but readily approved the sale of the new Smith & Wesson “six shot” 45/410 revolver in their precious little chunk of real estate. Remember the old saying about “Money talks, and BS walks? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Duh-huh! I’m one of the more fortunate ones, in that I was finally approved for what they call the Class A
, High capacity, License to carry. The thing that really grinds some folks grits, is that someone only wanting to carry pepper spray, have to go through the firearms safety course (expensive) and jump through all the same hoops as the ones wanting to carry a high capacity firearm. And the pepper spray license costs the same as any of the firearms licenses. I shudder to wonder what the requirements are in Fienstien/Pelosi-ville. (California)

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 13:35:13

That is insane Bob. … for pepper spray?? you shouldn’t need ANY permission to carry that. It should be treated like pocket change or dryer lint. Or nail clippers prior to the TSA. Heck, for that matter – pocket combs.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 14:07:13

Here’s a link to insanity.

SANTA MONICA (CBSLA.com) — In a city where fitness is held at a premium, Santa Monica officials are considering a big fine on aerobics instructors who use public parks to teach.

City officials have discussed charging trainers a $100 annual fee and taking 15 percent of their gross revenue. They may also ban certain parks from being used for workout lessons.

While I can understand the “fee” for operating within a park, the seizure of 15% of gross income seems to me a bit communist tyranny.

Have those people try that in a city that believes in guns and they will most certainly understand that the power still resides in the hands of the people.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-03 22:07:35

Trish,
Here’s a piece from Bob’s latest post:

At great personal cost, the Founding Father purchased a precious gift for us. They risked their lives, their homes, and their reputations and endured becoming traitors. They did so in order to throw off the chains of monarchy in order to preserve the freedoms given by God, which should never be constrained by man. After years of famine, defeat, and hardship after a war against the best military of its day, the Colonials defeated the Regulars and established our right to three boxes.

Many of you know the boxes of of which I speak. They are the soap box (freedom of speech), the ballot box (freedom to elect out own leaders), and the cartridge box (right to bear arms against enemies foreign and domestic). When treated with the seriousness and reverence they deserve, this political trinity has served this nation well.

……….much much more at the link.

 
Comment by Sunshine
2013-01-09 02:40:13

I agree, hope everybody sues them soon. They deserve it and they endangered those innocent love ones.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8982 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE