|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Journal News pulls controversial map|
Journal News pulls controversial map
Posted - 1/20/2013 1:16:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
And I failed to include
Posted - 1/20/2013 2:23:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
What I find interesting here
Is that we can debate whether or not 'should the paper have done it', 'what purpose did it serve', 'did the paper go too far', etc etc.
(Personally, just from an Editors point of view, I would have "done the map"; but leave out peoples names and addresses. The multitude of 'red dots' neighborhood by neighborhood would have served the purpose of showing residents how you're surrounded by weapons. Naming names strikes me as an invasion of privacy. But that's just me as an editor)
But here's the thing I think people (especially cruise) are missing--We're having a reasonable debate over what kind of limits there should be or could be on the First Amend. Think about it. 'Freedom of the Press' CAN HAVE limits--or at least we can admit it's not written in concrete, there are shades of gray.
And we all agree that the aame goes for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion---BUT BUT BUT--the SECOND Amend?!?!? That CANNOT be touched in any way shape or form. That just doesn't make sense. If you have a problem with a newspaper doing something then why can't you have a problem with a gun seller is doing?? Just asking people think about it.
Posted - 1/20/2013 2:59:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
YOU can't have a reasonable debate about the 2nd Amend
You like to invoke the rights of the media and other left wingers but you would take away the rights of hunters, target shooters and those who seek to protect themselves and their families.
YOU WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM...AND NEITHER ARE THEIR FIREARMS.
The problem...which the left wing refuses to address...is PEOPLE using firearms.
But more to your point: what firearms aficionados HAVE offered...and it's never enough for the gun-grabbers...is universal background checks (currently only about 40% of firearms buyers are screened), the more rational amog us have offered to limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, we've called for better communication and cooperation between the medical and psychological professions and NICS and law enforcement AND WE'RE CALLING FOR LIMITS ON VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT.
Now what are YOU offering? If you want to be seen as rational and reasonable, put something on the table.
Posted - 1/20/2013 3:53:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
mp, I was thinking the same thing. touche
Posted - 1/20/2013 5:27:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
I guess mp doesn't want to be seen as rational and reasonable.
Posted - 1/20/2013 5:56:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruiser: Champion of Ignorance!
We should not know who has guns or where they are.
No one champions ignorance better than cruiser!
He is the very model of not knowing anything. A conservative hero. He would praise the very bullet than slays him, never wanting to know who fired it.
Ignore on for liberty cruiser. Your not knowing is an inspiration to us all.
Posted - 1/20/2013 6:12:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
I am being "rational and reasonable"...and so are you cruise; you just hate to admit it, and take the next step towards compromise.
My point (harldly a new one I might add) is that NO RIGHT is absolute. That includes freedom of press, religion, and even to assemble. I think we can all agree with that. I just found it interesting that we can have a rational debate over the 'Right of the Press'--but the 2nd is often sacrosanct.
And there's no reason to lie about my positions either. "you would take away the rights of hunters, target shooters and those who seek to protect themselves and their families." Absolutley positively NOT. DON'T tell me what I didn't say. I agree with the Second Amendment. I think a WELL REGULATED MILITIA should have the right to bear arms.
And even though it's CLEARLY NOT in the 2nd, I even support the rights of hunters to own hunting guns. And even though it's CLEARLY NOT in the 2nd; I support the so called "Castle Doctrine"; that everyone has the right to defend their home and family....with a gun if necessary.
What I do disagree with is ANY system that allows mentally ill people--or even "sane" people to own assault weapons or machine guns. Or 100 bullet clips. Or to get any of these murder weapons without a full background check. There is no reason for that, and clearly not covered by the 2nd.
See? There is stuff we agree on. Please stop pulling that "the left wing refuses to address...is [some/ill] PEOPLE using firearms." Nonsense. If I may speak for the "left wing"?? We don't wan't [some/ill] people using firearms. Jeez.
"...and it's never enough for the gun-grabbers...is universal background checks (currently only about 40% of firearms buyers are screened)," YOUR QUOTE. Are you satisifed that 60% don't get a background check?? So you agree, maybe, perhaps, a stronger law should/could correct that?
"better communication and cooperation between the medical and psychological professions and NICS and law enforcement" Couldn't agree more. "WE'RE CALLING FOR LIMITS ON VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT."
Oh.Cut.Me.A.Break. Watching "Natural Born Killers" doesn't make me any more violent than watching "Sound of Music" makes me want to become a Nun. Playing 'WarCraft' doesn't want me to be an assassin anymore than 'Mario' wants me to jump mushrooms. And Gee--those things have age limits on them.
" If you want to be seen as rational and reasonable, put something on the table." I think I've done that.
Posted - 1/20/2013 6:48:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Please stop pulling that "the left wing refuses to address"
Alright...let's tell it like it is: YOU refuse to address what the Founders clearly intended* by the 2nd Amendment...and it WASN'T like a military service...a standing army**...as you like to pretend, hence the wording: The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
*As one who has studied and written on this topic extensively, I am conversant with what the Founders intended. It is plain in their language which, when analyzed in the context of the colonial American idiom, makes it clear that the "militia" was every male over the age of 16 who was fit to muster for duty. Therefore the people were the militia. And in that day and age "well regulated" meant well trained and well supplied.
**The Founders, given their experiences with a monarch and his standing armies, were loath to organize a standing army for the flegling United States, preferring instead to rely on a militia made up of all the people.
Since you claim to be an historian I'm surprised and shocked that you don't know all this. This is an egregious deficiency in your education.
Posted - 1/20/2013 8:52:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Since NOBODY on this forum or in Washington has put forth any proposal -- not even the suggestion -- of confiscating all firearms from Americans, thereby nullifying the Second Amendment, it's pathetically stupid for the imaginary little voices to repeatedly keep invading the dialog here. Tell the imaginary little voices to cut out the extrapolation and get with the program or shut up.
Posted - 1/20/2013 10:53:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
egregious is my favorite word!
I say it egregiously pal.
It makes me look smart, and I need to look smart.
I egregiously need it.
Posted - 1/20/2013 11:37:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once again cruise
You go Waaaaay over the top of egotistical know-it-all bravado to the point that shows why no one wants to talk, or listen to you.
"I am conversant with what the Founders intended." Oh well thank you Mr. Time Traveler. All us mortals have is the English language. And yes, I am an historian. And you apparently freelance write how to assemble your table lamp instructions.
1) Well Regulated means Well Regulated. Out of 4,543 words in the whole document, it's the only time they use the word "regulated" (Yea I know, there are libertarians out there wishing we kept to that model of government)
2) Militia means Militia. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. You said here before the Militia meant 'everyone'. Well that was bullshit, so now you've reduced it to "every male over the age of 16 who was fit to muster for duty". Well, that's still bullshit. The Militia was voluntary, not mandatory. "Therefore the people were the militia." Well, yea if you mean we didn't have droids, but you're dead wrong if you mean ALL of us were the Militia.
3) "The Founders, given their experiences with a monarch and his standing armies, were loath to organize a standing army for the flegling United States, preferring instead to rely on a militia made up of all the people." Okay, we already figured out the Militia wasn't "all the people"; and we weren't 'loath to organize" a standing army; quite the contrary. One of those "Founders" was Washington himself (GENERAL of the ARMY remember?) who constantly pleaded for a stronger standing army--and even used it AFTER we won our independence. (Great line to Congress: "To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff)
4) Regardless of personal feelings, correspondence, or anything "analyzed in the context of the colonial American idiom", it's what they PUT DOWN in the Constitution that matters. And there they said: "A Well Regulated Militia"
5) And most important--As the SCOTUS has ruled oh so many times--including the arch conservative Scalia on this very topic--NO RIGHT is absolute--including the 2nd Amendment. EVERY right can and should be regulated--even the one that says it should be "Well Regulated"
Besides all that, as Grateful (and others) have pointed out quite clearly--NO ONE " has put forth any proposal -- not even the suggestion -- of confiscating all firearms from Americans,"
So, once again, you're just trying to pick a fight, show off, be a braggart and a bully, and insult peoples intelligence.
Now. Can we end this?
Posted - 1/20/2013 11:46:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
What I would have done is gather the public records information and then use it to develop and publish statistics on the number of homes with guns - out of the total number of homes in the community. That could be part of a larger story (as I believe you suggested) on the feelings in the community regarding gun ownership.
I would have avoided any personally identifying information, gathered solely from public record, as I don't see the journalistic value in publishing that.
Posted - 1/20/2013 11:48:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
For an "historian"
you sure are narrow-minded and pig-headed when it comes to history. You keep trying to confuse it with your own contemporary left wing concepts.
And, yes, I have studied the 2nd Amendment for a long, long time. I've probably read more history in that area than you had to endure for your degree.
Posted - 1/21/2013 12:01:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
For example your idiotic rejoinder reads (in part):
"NO RIGHT is absolute--including the 2nd Amendment"
Agreed. However, the right to keep and bear arms was NEVER considered to be GRANTED by the Constitution but merely AFFIRMED by it as a natural right of the people. This had its genesis in the Magna Carta of the 13th century and again in the English Bill of Rights of the 17th century (and at that time we were British subjects and therefore governed by the same document). Both of those considered the keeping and bearing of arms as natural rights and merely affirmed that concept.
You can demonstrate your hatred of firearms and those who would keep and bear them all you wish but that WILL NOT invalidate the natural right of the PEOPLE to possess arms. After more than two centuries of attempts by gun-grabbers like you to...uhh, grab the guns...the US Supreme Court recently affirmed that which I just outlined and "incorporated" it into the Bill of Rights so that it applies equally to the states as it always had to federal jurisdictions, i.e., applies to all of the people.
And none of us who support the 2nd Amendment see it as an absolute right. The possession and use of warships, armed aircraft, military ordnance, artillery pieces, armored vehicles, etc., is not lawful for civilians. And the possession of fully automatic light arms is subject to stiff fees and high taxes, the purpose of which is to make ownership difficult and costly (read: to exclude undesirables).
Our history does NOT include restrictions on light arms as would be used by militia members except for Dianne Feinstein's ill-advised and inaccurately described "assault weapons" ban of 1994 and various bans on handguns that were subsequently overeturned by the Supreme Court.
The Court held that possession of any arm suitable for personal defense was unrestricted within the domicile of the possessor. While lesser jurisdictions can place some restrictions on the use and transport of such light arms outside the domicile, they cannot prohibit them.
And that is EXACTLY as it should be.
We agree...and I have clearly advocated...that some USERS of firearms who demonstrate mental or emotional issues...and those subject to 18 USC 922...may be enjoined from possessing or using firearms. But that is a PEOPLE problem...one that liberals have been loath to take up.
They prefer instead to unlawfully ban all firearms.
Posted - 1/21/2013 12:13:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** What I would have done is gather the public records information and then use it to develop and publish statistics on the number of homes with guns - out of the total number of homes in the community. That could be part of a larger story (as I believe you suggested) on the feelings in the community regarding gun ownership. ***
As a reader, your story would be so general that it would have no value to me. As an editor, I wouldn't publish it because it's lazy. People in our community own guns: Big Whoop. The current public debate over assault weapons isn't a popularity contest.
Now, if you told me that people in a certain neighborhood in our community own guns, that's STARTING to tell me something: We're home to a pack of preppers, or gun owners flock together, or a hunting club's membership moved in, or a bunch of gun collectors took up residence, or we've got a bunch of people in a witness protection program, or the cops all live in the same place, or there's something about that neighborhood making residents nervous enough to be ready to put holes in someone. NEXT you go out and knock on doors to find out what's going on and why.
It's unfortunate that the "why" for the paper in Westchester got lost as the elements of the story were picked apart and thrown to the four winds on the Web. Such is the nature of a hot topic.
That story, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," is here: http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood
The "why" was to alert readers to the easy availability of firearms to mentally disturbed individuals within their sphere of contact. It even talks to sources about whether gun ownership information should be available. The story has five pages, so if you go to the URL, be sure to click to get the next page of it.
New York's new law raises the specter of further restrictions on publicly available information. It's worth an even heavier debate.
Posted - 1/21/2013 12:20:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Reminder: Please see page 4 of the thread "The biggest and most egregious."
It contains important information and a fail-safe plan for restoring Current Events to a discussion forum (and for keeping the discussion in this thread from becoming yet another troll-caused train wreck).
Posted - 1/21/2013 12:21:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
"It's worth an even heavier debate"
What's worth a debate is the Journal News' unnewsworthy invasion of privacy.
Posted - 1/21/2013 6:26:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'll address you once:
Publishing information that is public record is not an invasion of privacy. EVERYBODY IN NEWS MEDIA KNOWS THIS BY HEART FROM THE FIRST DAY ON THE JOB BECAUSE IT IS SO BASIC.
Posted - 1/21/2013 7:02:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
While it may be technically legal
it WAS...without any question...an invasion of privacy because it had no news value, because it invited criminal activity (which is did), because it put people in jeopardy...and especially because it was intended for the sole purpose of embarrassing or intimidating firearms owners and carry licensees.
The Journal News and publisher Janet Hasson demonstrated an incredible tone deafness and reckless disregard for the community.
Producers and editors make news judgments every day and reject stories that are technically legal but have no news value.
The fact that you would support such a miscarriage of justice dramatically demonstrates your paucity of news judgment.
Posted - 1/21/2013 9:50:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
Paucity is the New Egregious
I found it on my word of the day calendar.
I will use the paucity of my egregiousness to point out things that draw attention away from the next word of the day... impotence.
That one bugs me. Not that I am... I mean I don't with, you know women... but I could... if I wanted to.... but I don't!
Posted - 1/22/2013 12:02:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
Again, I said: "That could be part of a larger story (as I believe you suggested) on the feelings in the community regarding gun ownership. "
I am not here to WRITE that story. I am explaining a journalistic way to use ONE ELEMENT, the public record, within a story, without unnecessarily invading privacy.
Posted - 1/22/2013 12:32:00 AM | show profile | flag this post
OK. If you don't want to understand that public record is public, nobody can stop you.
Posted - 1/22/2013 12:57:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
"The community's feelings about gun ownership" would be a useless waste of story space. You suggested it. Over my dead body would I suggest it even as an element of a larger story -- it's that lame. It's as lame as digging up numbers to state how many gun owners there are among residents -- worth absolutely nothing to the public. I can't imagine trying to feed readers brainless crap like that when there's a serious public dialog taking place all around them that isn't about how many people own guns.
The Journal News explained the reason for the map in the story accompanying it. It addressed "how" and "why." It published public record. New York State hurriedly placed restrictions on public record. As a non-journalist, restricting public record should worry you very much. Why it's sailing right over your head is a mystery indeed.
Posted - 1/22/2013 10:04:20 AM | show profile | flag this post
cruzo got something right.
Guns DO NOT make your home safer. Not only are you several times more likely to see a gun used in the death or injury of a relative than of an intruder -- it makes your home a prime target of burglars.
Posted - 1/22/2013 11:39:10 AM | show profile | flag this post
You only denigrate yourself
and diminish your own intelligence when you try to put words in my mouth that YOU KNOW I never spoke...and never intended.
In my 70+ years I've seldom encountered anyone other than grade schoolers who think rhetorical devices "win" arguments for them.
That was just plain idiotic.