Image 01 Image 03

If the names and addresses of gun permit holders are fair game, what about this?

If the names and addresses of gun permit holders are fair game, what about this?

When journalists start a privacy war, where does it end?

The publication of the names and addresses of gun permit holders by the NY Lower Hudson Journal News , a Gannett paper, sparked controversy, including publication by a blogger (additional here) of equally personal yet publicly available information about the editors and writers of the Journal News.

The paper defends its conduct on the following grounds:

“New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information,” said Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group….

“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news….

There has been criticism by other professional journalists that it was not necessary to provide names and addresses in order to obtain whatever journalistic value there was in the story.  At Poynter, Al Tompkins writes:

I am not a big fan of the maps that show sex offenders, but at least there is a logical reason for posting them …. The permit holders are accused of nothing….

I like it when journalists take heat for an explosive, necessary, courageous investigation that exposes important wrongdoing. There is journalistic purpose and careful decision-making supporting those stories. But The News Journal is taking heat for starting a gunfight just because it could.

The Journal News is planning on another data dump with more names and addresses in surrounding counties.

Which brings me to a comment submitted last night.  It was from a first-time commenter, and it contained personal contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett, including home address, telephone numbers, second home, neighbors, and relatives.

I don’t like the tactic, but it is something done by a Gannett newspaper (at least as to names and addresses).

I’m on board with adopting some of the left’s Alinskyite tactics, like holding them to their own rules, but does this go too far, particularly since she was not directly involved?  And the information is much more personal than just name and address.

Is there any newsworthiness in it? No more or less so than the identity of law-abiding gun permit holders.  Neither poses a threat to the public.  But it’s certainly something people are interested in.

I’m not going to publish the unredacted comment, but what do you think?

Comments ‹ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion — Gannett Execs Info. redacted



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


legalizehazing | December 30, 2012 at 7:13 am

The dance just got hotter. Are they really prepared for the fire?

“Chck Chck BURN”

Occupied Territory | December 30, 2012 at 7:31 am

I’m good with publishing the publisher’s info, but not her neighbors’ nor her son’s. Publishing the latter only serves to undermine the point and will cause others to lose sympathy with the fight back. Keep it focused and relevant.

    Why limit your reaction? These scum just increased their attack why are you limiting your response? Of course everyboby involved offspring, neighbors, voting records, servants, everybody gets their name etc published.
    Do you think by not revealing this information they will limit theirs? Of couirse not. Do you think neighbors are going to be upset over what happens to them but not the people the MFM attacked.
    These Kommiecrats started a gun fight and we’re limited to knives?

I’m not going to publish the unredacted comment, but what do you think?

Sean Connery asked Kevin Costner: What are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.

Look, the Journal News didn’t publish that list for altruistic reasons; they did it because they have an anti-gun agenda — and to generate revenue.

Since you’ve become a major blogger, I’m sure the Left will be pleased to read you’re not going to adopt all of the left’s Alinskyite tactics. I say either join the fight or step aside.

    Occupied Territory in reply to Kitty. | December 30, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Kitty, really? Do you want the people of East Podunk calling your cell phone about your neighbor’s involvement in NAMBLA?

      The social meme… WHAT is the social meme that the liberals keep pushing down everyone’s throat?

      JUSTICE! Social justice! That is the meme.

      Hence, we have same-sex marriages – Sara has two Mommies, Jimmy has two Daddies! Our sons and daughters are being taught how to use a condom in the 3RD GRADE: “Here Sally, pass me that banana and I’ll show you how a condom works!”, says her teacher.

      America has just finished burying 20 babies who were slaughtered by an insane man because the liberals are in love with “gun free” hunting preserves for insane. Their response? Take away the right of people to protect themselves!

      How do the conservatives respond? Half-heartedly, with crickets chirping in the background!

      If my neighbor is a member of NAMBLA then perhaps a nice sign on my lawn pointing to their house would be in order. Why should they be ashamed of any organization they belong to – this is America after all. They are free to belong to any group they want to, just like I’m free to oppose any group I wish.

    I’m just a small fry blogger, but I WILL republish the information if Mr. Jacobson does so. I agree with your statement completely. The Liberal left started this fight, let’s just up the ante. BUT if we do so, we must be prepared to go all the way. They are.

    Rosalie in reply to Kitty. | December 30, 2012 at 9:34 am

    I agree. Our side is always the nice side. We know the difference between right and wrong; we try to do the right thing. Well, I’d like to know where it’s gotten us? I look at it this way: we’re fighting for our country now and we better do what it takes. We should all think “Breitbart”!

      snopercod in reply to Rosalie. | December 30, 2012 at 10:30 am

      “Our side is always the nice side.”…

      This’s exactly the problem with “our side”. The dems have thousands of people who do nothing but dig up dirt on conservatives (Sarah Palin comes to mind) but Republicans think they are “above all that”. That’s why they’ll continue to lose the Country.

      A perfect example is Way LaPierre’s recent appearance with that Gregory clown. Before the interview LaPierre should have had ten people doing research on Gregory; The first words out of LaPierre’s mouth should have been, “Mr. Gregory, where do your kids attend school, and do they have armed guards there?”

      But no, Republicans would rather lose than be seen as “mean spirited”. Personally, I think it’s pathetic.

      JohnC in reply to Rosalie. | December 30, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      We need to remember – Liberals are only liberal to other Liberals. Even someone who is a life-long Liberal will be torn to pieces the second they step out of line.

    If “Rules for Radicals” are the rules by which the socialists, left, etc., are playing, then by all means, use those rules. It is what Breitbart did and it worked.

send it to me and I’ll post it.
fight or flight time.

I agree that this is an uncomfortable area, but their rule is “Punch back, twice as hard”. In for a penny, in for a pound.

In a war you use what weapons you have. The only question is whether the weapon furthers your goal or not.

I am Ok with posting name , address and other addresses and phone #. Not the neighbor or children .

I fully believe that the newspaper did that to intimidate gun owners, it is a standard tactic of newspapers. All it does is to get these gun owners who may be on the fence on further restrictions to realize they are personally targetted and to get them on the gun rights no compromise side.

Tit for Tat is fine but not further.

I would like to see a map showing the number of violent crimes per Red and Blue states and/or per the Red and Blue concentrated areas of population. Correlation?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Sally Paradise. | December 30, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Fight this fight with Truth – back up assertions with facts, evidence, science, statistics, asking Socratic questions, exposing error and in line with Biblical Commandments.

    We lose what is most valuable: our integrity and righteousness by using their tactics.

    Vengeance belongs to the LORD.

      Sorry. Fight it with everything you have…including the truth. Using their tactics does not remove the truth from our side. We have the means to win if we are willing to use it.

      Alinsky’s tactics are the bayonet on the barrel of truth.

      My comment is about Truth. Let the facts speak for themselves. Alinsky tactics go well beyond the facts – from innuendo to character assassination to personal destruction. Look at his followers and look at the people commenting here. Night and day difference!

        My comment was also about truth.

        And the truth is, the left has already set the rules. If we refuse to play by them we have lost the war.

        Recall, if you will, the tactics used by our soldiers during the American Revolution. They were not inclined to form an orderly line and be shot, as the rules of engagement of the day dictated. They fired from behind trees, fences, buildings, trenches. The British cried “Foul!”, continued to line up and marched to their deaths.

        Our freedom was won by the very tactics you decry.

I think we stop being us when we become them.

This isn’t gangland Chicago, and we are not people in a movie.

We can and should fight hard, and sometimes that will involve the adoption of tactics that are not first nature to us.

But only sometimes. Otherwise, we risk “winning” a country where none of us would care to live, and burning down our own integrity.

    persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 8:46 am

    It is Chicago, Rags. Alinsky was pure Chicago, and so are Jarrett, Rahmbo, and Dear Leader.

    They don’t punch with pinkies up and neither should we!

      Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | December 30, 2012 at 9:15 am

      Maybe we are talking past each other here.

      If the Collective lies, cheats, and steals (HA! as to “if”), we cannot become liars, cheaters and thieves to counter them. Or we COULD, but count me out.

      Publishing the names and locations of the people directly involved in the publication of the gun owners’ data was fine with me.

      Going beyond that is simply not. Nor is it effective. It would be like publishing the names and addresses of other people working for Gannett in another place.

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 9:27 am

        “The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.”

        ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        drdog09 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 9:31 am

        “If the Collective lies, cheats, and steals (HA! as to “if”), we cannot become liars, cheaters and thieves to counter them. Or we COULD, but count me out.”

        Then you dishonor the very men/women who founded this country. For they truly did lies, cheat and meet in dark taverns to plot their formentations. It is not a sin to fight in the gutter when the cause is liberty.

        While you are holding the `high ground` your enemies are digging trenches and laying deceit under your feet. How long do you think you stand on that high ground once they are done?

          Ragspierre in reply to drdog09. | December 30, 2012 at 10:04 am

          Wow. You really have no idea who the Revolution was fought by.

          Washington and Jefferson…to name just two, were men of incredible integrity.

          What do you think it meant when these guys pledged their sacred honor if they didn’t have any…???

          Voyager in reply to drdog09. | December 30, 2012 at 10:25 am

          Remember, the means create the ends.

          In this case, what we are fighting here is the very tactic of using fear and intimidation. Using it in turn does not defeat it, but rather justifies it.

          “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

          Ragspierre in reply to drdog09. | December 30, 2012 at 11:33 am

          Now you are confusing principles with tactics.

          Being extremely dedicated to the founding principles is great.

          Using any means…and consuming your own integrity…isn’t.

          That is also a false choice. Get creative. It isn’t a light switch. More a rheostat…

          Why did they pledge their honor? Because they were prepared to spend it as necessary. George Washington, to quote one example, knew he wasn’t ever referred to as “The Father of His Country” in Lord Cornwallis’ officers mess.

          Why did the Founders set up the Sons of Liberty to serve as a “direct action arm”? Because they recognized they were in a WAR. Do you imagine that having hot liquid tar poured on you followed by sh*t-covered chicken feathers (in an era with no painkillers or antibiotics) wasn’t intended to produce terror in all who saw the results? You are a fool.

          Ragspierre in reply to drdog09. | December 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm

          And you’re an immoral idiot.

          You sound more like a Trotskite than someone who knows the first thing about Washington.

          When the Founders pledged their honor, it was with the understanding they could be WRONGLY stigmatized if things went wrong.

          They were NEVER saying they were going to be like you…without a moral compass in the cause of a political fight…doing whatever seemed expedient.

          Another thing…

          all this “war” bullspit is Collectivist rhetoric. Since Wilson, the Collective has evoked “the moral equalivent of war”. There is no such thing. It is a device THEY use.

          We should be smarter…and have more integrity.

        persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Agreed on everything, but I would reserve the right to use any other material I may have in case they decide to escalate.

        The Russians and the Chi Coms will push until they see they can’t push anymore. We should be no different in dealing with the libtards, and we should never bring a knife to a gun fight, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

        ThomasD in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm

        Wise counsel, so something that needed to be said.

        We should also consider whether this incident represents a a malignancy or one tentacle of a larger malign organism.

        If the Journal News is a malignancy then we should expect Gannet to also take steps to correct their inappropriate behavior.

        Should Gannet not do so it might be an indication that our initial assessment is not correct. In which case Gannett very much is part of the problem, and any solution can and should be directed at their involvement.

    thats the warfighting mentality we’ve (the USA) used from Korea onwards.
    it just creates losing battles.
    fight to win using overwhelming force.
    enough giving in.

    I agree with you Rags. We should not lower ourselves to their level. There are too many David Axelrods already.

    I see us fighting liberalism like how the British soldiers once fought against the early American Patriots: we stand in a straight line and hope to meet the enemy head on, man-to-man in a clean fight. It ain’t gonna happen.

    We should fight taking cover where we can and sneaking up on the enemy and catching them off guard, we can overwhelm them with our numbers and we can use truth as the sword it was always meant to be.

      Ragspierre in reply to Sally Paradise. | December 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      Yeah, and there is this, too, Sally…

      How does one in one breath deplore what the Collective does, and in the next argue that we adopt it…???

      Kind of makes one wonder about how firmly held some values we claim to have really are.

      I remember a line from a Magnum, PI episode I always liked…

      “The Major will kill you, but he won’t steal your boots.”

      We can fight very hard WITH our integrity intact.

      I would kill a person in the right circumstances, but I could never Bork them…and remain myself.

        creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Ahhh…the age-old question: “An eye for an eye” or “Turn the other cheek.”

        Me? I’m tired of getting whacked by people who recognize no limits of civility. Nice guys finish last.

Professor, have you noticed any change in the way America fights her wars in the past 200 years? When our country was young the issue was about ‘winning’ by crushing our opponents, regardless of the cost. America worried about picking up the pieces after she won the conflict; the focus was on the conflict. Sherman’s march to the sea is a perfect example – break the back of the south states. It’s not fun making war on women and children, but sometimes an atomic bomb needs to be dropped. The supporters of the conflict become just as important as the combatants and must be removed or neutralized. You’re familiar with the Boar War and a host of other conflicts.

In today’s world wars and ideological conflicts are fought like you would a football game – and everyone shakes hands when they’re done. Paris Peace talks of the 70s (N.Vietnam won, America lost), Camp David Accords (PLO won, Israel lost).

If the conservatives and Republicans fight the liberal progressives in this fashion, we will not win – we cannot win! There is no such thing as a ‘softer and gentler’ ideological war – that is just more of the liberal double-speak that has infected every layer of our society, both left and right. Liberalism is a virus and we are all infected. Partial victory in this ideological war will not anchor this country for the next 200 years.

    You have a very good point. The Liberal Left has taken the gloves off on trying to supress the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Mayhap, it’s time for those who support the WHOLE Constitution to return the favour.

living da dream | December 30, 2012 at 8:38 am

I am an interested spectator out in fly over country… No skin in the kerfuffle..I like the idea of not patronizing the advertisers. Publish all the Gannett papers around the country and we can all NOT shop the averts.

    Actually, you do have skin in this…you live in America, what happens in “Blue” states has a residual echo effect on “Red” states. Eventually some moron in your home state will take up this fight because it was won by them elsewhere. Stop it at the start, and there won’t be any further battles on that avenue of attack…

War is not pretty and war does not necessarily play by the same rules that prevail on the playground. These guys are playing for keeps and if we somehow think that we need to show them what constitutes civilized “warfare”, we’re no better than the libs like Thomas Friedman who think you can reason with terrorists and make them like you.

They don’t hand out silver medals for second place in war.

Alinsky’s tactics may not be pretty, but they work–and the last thing these people think will happen is that we will somehow stop being genteel and polite as we mount our usual pathetic response. I don’t think David Gregory was prepared for the swift response to his felonious behavior of last Sunday. I have no problem with proportional response or attack, but am not afraid to use the nuclear option if I have to–they won’t.

It’s about time we decided to fight back with the same tactics they use…they only know how to dish it out; it’s time they learned to feel what it’s like be on the receiving end.

You can only reason with the bully who’s been terrorizing you once make him taste his own medicine, I’m afraid.

    David Yotham in reply to persecutor. | December 30, 2012 at 9:34 am

    re: “You can only reason with the bully who’s been terrorizing you once make him taste his own medicine, I’m afraid.”

    Threatened by a bully and want him to stop? It does NO GOOD to threaten a bully – he has to TASTE blood (his own) before his confidence dissolves and he stops being a bully.

    The virus called liberalism has totally infected our social structure over the past 100 years, from the county dog catcher to the district Congressman. This current conflagration is only the manifestation of 100 years of laying a base in our social meme – both the symptom (Obama administration and their backers) and the disease (social liberalism) need dealt with.

    Assume for the moment that all of Obama’s policies are embraced for the next 4 years. Results? China (Asia) and Islam (basically a political movement) are encouraged, thereby prospering as world powers. Americans become 2nd Class citizens on the world stage, but even worse they become slaves to a government controlled social order. Rule-of-law becomes the watchword, and the government will have millions of laws to rule everyone. Liberty is gone, freedom is gone, personal decision making is gone – America is gone.

      persecutor in reply to David Yotham. | December 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm

      That’s what I said- make them taste their own medicine.

      America isn’t gone yet, but I fear that reclaiming her will not be for the faint of heart–it’s going to get nasty out there.

illiberalality | December 30, 2012 at 8:46 am

I agree. In for a penny,in for a pound. We have to adopt some Alinsky tactics to take back our country from these jackals.

[…] WANTS TO BE FREE: Prof. Jacobson: If the names and addresses of gun permit holders are fair game, what about this? Whe… I’d be interested to see the results of criminal background […]

Professor, I believe that we have to fight back, strongly. The Gannett newspaper published these names, and plans to continue to do so in order to intimidate a part of the population (gun owners with permits) from participating in the debate.

This is very similar to the anti-Prop 8 forces in California that published the names of Prop 8 supporters/contributors. The stated goal was to punish supporters and force them to suffer financial hardship (loss of business and jobs).

Gannett’s senior management is ultimately responsible for the actions of this newspaper. They must not be allowed to hide behind some bland statement that this is an editorial decision not a corporate decision.

Publishing the maps, which indicate the density of permit holders in an area might make sense as part of the story. Publishing the names is only good for one purpose, intimidation.This is one step beyond what we should allow as protected speech under the Constitution.

Is it known who first posted this info? Exposing neighbor/son appears to be Alinsky in overdrive. I smell a rat. Wouldn’t be surprised to find some Lefty behind this.

These “unlicensed journalists” are threading my family with their criminal surrogates. My nine year old daughter does not go to a school with an armed guard. I am her protection at home. Now the criminals will know where to go to find a gun to steal.

They made my child a target.

Why should their children be safe?

These people are guilty of waging an illegal war against the citizens of this nation; they are war criminals and should pay for their crimes.

    Liberty in reply to nuyu. | December 30, 2012 at 9:39 am

    I agree with you and I will even will take it a step further by publishing the personal information of their parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles (you get the picture) as well as any and all the personal information of the members of any community, or professional, organizations these people are members of. These journalists might not want to listen to us, but when they start getting earful after earful from everyone in their lives, then we’ll see what happens. 😉

Instead of publishing the names of journalists, let’s publish the names and addresses of people who DON’T have weapons permits.

These people freeload on the backs of people who spend the time and money to acquire a weapon. They trust that, since the bad guys don’t know if they have a gun or not, they will leave them alone. Well, let’s end that. Publish their names.

When they get tired of being burglarized and robbed, they’ll get their own guns, and quit freeloading off those of us who already have them.

I look forward to the extension of background checks for private gun sales. Since there are so many such sales, any of us, at any time, will be able to request the criminal records and mental care histories of anyone we choose. Awesome!

Publish it all, as well as ALL the information of ALL the employees of the News Journal. Furthermore, every single blogger who supports the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, should republish that information as well. I will

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
The Vail Spot

don't tread 2012 | December 30, 2012 at 9:45 am

In the i9nterest of fairness, I think exposing the exposers is perfectly fine. Maybe it will give pause to the exposers in the future.

I wonder if these classically trained professional journalists with the highest ethical standards published the Muhammad cartoons.

If they didn’t it shows which group they consider the less likely to react with a violence, gun owners or Muslims.

NC Mountain Girl | December 30, 2012 at 9:58 am

What are we trying to accomplish? If it is discrediting the media then how does publishing information about children and neighbors accomplish that?

I will always cherish the look on an affluent white liberal’s face when a black woman asked her how many times a month her child had slept inside the cast iron bath tub because of gang fights outside her home. The black woman was well aware that most affluent gun control advocates live inside a high security cocoon. Not only do they have private security people but they expect an instant response by law enforcement.

It seems to me that exposing the extensive security shields Ms Magner most assuredly enjoys at work, at her mulitple homes and during her commute would be far more effective than publishing information about bystanders.

PUBLISH ALL OF IT! Only a RINO squish would even have second thoughts about it- this is war and if we fail our country will lose. These “journalists” do not have a free pass and must learn that there are consequences when they openly choose sides and refuse to dotheir jobs appropriately

as some have said, the motivation to publish names/addresses was most likely to advance their anti-gun ownership beliefs. They are smart people so they likely gave thought to the unintended consequences such as publishing where the guns are (for the criminals that want one) and where they are not (for the criminals looking for an easy target). Could this information be used by criminals to rob or steal a gun? We will never know for sure unless one gets cought and as part of their confession, sources the newspaper.

Despite the potential harm to the public, the chose to advance their agenda. Any casualty along the way can never be traced back to them.

So, how to respond?
->Letters to the editor – seems obvious.
->Publication of personal information – tit for tat?
->Publication of personal information of friends, neighbors, next of kin – too personal?
->Dredging up court ordered sealed divorce proceedings – sound familiar?
->Denial of service attack – illegal?
->Swatting – 🙂
->web surfing records?

I would ask to consider how often these types of soft terrorism have been practiced by the Left to inflict pain and/or destroy their opposition. Consider also that for the Left, it’s a zero-sum game. It’s a game to the death, politically speaking. So, to what end asks the good professor? I say to the same end the Left will go.

    David Yotham in reply to akt. | December 30, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Tit for Tat? I doubt social violence will work, and that is what the #OCW (bowel) movement was. The conservatives do have the Tea Party, but sometime in the future I expect a car bomb to interrupt that movement – liberals and anarchists are well versed in violence (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc).

    As long as the conservatives are dealing with data and control only, then I like this equation much better:

    Tit+2 for Tat

    I’m not looking for equality with the moulders of an American Marxist society – I am looking to figuratively bury their philosophy for decades.

    turfmann in reply to akt. | December 30, 2012 at 11:00 am

    I would ask to consider how often these types of soft terrorism have been practiced by the Left to inflict pain and/or destroy their opposition.

    Spend a couple of hours reading Stacey McCain’s website and I think you’ll have your answer.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to akt. | December 30, 2012 at 11:03 am

    “Dredging up court ordered sealed divorce proceedings – sound familiar?”

    And any record of arrests, including for DUI… and child custody dispute papers… and credit history… and medical records… and…

    [Sky’s the limit!]

“The left” as a whole doesn’t get the blame for this one newspaper’s action. Some of the left even have cover by condemning it. If some “renegade” bloggers do the same from the non-left side, que sera sera.

The Big Journalism approach is good. Reveal that the people really threatened were the non gun owners. They had their homes marked as “gun free zones”, ripe for attack. Never let a tragedy/crisis go to waste … tell the truth about why these kids were allowed (by leftist gun free policy) to be murdered. Shame the real culprits.

The Sandy Hook story was really about kids being left open to attack, by leftist radicals that insist on disarming the public. The shameless left glories in these deaths as a victory for their policy of disarmament. Reality is the opposite message, as any sentient being can see.

These radicals need to be exposed and blamed, for their deadly policies, and their propaganda in avoiding blame. Gun free zones are leftist instituted death traps, with victims disrespected to push the leftist agenda. Big media are whores for the communist agenda. Blogs and social media can expose them.

Smart parents would boycott gun free zones, refusing to exploit their children as intended victims for leftist policy exhibitions. Sandy Hook was not an accident, it was a result of evil policy.

Alinsky’s philosophy was and IS based on gradualism (Gramsci) not overt militancy (Stalin).

Rather obvious that the gradualism works, it elected one of Alinsky’s top students twice (and don’t forget his little girl, Hillary).

If one or many use his/their system to infect groups such as: politics, hollywood, race, media, etc, etc..gradually, it will and has infect all of society.

IMHO, if these successful tactics are going to used as a counter, then ALL tactics must be used..

I’ve always wondered how the public access to your campaign contributions was not a violation of our civil rights
It’s like the government (along with everyone else)slipping into the voting booth and watching you vote.

It’s one thing to voluntarily stick a sign on your lawn but this is definitely a privacy issue at the very least.

It’s a disgusting offshoot of the entire campaign finance reform scam that got pushed out during the post Watergate hysteria
Another shining example of emotional Democrat lawmaking.

The question is whether to publish the info or not and how much of the info relating to family and neighbors.

In war as political fights the enemy makes the rules and you have to play by those rules if you want to win. That does not necessarily require tossing integrity out the window.

I would publish all information relating directly to the owners, directors, and employees of these papers but I would carefully redact the information relating to family members and neighbors. Give just enough information to let them know that you have more that can be published.

If you have not figured out the objective of the progressive left and this administration yet then you have been asleep for the last 60+ years.

for the record I DO like that you think about it before blindly doing it.
while I think the tactics should be used anyone who uses a tactic w/o thinking about it is NOT using a tactic, they are using a reactionary action.

[…] pressed about their motivations, as Legal Insurrection notes, Editor CynDee Royle specifically cited Newtown and called it “important” information. […]

The press has become the enemy. This is exactly the reason why they want gun owners to register. They want to be able, at some point, to criminalize gun owners. Registration is seldom used to return stolen guns to their owners.

The Feinstein bill would make it possible for the affluent to own guns, but make it nearly impossible for poor people to own them. Anyone with half a brain can understand that this bill will make the poor victims. Nothing in the bill would have prevented Sandy Hook. The Senate cannot bother to pass a budget but has ample time to meddle in something that should be left to the states.

I personally would like to see a list of all Congressmen and women that have armed bodyguards. I’d also like a list of all of them that are gun owners. And lets have a list of all the schools in Washington DC that have armed guards. We cannot allow this hypocrisy to continue.

We must recognize this singular truth, that Barack Obama and all those who surround him have declared war upon our Republic:

We are five days away from fundamentally changing America…

The final bulwark against a tyrannical state is the confiscation of arms – history teaches this over and over. Our Founding Fathers were not only mindful of this necessary strategic move, they were nearly the victims of it at the Battle of Lexington and Concord.

Make no mistake, the current kabuki theatre about gun control legislation has nothing to do with a madman opening fire upon a group of children, slaughtering them as they lay defenseless in their schoolroom. If that were the case, there would be a cop standing guard at every schoolhouse in America, regardless the cost.

This is Rahm Emmanuel’s “Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste” in full swing.

Those who surround Barack Obama wish to rid us of the “Charter of Negative Rights” that he so openly loathes, and if he is to do that he must confiscate the firearms, he must make that which is an inalienable right a social pariah.

In other words, he must seek the transference of the guilt of Adam Lanza to every law abiding firearm owner in this nation.

Adam Lanza was obviously a very sick young man. His mother may or may not have used good judgement in raising him or seeking proper psychological care for him or properly storing her firearms. We will likely never know the answers to these questions.

All of that is immaterial to Obama. He does not care that leftists emptied out the mental institutions a generation ago, does not care that the mentally ill are shuffled from one resource to another to another before ending up on the street only to start the whole process over again.

He does not care that it is the law that schools are gun-free zones, or that Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun control legislation in America.

Because that is not his goal.

His goal is the extermination of the American Republic such that he and his can fundamentally transform this nation into the socialist utopia that he envisions.

Anything in furtherance of that goal is fair game.

Therefore, give these Gannett people absolutely no quarter – they started this so let us end it.

They have hit, let’s hit back twice as hard.

They have brought a knife to the fight, let’s make sure we have our gun in our belt.

No Quarter – none at all.

The Publisher is just as guilty/innocent of her actions as are any gun owners. But personally, I think more wars have been started by newspapers than with individual guns – WW1 is the only war started with a single shot. Even the Revolutionary War was fought in the papers for years before any gunpowder was consumed.

These people are far more oriented at power than principle. They will continue to push at the rest of us until the response from the public produces sufficiently unacceptable consequences. They are conducting cultural warfare and that is the battle space of their own choosing. I would say that by their own rules, any public detail about their personal lives is fair game. War is dirty business and people of principle look forward to when civility can return.

Publish it. Unredacted.

Professor, I see no problem with posting the neighbor’s information. Remember, the Journal-News cited “neighbors” in the headline of their story. Quite obviously one of their unstated goals was to get neighbors to pressure the gun-owner next door.

This is war. We’re fighting it right now with words but make no mistake…it IS war. You can’t win by unloading your weapon.

This is like to two football teams playing a game with each team using their own set of rules. The left chose these rules, not us.

Feinstein’s hypocracy:

She is opposed to a federal law that mandates states to recognize CCW [concealed carry for the undereducated] permits from other states, just like a drivers license.

For me, but not for thee.

Perhaps we should support a law requiring that all employees and contractors of newspapers file their current address and personal info, as a matter of public record? After all, newspapers kill people.

There are lines in the sand that prompt action when crossed. Conservatives are generally polite, gracious, and patient with our rude, petty, and impatient opponents. After all, one of the the things worth conserving is mature behavior, which the left has abandoned to our stewardship.

Embracing the left’s tactics is akin to the eye for an eye mindset. Eventually, the whole world is blind. Hard as it can be, there are times to turn the other cheek.

We are right.

That’s the simple truth. We are. The left is childishly and devilishly wrong. Logic, history, common sense, economics, and any other way you care to analyze the problems that face tell us that we are right. History will judge this to be so, whether or not we prevail politically or popularly. History will also judge our actions in the face of the lies and tactics of the left.

Doing the right thing is usually doing the hard thing. I advocate engaging, confronting, and pushing back the left at every opportunity, but not if it requires becoming like them. That’s just what I think. For those who have drawn different lines in the sand, they have to grapple with their own reactions. It’s complicated, but one thing we can’t do is play out the circular firing squad act like the GOP did in settling on Romney.

My $.02 (which is all many of us have left).

This is a newspaper. It sells papers and advertising. The weak point is the advertisers. The response should be to (1) get people to stop buying the paper, (2) organize a boycott of the advertisers.

For example, a mailing to each person whose name and address was published could include a list of the businesses which have not pulled their advertising. The person could be encouraged not to patronize the businesses, and not to buy the paper which has so helpfully provided this mailing list.

Like I said in a previous post, we are at war with the left.
Unfortunately only one side seems to have the stomach for the fight. It’s easy to predict who will win.

I think a big whack back in their faces will give heart to a lot of us who have/nearly have given up.

Look at how we all loved Newt – it took the democrats,the MSM and the other republican candidates to defeat him. Look what Romney did to defeat him.

Look how many people have joined the NRA – there is push back happening every day the whole country is simmering.

So push back hard and when we ourselves recognize have gone too far we can pull back.

In the mean time I hope someone is watching police reports from the gun owner areas already published. If we are waiting for newspapers or the media to report break-ins or successful burglaries we will miss some powerful (I hate to say the word) propaganda.

2nd Ammendment Mother | December 30, 2012 at 11:31 am

The question I ask myself is how much collateral damage was created by that list that we’ll never learn about.

How many people who have been the witnesses to or victims of crime, stalking or other violence have chosen to relocate and learn to defend themselves? Have they just been handed to their tormentor on a silver platter?

What about ex-cops and investigators who put many years on the line tracking dangerous criminals and lived to retirement? What of those who have put themselves on the line to separate themselves from the criminal element and started their lives over? Have they been handed over to the criminals and their cronies for retaliation?

Even more worrisome – did the publisher determine that all of their information was correct, current and complete? We have a mobile society and people relocate quickly. It often takes a year or two to transfer/update all your registrations and subscriptions.

It seems to me, that the head of Gannett, as well as the Board of Directors and all senior management need a reality check on what their policies have the potential of causing. Too many of these people live in a “it would never happen” Pollyanna existence. Except, bad things can and do happen – and their carelessness of the safety of someone like me, has stripped me of all other defenses against danger including my anonymity and potentially forced a choice I shouldn’t have had to make.

Sometimes the only way a message is delivered is when you have to walk a mile in your victims shoes……

William, all of this information is already posted on scribd.

[link removed by admin]

This is the first line on this topic:

“When journalists start a privacy war, where does it end?”

It ends when one side gives up.

I do not remember such a firestorm of comments.

For all of the people who want to limit my gun rights, I say that your “right” to comment must be passed by my committee to approve or disapprove of your “right” to make any comments.
And before you practice your religion, my committee has to first approve of your religion.
And before you exercise your “right” to refuse to testify against yourself in a criminal trial, my committee must first approve of your “right” to refuse to testify.
Get it? It is a RIGHT!

Treat it as a member of their press would: Publish the neighborhood gun addresses. If her address is in there, it’s like having advanced permission to tell the world. I’m sure out of respect for their neighbors they “forget” to publish their own neighborhoods or friend’s names…

“I’m not going to publish the unredacted comment, but what do you think?”
Publish everything.

I think we should go farther than posting the names and addresses of the Enemy Journalists. We should publish photos of their children, their schools, and the schedules and routes their children take.

Let them sweat.

    pst314 in reply to Mannie. | December 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    No! Leave their children out of this.

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Mannie. | December 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Do a quick search on the Staley strike in Decatur 20 years ago. The unions described it in terms of “war” and they took it to the homes and families of Staley management. Explain to those who were children in Decatur how it’s okay to go after the families and neighbors. Ask them to describe stepping on nail jacks that pierced their shoes as they got off the school bus; ask them what it was like to watch the family dogs’ paws get maimed by stepping on the nail jacks.

    Spew violent rhetoric, but don’t expect the children to understand.

    I agree with Rags and windbag. We must be better than they are.

      No one here is advocating the type of actions you describe.

        9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to creeper. | December 31, 2012 at 1:20 pm

        You can’t control the actions of others, only your own. Every post that advocated being decent and honorable was loaded with down thumbs ratings. Rosa Parks was chosen to stay in her seat because she was absolutely decent and honorable and no one could assail her at all. Was she the first? No, but her character and background were unassailable. She was effective and is remembered. Why was Jackie Robinson chosen by Branch Rickey? Both men had unassailable character. When you are fighting injustice, you have to be strong, determined and yes, decent. | December 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Holding someone to their own rules long predates Saul Alinsky, so there’s nothing wrong with using that tactic. The basic form of Talmudic logic is the attack question and the most powerful attack question is to judge a position by its own standards. Holding Gannett to the same standards that they practice is not only fair game, but a fundamental expression of Gannett critics’ First Amendment rights.

And speaking of the First Amendment and holding someone to their own logic, gun owners are protected by the Second Amendment. Publishers, like the CEO of Gannett, are protected by the First Amendment. Every justification that the newspaper uses for publishing the addresses of those exercising their Second Amendment rights can be used to justify publishing the addresses of others who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

    Joan Of Argghh in reply to | December 30, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Completely in my own interest, and thus the “public” interest for me to know where the busybodies are. Maybe your neighbor down the street is a “journalist” and has been asking your kid all kinds of questions without you knowing it. (Of course, “asking questions” is not what they do, actually. They posit circumstantial scenarios and seek certain feedback for soundbites.) Or setting up remote, discreet cameras for a special report on dog-owners who never pick up after their pet or nabes who don’t recycle.

    One unhappy wielder of the “pen” can make life misery for his neighbors, I’d bet. Best to know if you’re living next to a Mike Wallace wanna-be.

They started this war, let’s see if the have the guts to finish it; or, will they go screaming to DC for “Mommie”?

    archcon in reply to askeptic. | December 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    There are two kinds of privacy: YOUR privacy, which is what these two empty skirts decide what defines it – and THEIR privacy, which is sacrosanct. It looks to me like these twoFimi-libs are throwing out the bait to see if they can hook onto a job with, let me see, MSNBC? NPR? CNN? This two bit newspaper that no one ever heard of is getting tons of free publicity in the state run media. I await their printing names and addresses of those who had abortions. You bet your bottom dollar it will never happen. Why? PRIVACY! These two “Newspaperwomen” would hide themselves pehind privacy. However, gunowners, conservatives, repugs? They have NO RIGHT to “Privacy.” To all you folks in Westchester County who have been “Outed” by these two harridans, we here in Texas are with you 100%. We have two simple suggestions: #1. If you have a subscription to this birdcage liner, cancel immediately. #2. Band together, hire the best lawyers in the country (Some might even work pro-bobo) and SUE the bast_rds for all they are worth.

    two.bit.score in reply to askeptic. | December 31, 2012 at 12:26 am

    I’d like to see the unredacted report published.

I agree with CID, if the Liberal Left wants to play games with privacy, then it’s “alls fair in love and war” and this is a war on the Consitution. So, publish away! I’ll republish on my small blog any list of names and addresses you publish here.

Somehow, I doubt that the libs would be as quick to put up the names and addresses of AIDS carriers, or people with VD, given that they can be a threat to people (healthwise) and some have been known to pass the disease deliberately.

Simply because one has the freedom and the right to do something does not mean one should automatically be shielded from the consequences (indeed, exactly the opposite: as a libertarian I agree with P. J. O’Rourke’s dictum that alongside the prime freedom, the freedom to do as one pleases, comes the prime duty: taking the heat). As Chairwoman of Gannett, this individual is directly in the chain of authority – and near one end of it – through which the decision to publish information on gun permit holders was exercised. Even if she were not directly involved in the decision to publish, she is responsible for corporate direction. It is deeply corrosive to liberty for consequences to fail to follow from actions, whether they be extra-legal, societal sanctions such as here, or equal application of the law as per the David Gregory magazine case. I say publish the full, unredacted comment if for no other reason than pour encourager les autres.

Subotai Bahadur | December 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm

An amazing burst of comments. Nerves have been touched.

Professor, we are literally in the end stage of pretending that politics as normal mean something. The Constitutional order has been de facto overturned, while retaining the external trappings of the old order. The government is at open war on the Bill of Rights. Congress has lost the power of the purse and no longer represents anything but their own vested interests. The rule of law is gone. Who you are and who you are connected to decides if you will be prosecuted for any crime. No connections = no mercy and frequently no due process. If connected to the regime, you are immune. Our courts have withdrawn from the fray or have been subverted. In any major issue, it seems that the courts rule that there is no one who has standing to oppose the will of the State; so the State wins. And if a matter does get before the courts, the courts rule based on politics, not law. The Supreme Court is no longer a barrier defending the Constitutions. When Chief Justice Roberts suddenly reversed his entire life’s work to rule that the Federal government could violate the Constitution so long as it did it in the guise of a tax; it was obvious that he has been gotten to and is now merely a tool of the regime.

Moderating our conduct while the country is still on this side of violence will not prevent things going from bad to worse. Things are going to get worse even if we become martyred saints. Our restraint in the face of ongoing attacks merely removes restraints on the conduct of those who seek the destruction of our country and Constitution. If their escalations are only met with feeble responses on our part, they are encouraged to push the envelope until they reach the point of violence.

So long as no law is broken [after all, that is the standard of combat that they have set; akin to say the real rules on the use of poison gas in warfare] then hit back twice as hard. Make them deal with their families and their neighbors being angry at them. And publicly out the nature of their bias’ in every thing they publish. Keep in mind that just recently the State got the power to wiretap, investigate, and arrest people without warrant of probably cause. Do you think that they are going to limit what they dig up in the name of “decency”? Look at their record.

Every employee of the paper should have a full background check, as deep as can be done within the bounds of the law. If a prospective employer can find it, then it should be legal. And publishable. Criminal records, court judgments, membership in various organizations, political contributions, public statements. If the investigation leads to family members, so be it. Reveal it all.

Publish the ownership/management details of all the companies who advertised in the editions where the permit holders are/were mapped who continue to advertise with them. There will be the implication that they could receive the same detailed attention as the employees. And if Gannett does not rein in the Journal News; move up the corporate food chain.

Given the nature of the Journo-List 2.0 media; it would be wise for all of their major personalities to be subject to the same investigation as the Journal-News’ staff just to have in reserve for when they next outrageously lie. And every personality in the current administration. There is a lot of work to do.

Oh, and one more little cross check on the Journal-News’ map. Do not take it on faith that their map was complete. Follow up on it and make sure that they did not “accidentally” forget to publish the names of various politically or otherwise connected individuals that they did not want to offend. If there are political or other celebrities who are calling for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment while themselves being armed; that needs to be Alinsky-ed out.

If we are to have a hope of stopping the enemies of our country before they physically attack us, we have to make them pay a price and show that they will be opposed if they cross that line. Yielding to them does not accomplish that end.

I am reminded of a quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his GULAG Archipelago that seems on point. It was about the greatest regret of those in the slave labor camps:

What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

Part I The Prison Industry, Ch. 1 “Arrest” (p13, The Gulag Archipelago, Collins 1974)

The forces of the Left right now know that they attack us short of violence in perfect safety. We cannot let them think that that safety will be there when they inevitably turn to violence. Thus, we must strike back overwhelmingly before that line is crossed.

Subotai Bahadur

    There is nothing left to say.

    Professor, lock this thread. Remove all comments save this one.

    You have your answer.

    Doug Wright in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    First off: Hear, hear, Subotai, you stated the issue very well, thank you.

    Secondly, Dr. Susan Hupp also said it well during her testimony before Congress after the 1991 Killeen, Texas, restaurant massacre that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow we the people the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

    Hunting, target shooting, sport shooting, have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, just the right of we the people to defend against tyranny and those who would destroy our Constitution along with the rights it proclaims so very well.

    Thanks. Once again well-reasoned and gut-wrenching analysis from the famed Mongolian warrior/BC commenter. Terrifyingly spot on.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 31, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Sorry to come back, but in case anyone is still visiting this thread, there is news on point.

    The New York Times does not publish anything in relation to domestic politics without the tacit or overt prior approval of the leadership of the Democrats, or the White House; when as now the Democrats hold it.

    That puts this editorial published today in the appropriate context.

    One does not appear on the NYT editorial page without the approval of the editorial board and by extension Valerie Jarrett in the White House.

    For them to solicit and print an editorial recommending that the Constitution be abandoned as the authority for the government of the United States, to be replaced with more “practical” means shows their true intent.

    There is no longer any rational reason to grant the benefit of the doubt to any Democrat as to their goals or intentions for this country. Given that there has not been any evidence of any Democrat standing in opposition to what is now laid out before us for at least a generation; if they do not stand against what is happening, they indict themselves. Their goal is to impose a collectivist, one party, permanent dictatorship over the rest of us.

    As noted in this thread, there is no reason to return civility and restraint for the attacks of the Left. And I, and others, a lot of others, have several times raised our hands to an oath that included the words; “preserve, protect, and defend”.

    The coming year is going to be interesting. And not at all pleasant.

    Subotai Bahadur

      Doug Wright in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | December 31, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      In general, I agree with the premise of your more recent comment! As an enlisted man, I did swear each time to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” as did all other enlisted persons, TTEOMPK, and I do believe the same statement is made in an officer’s oath of office. However, the “preserve, protect, and defend” clause must be an a different oath, perhaps for a political office holder, although I could be in error on that.

      My main point is that the argument made in the NYT opinion piece is just that, an opinion and nothing more. That opinion is little different than that made by others regarding issues relating to our Constitution. As long as our current administration does not verve too much more than it has, our way of governance is secure.

      But yes, your point about the NYT’s relationship with Progressives and Socialists is so very true, with the caveat, so what! Except for the Anne Wintour’s of the world, and her kind, who care little at all for the views of us little people, the NYT no longer rules the media world yet not for lack of trying nor of wanting to. It’s still very much worth the effort to counter what idiocy the NYT expresses simply to keep in practice.

      Mr. Seidman does raise issues that other perhaps more balanced people have done before. One issue that I would encourage be discussed is that our Supreme Court has issued its own versions of reality contrary to either the plain language of the Constitution or to facts on the ground. Recall that per our Constitution, Congress defines what SCOTUS may rule on. That one point by itself is one excellent reason for defending that ancient document first presented back in 1787, even while we otherwise argue how our country should be governed.

      IMHO: It’s way too early for our side to raise the black flag and I still do believe that Obama’s kindly supporters shall raise it first; Feinstein is very close to doing that now, it’s in her blood and she’s ready to do it.

    The forces of the Left right now know that they attack us short of violence in perfect safety. We cannot let them think that that safety will be there when they inevitably turn to violence. Thus, we must strike back overwhelmingly before that line is crossed.

    True. And I think many missed the hidden compassion here.

    Let’s take the hypothetical example of Biff Jockstrap, a very priveleged athlete at a wealthy school. He does subpar schoolwork, yet recieves B’s and A’s. He beats up the unpopular kids, and they get detention while he goes free. With every transgression that is met with token or no punishment, Biff gets more and more confident that he can do whatever he likes without consequence.

    One day, Biff finds himself in Da ‘Hood, mouths off to the wrong guy, and is shot dead. Maybe if Biff had actually gotten some consequences for his antisocial behavior–even in the form of one unpopular kid giving him a set of brass knuckles to the jaw–he might have gained enough common sense to know when not to step over the line, and he might have stayed alive.

    For those who didn’t get it, being brutal in cyberspace today with liberal thugs, may forestall the necessity of being brutal with them on the streets tomorrow. And if it doesn’t, at least they can’t say they weren’t given every possible warning.

No kids. Period.

    Please check with Sarah Palin and G.W. Bush about leaving the children alone and get back to me please. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

    The MSM has spent the last week or so dragging the dead bodies of the Newtown children around the ring in case you missed it.

      rancidpoodle in reply to OldNuc. | December 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm

      O blames his bad behavior on Bush, you’d blame our bad behavior on their unfair attacks on Bush/Palin/some other offense.
      The difference? We are better than they are, so act like it. Leave the kids out of it.

Amusing, but I just as soon stay out of that game.
If something bad happened at a Journalist Residence, the finger of blame has already been pointed.
And now it would be very easy to take advantage of and turn about.

If this is truly all information gleaned from public sources. Publish it. Some of this info I have discovered/verified on my own and tweeted it.

    The newspaper should not have been given the list of gun owners in the first place, as doing so was a violation of New York State law as amended in February 2012: “AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to pistol permit privacy.” It’s a short piece written in surprisingly clear language, and you can read it at:
    [Note that the wording in brackets indicates old law that is now omitted.]

    Two key points:
    First, these records are NOT public records any longer (note the brackets), but are deemed confidential:
    “The name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be [a public record] CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION.

    Second, this confidential information CANNOT legally be released to anyone except law enforcement:
    “A request for the entire list of licensees, or for all licensees in a geographic area, shall be denied, except to any law enforcement agency or any entity acting on behalf of or providing services to any law enforcement agency.”

    Therefore, the newspaper received this information in violation of state law. Surely their publication of illegally obtained records is NOT fair game, as Prof Jacobson wonders in the title of this post. Someone should be charged and punished for the commission of this crime – perhaps the county clerk for releasing the information or perhaps the newspaper for receiving and disseminating it. Like that will ever happen.

    This episode is not a matter of manners or freedom of the press, it is about a violation of penal law. I believe the actual illegality that underlies the release of confidential information about private citizens who are not suspected of any crime should be the focus of the public debate. Please share this information and the links as widely as possible. We need to demand an investigation and prosecution for this violation of the law.

    I found the link to this copy of the law at:

theduchessofkitty | December 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm

This has to be the “Golden Rule”… on hyper-drive.

“So, you did this to me. Is that the way you wanna be treated? Fine. Here we go!”

And if they complain, just say, “Did you see what YOU made us do?”

There’s one interesting thing that the Left don’t seem to get. Alinsky said, “Let the enemy live by their own book of rules.”

Problem is, The Golden Rule is a two-way street. Hillel said, “What is harmful to you, you shall not do to thy neighbor. That is the whole Torah.” Jesus said it almost verbatim.

But if the neighbor does something harmful to you and enjoys it wholeheartedly, that implies he WANTS to be treated the same way he has treated you! Isn’t that wonderful?

Dish it out and have fun, Marxists, but let’s see what happens when you can’t take it…!

The purpose of the list was the desire for gun confiscation by government. Governor Cuomo mentioned it as a possibility. So, they are pretty much saying, Yes, you can start here – see the Google mapping.

People who have no problem with the government confiscating private property of fellow citizens have no idea what kind of society they are aiming for. Their latter day lamentations, when their turn comes, will be useless.

Sometimes you must fight the enemy on their own turf.

All this talk about honor and integrity and taking the high road… In truth, Patton had it right. Americans love to fight. Americans play to win and to conquer, we must destroy our enemies. This isn’t a shooting war, it’s an ideological war but you fight both in much the same way. We have two choices: Fight or submit. There is no middle ground and if you’re going to fight, you fight to win.

Gasp! BORK these people???

It’s about time!

Has anyone who lives near Sag Harbor considered showing up to protest outside Ms. Magner’s house like the left did with the bankers a while back??

BannedbytheGuardian | December 30, 2012 at 10:38 pm

I don’t see this going anywhere. Unfortunately the only thing that works to take out such people is assassination .

And that is not legal.

I don’t see any reason not to publish such information about a figure who is prominent in the media, so long as it is publicly available and the source reasonably believes it to be true, or at last is not acting maliciously. Sullivan standards should apply both ways.

Do any commenters here know what NY state law says about “open carry”? Would it be legally possible for NY gun owners to publicly demonstrate open carry on a specific date/time or at a planned location/event? I’m thinking that would drive quite a few blooming idiots even more bonkers than normal.

You should have published the redacted information.
I would have.

[…] In protest, bloggers posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of Journal News editors and staff. Also circulating was the personal and family contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett. […]