Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

#52 Feb 21 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can't seriously be suggesting it was just benign journalism.
You can't seriously suggest it was journalism at all, can you? I wouldn't even go as far as call it that. I'd call it capitalizing on an event to buff sales numbers. People have been using emotions to get attention since cave drawings. It works especially well on stupid people, as you've so graciously proven. It's really scary if you can't think for yourself and just follow whatever the media tells you to follow. Really, your assertion that people with guns will be intimidated for ownership is about as likely as the government sending out cake to everyone with five or more rifles. Cupcakes for pistols, of course. Smaller for smaller. Realistically however, we know neither will happen (though I'd love to get cake). It'd simply cost too much in lives, PR, and most importantly money. Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Feb 21 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Unless you had every local phone book in the nation, it would be quite difficult to get a person's number without using the Internet. With the increased usage of cell phones, people tend not to change their numbers as they move. So, the Internet makes it a lot easier to track someone today than it would using the phone books in the past.


Only if they've published that information on the net though. Back in the days before cell phones, your phone was hooked up by the phone company in your home. The phone company published a list of all those who owned phones and their associated home addresses in their phone book. Meaning a phone number was directly tied to a home address. They could not be moved. A cell phone has no innate connection to any physical location (or even to a name). You can easily keep your cell phone number off any sort of publicly accessible list if you want. And if you're really concerned, you can always buy a cheap phone for cash over the counter about anywhere and use prepaid cards to use it. No way to connect that phone to the user at all, much less to an address.

The only equivalent back in the day was to use a pay phone. But you can't carry a pay phone around with you. It's much harder to find someone's address and phone number today than it was back then. And yes, I'm aware that such books were local. But presumably you're most likely looking people up in your own city, not some random person somewhere else in the country.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 21 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
If anything, us non-gun owners should be the ones worried about it. If our names don't pop up on the list, 6 armed men will break in to kill my wife and rape my dog since I won't be able to stop them.
#55 Feb 21 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
What kinda dog you got? Smiley: sly
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Feb 21 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Oops, missed your other post. I'll respond to that later

Gbaji wrote:
Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.


Do you feel the same way about a list of people who have rottweilers, pit bulls,etc. in neighborhoods?

Edited, Feb 22nd 2013 3:57am by Almalieque
#57 Feb 21 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can't seriously be suggesting it was just benign journalism.
You can't seriously suggest it was journalism at all, can you? I wouldn't even go as far as call it that. I'd call it capitalizing on an event to buff sales numbers.


That's pretty naive. I'd go so far as to say that the thought process went something like this: "OMG! That shooting was a tragedy. People who own guns are bad! I know! Let's publish a list of all the people who own guns so everyone will know who the bad people are who, via their stubborn insistence on this silly 'right to keep and bear arms' are responsible for all those kids dying". We've had what? Three different threads about gun control since the Newtown shooting, with the subject of volume of ownership being a relatively central point of contention, and you're honestly going to claim that the publishing of the map was just bad journalism intended to boost sales? It's just a coincidence that such a thing directly ties into the "more guns equals more gun deaths" argument I guess.

Quote:
People have been using emotions to get attention since cave drawings. It works especially well on stupid people, as you've so graciously proven.


So "OMG! Look at all these people who own guns. We need to do something about that pronto!" isn't the stupid person reaction they were going for. Strange.

Quote:
It's really scary if you can't think for yourself and just follow whatever the media tells you to follow.


Which is really funny given that the scary thing is on the other side of the issue. The primary point of the map was to scare people who are easily scared by guns into being more scared about guns, so they'll join in supporting more restrictive gun control measures. The secondary point of the map was to tell people who own guns the modern of equivalent of "we know where you live" so you'd better keep your head down and stay silent while all those folks we've riled up push for more gun control. But you thought it was about sales? Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Feb 21 2013 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
xantav wrote:
If anything, us non-gun owners should be the ones worried about it. If our names don't pop up on the list, 6 armed men will break in to kill my wife and rape my dog since I won't be able to stop them.


Yes. That's also part of the reason why publishing this information is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting it's stupidity is limited to just those things I've mentioned before.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Feb 21 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.


Do you feel the same way about a list of people who have rottweilers, pit bulls,etc. in neighborhoods?


Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Feb 21 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Three different threads about gun control since the Newtown shooting, with the subject of volume of ownership being a relatively central point of contention, and you're honestly going to claim that the publishing of the map was just bad journalism intended to boost sales?
Really? There's suddenly more news about a topic and you're going to pretend that a newspaper isn't going to capitalize on it to bolster sagging sales figures? Really? And you were going on endlessly about how a businessman was great for the country and you don't even understand that? And you say I'm the naive one? That is so beyond hilarious that I don't even need the next comment. No no no, you're probably right. They were just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and really really felt strongly about it. You've got much more faith in journalism than I have, that's for certain. Smiley: laugh
gbaji wrote:
Which is really funny given that the scary thing is on the other side of the issue.
Nah, the real funny thing is that you're going to argue that there is a scary side at all. But that's to be expected of a person who has never held a gun in their hands and just press on. But, you know. I guess if you don't think about it, it totally could maybe conceivably possibly not impossibly peradventure perchance happen. Or, you know. The cake slash cupcake thing. That's equally possible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Feb 21 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Fear is what drives the gun control agenda. Fear of the guns. Fear of the people who own them. Fear that they or their children will be shot in school, or in a mall, or wherever else. Fear. Fear. Fear. The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear. That's why they need a shooting like Newtown to push the agenda forward. If it was rational, they'd be passing gun control all the time.

You fail to grasp this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Feb 21 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear.
Coincidentally, your argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon irrational fear. The difference is that you're the only one falling for either of 'em.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Feb 21 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear.
Coincidentally, your argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon irrational fear.


No. My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein. Among a list of rational points I've made, my argument *also* includes pointing out how irrational fear of guns and gun owners is being used by those pushing for gun control, with the publishing of said map being one example.

Which is why it's ironic that when I point this out, your response is to basically project the fear of the anti-gun position onto me. I'm not afraid, I'm pointing out how knee-jerk reactions can result in an infringement of rights and saying "don't do this cause it's dumb".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Feb 21 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Only if they've published that information on the net though. Back in the days before cell phones, your phone was hooked up by the phone company in your home. The phone company published a list of all those who owned phones and their associated home addresses in their phone book. Meaning a phone number was directly tied to a home address. They could not be moved. A cell phone has no innate connection to any physical location (or even to a name). You can easily keep your cell phone number off any sort of publicly accessible list if you want. And if you're really concerned, you can always buy a cheap phone for cash over the counter about anywhere and use prepaid cards to use it. No way to connect that phone to the user at all, much less to an address.

The only equivalent back in the day was to use a pay phone. But you can't carry a pay phone around with you. It's much harder to find someone's address and phone number today than it was back then. And yes, I'm aware that such books were local. But presumably you're most likely looking people up in your own city, not some random person somewhere else in the country.


The fact that a cellphone is not directly tied to a location supports the fact that it was HARDER to track someone down using a phone book vs the Internet. A person with an L.A. phone number could be visiting or living in N.Y. That person wouldn't appear in the local phone book. Even in that case, the person doesn't have to be "some random person somewhere else in the country", but someone living 30 mins away. Your local phone books is just that, local.

The overall privacy concern isn't with your close friends and family, but indeed that "stranger", acquaintance or someone you abominate. Unless you live in Pleasantville, people grow up and move out of the nest, whether for school, work or personal reasons. Today's Internet allows a person to track you down much more conveniently and accurately than a phone book decades ago.


Gbaji wrote:
Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.


I didn't think you would. People have "beware of dog" signs and it's so common now that if it were made into law, I'm sure the out lash wouldn't be on the same scale. Yet, the concept is the same.
#65 Feb 21 2013 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein.
See, if it were based on the second amendment you'd know that you really don't have the right to privacy in your gun ownership. Go ahead, in the thirty words of that amendment show me where it says anything about privacy. Can't do it, can you? It's not there. In fact, the whole right to total privacy thing is kind of an urban myth. My knowing my neighbor has a gun doesn't infringe on his life, liberty, property, speech, religion, and it isn't illegal search and seizure. But you go back to whatever channel you're watching and let it tell you what you should believe. That's your right.
gbaji wrote:
I'm pointing out how knee-jerk reactions can result in an infringement of rights and saying "don't do this cause it's dumb".
You're using a knee-jerk hypothetical on a possible (and I use that term as loosely as possible) scenario to induce fear in hopes to sway people to your political stance. "Oh my gawd they gonna be scurry to gun ownahs, mercy mercy!"

I called it disappointing in my first post because it's so transparent that it's ... well, it's just sad. I'm sad for you. Keep telling us how "Gubment gonna take yer guns!" is a rational assessment and not one based entirely on emotional manipulation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Feb 21 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I see "enumerated" was on Gbaji's word of the day calendar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Feb 21 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fear is what drives the gun control agenda. Fear of the guns. Fear of the people who own them. Fear that they or their children will be shot in school, or in a mall, or wherever else. Fear. Fear. Fear. The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear. That's why they need a shooting like Newtown to push the agenda forward. If it was rational, they'd be passing gun control all the time.

You fail to grasp this?

Fear is also what drives the pro-gun agenda. Own a gun or you will be robbed. Own a gun or the government is going to get you. The terrorists will win if you don't own at least one gun to put in every room of your house. Both sides use fear mongering to push an agenda and it feels like a majority of america falls for it.
#68 Feb 21 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I see "enumerated" was on Gbaji's word of the day calendar.
Mine had peradventure. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Feb 22 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Mine had peradventure. Smiley: frown

That does not mean at all what I thought it would.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#70 Feb 22 2013 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Fear is also what drives the pro-gun agenda. Own a gun or you will be robbed. Own a gun or the government is going to get you. The terrorists will win if you don't own at least one gun to put in every room of your house. Both sides use fear mongering to push an agenda and it feels like a majority of america falls for it.


Sort of. There are hundreds of studies in Political Science, Neurology, Psychology, etc, that shot that being easily frightened STRONGLY correlates with GOP party identification. So, it may be that the "two sides" are both using fear, but it's pretty clear that it's BY FAR the most effective technique for one particular side. The same holds true for egalitarian appeals to fairness (even when transparently false) being BY FAR the most effective technique to move Democratic Party ID opinion.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Feb 22 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
LolGaxe wrote:
You're using a knee-jerk hypothetical on a possible (and I use that term as loosely as possible) scenario to induce fear in hopes to sway people to your political stance. "Oh my gawd they gonna be scurry to gun ownahs, mercy mercy!"


Which goes along with my "Beware of Dog" scenario. Knowing who has a firearm can just as equally protect citizens from thefts, assaults, etc. as it would "demonize" them. Don't get me wrong, I think the "happy medium" that I presented earlier is a much better solution than publishing gun owners, but the reasoning used against the publication is flawed.
#72 Feb 25 2013 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The fact that a cellphone is not directly tied to a location supports the fact that it was HARDER to track someone down using a phone book vs the Internet.


Unless "tracking someone down" involves locating them physically, of course. Let's not forget that this whole sub thread evolved out of a question about publishing people's addresses.

Quote:
A person with an L.A. phone number could be visiting or living in N.Y. That person wouldn't appear in the local phone book.


And? How does this at all relate to the subject at hand? If I'm visiting NY, and have my cell phone on me, barring some police agency triangulating my position via cell towers, there's no way to know that I'm calling from NY and not somewhere else. You see how this makes it harder to track people down, not easier? In both cases, I could travel somewhere else and leave my phone behind. But in the case of a cell phone, I could be calling you from my number on my phone, but you have no freaking clue where I am. If I call you from my land line, you know I'm in my home.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.


I didn't think you would. People have "beware of dog" signs and it's so common now that if it were made into law, I'm sure the out lash wouldn't be on the same scale. Yet, the concept is the same.


There would be a huge outlash if dog owners were required to put a "beware of dog" sign in front of their homes. There's a massive difference between being free to do something if you want, and being required to do so by the government. It's kinda the cornerstone of a free society.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Feb 25 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein.
See, if it were based on the second amendment you'd know that you really don't have the right to privacy in your gun ownership.


You have exactly as much privacy with regard to gun ownership as you do with regard to any other form of ownership. I've made this point several times now, but you've chosen to ignore it.

Quote:
Go ahead, in the thirty words of that amendment show me where it says anything about privacy. Can't do it, can you? It's not there.


Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you? Broad principles of privacy as they apply to our lives exist primarily in the fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments, but apply to other rights. The reason for those other amendments is because of a recognition that the inability to engage in otherwise lawful behavior in private will tend to infringe on the right of the individual to engage in such behavior.

Quote:
In fact, the whole right to total privacy thing is kind of an urban myth. My knowing my neighbor has a gun doesn't infringe on his life, liberty, property, speech, religion, and it isn't illegal search and seizure.


If the government habitually tracks certain types of behavior and publishes it, the very selection of what behaviors are tracked will act as a deterrent to the behavior and thus an infringement of the right to engage in it. This is a fairly well established aspect of our rights, backed up by numerous court cases. Making an exception for gun ownership would be extremely odd, to say the least, given that it's an enumerated right, while other firmly protected rights in landmark cases (like sexual activity, contraceptive use, medical procedures, etc) are not. You have no more "right" to have your government tell you whether your neighbor owns guns than you do for you government to tell you whether they are ***, have a subscription to Playboy, have had breast implants, or own a copy of the Catcher in the Rye.


If you think otherwise, then why?

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Feb 25 2013 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me. Just because you have a weak argument doesn't mean I'm going to strengthen it for you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Feb 25 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me.


So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information? It can publish your medical records? It can publish subscription lists? If you're ok with this then your argument is at least consistent (and you're arguing that there's no right to privacy), but I think that most people will disagree with you.

Quote:
Just because you have a weak argument doesn't mean I'm going to strengthen it for you.


Well over a century of supreme court rulings say my argument isn't weak at all.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Feb 25 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,366 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me.


So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information? It can publish your medical records? It can publish subscription lists? If you're ok with this then your argument is at least consistent, but I think that most people will disagree with you.

Just tell the little people it protects them from the terrorists and it'll be fine. Smiley: tinfoilhat


Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:54pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)