Watch Sean Hannity on Fox Tonight
- Thread starter JSM&P9C
- Start date
schadenfreude
New member
The decision by the newspaper to "out" law-abiding gun-owners is proof that the lame-stream media is at war with us. Printing the names of those law-abiding folks was a tactic that was clearly intended to intimidate them and served no other conceivable purpose. Just because the newspaper had the right to do it, didn't mean that it was a good idea to do it.
.
Happily, it appears that there is some backlash for what they did- seems an adjacent county is refusing to honor the newspaper's request because it will unnecessarily endanger gun owners and non-gun-owners alike. Nice to see some common sense being used.
.
Happily, it appears that there is some backlash for what they did- seems an adjacent county is refusing to honor the newspaper's request because it will unnecessarily endanger gun owners and non-gun-owners alike. Nice to see some common sense being used.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Hannity grates on me too, but I agree that this episode was tolerable to watch.
Perhaps the most troubling thing to me was at the very end. The last audience-member to speak, a gray-haired probably 60-something gentleman who said earlier in the show that he held an office, but I don't recall if it was a state or local office, but anyway, he said that this year New Yorkers will get protection from stunts like the Journal pulled with publishing their names/addresses, but the problem is, it will come in a package, and the rest of the package is going to screw gun owners. He said it could include bans, confiscations, mag capacity restrictions, registration, anything and everything, and the way they'll get it passed is by making it seem like it's a privacy-protection bill, not a gun control bill. I said to my wife that he probably knew what he was talking about, because he knows how NY politics works behind the scenes.
I was a little bugged by one other guy that spoke too. It was during the segment when the leftist from Jersey was on, and Sean called on this big, burly guy, who was very well-spoken, and had his facts roll right off his tongue as though he knew them inside and out, but as he started talking he was giving his long and impressive history in law enforcement. When he wrapped that up, he went into some NY State code that protects any (his emphasis, not mine) law enforcement personnel, current or retired, local, state, or federal, from NY or not, from having their names and addresses given out. He said they can be included in any list that a City or County Clerk might need to compile, but that they must be redacted before distribution. He was saying this in response to the Jersey leftist's claim that the Journal had full authority to do what they did via the 1st Amendment, which is so much bunk I wanted to jump through the screen and .....well, nevermind......
Anyway, what bugged me about the big burly ex-cop's "testimony" was that what he was describing was special privacy treatment for cops. He was so matter-of-fact about it that it struck me as completely elitist, as he was sitting among at least some people who had no connection to law enforcement and whose privacy has unquestionably been violated with little or no recourse. I guess it's not a huge deal, but it bugged me nonetheless.
I was surprised to see Deneen Borelli sitting there with her ol' man in the front row. I guess I knew she lives in NY, but it didn't occur to me that she would be directly involved in this thing. I met her a few times at Tea Party events, the most significant of which was the huge protest against ObamaCare in DC the day that Stupak reneged on his commitment to not vote for the bill and it passed with his traitorous vote.
Anyway, decent show. I regret that they had to have that happen to them, but I'm glad that so many New Yorkers are apparently indignant about the publishing of names/addresses. It seems the indignation is about unanimous among those who were "outed," and many on the show were saying that even their non-gun-owning and/or leftist friends were indignant as well. It's a start.
Blues
Blues
Perhaps the most troubling thing to me was at the very end. The last audience-member to speak, a gray-haired probably 60-something gentleman who said earlier in the show that he held an office, but I don't recall if it was a state or local office, but anyway, he said that this year New Yorkers will get protection from stunts like the Journal pulled with publishing their names/addresses, but the problem is, it will come in a package, and the rest of the package is going to screw gun owners. He said it could include bans, confiscations, mag capacity restrictions, registration, anything and everything, and the way they'll get it passed is by making it seem like it's a privacy-protection bill, not a gun control bill. I said to my wife that he probably knew what he was talking about, because he knows how NY politics works behind the scenes.
I was a little bugged by one other guy that spoke too. It was during the segment when the leftist from Jersey was on, and Sean called on this big, burly guy, who was very well-spoken, and had his facts roll right off his tongue as though he knew them inside and out, but as he started talking he was giving his long and impressive history in law enforcement. When he wrapped that up, he went into some NY State code that protects any (his emphasis, not mine) law enforcement personnel, current or retired, local, state, or federal, from NY or not, from having their names and addresses given out. He said they can be included in any list that a City or County Clerk might need to compile, but that they must be redacted before distribution. He was saying this in response to the Jersey leftist's claim that the Journal had full authority to do what they did via the 1st Amendment, which is so much bunk I wanted to jump through the screen and .....well, nevermind......
Anyway, what bugged me about the big burly ex-cop's "testimony" was that what he was describing was special privacy treatment for cops. He was so matter-of-fact about it that it struck me as completely elitist, as he was sitting among at least some people who had no connection to law enforcement and whose privacy has unquestionably been violated with little or no recourse. I guess it's not a huge deal, but it bugged me nonetheless.
I was surprised to see Deneen Borelli sitting there with her ol' man in the front row. I guess I knew she lives in NY, but it didn't occur to me that she would be directly involved in this thing. I met her a few times at Tea Party events, the most significant of which was the huge protest against ObamaCare in DC the day that Stupak reneged on his commitment to not vote for the bill and it passed with his traitorous vote.
Anyway, decent show. I regret that they had to have that happen to them, but I'm glad that so many New Yorkers are apparently indignant about the publishing of names/addresses. It seems the indignation is about unanimous among those who were "outed," and many on the show were saying that even their non-gun-owning and/or leftist friends were indignant as well. It's a start.
Blues
Blues
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.
