Comments for: New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar

Posted Dec. 29, 2012, at 8:14 a.m.
Last modified Dec. 29, 2012, at 10:59 a.m.

NEW YORK — A suburban New York newspaper that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting locals. Further names and addresses will be added as they become available to a map …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    If i were a non gun owner in that county i would be POed……they just gave the green light to criminals on what houses to avoid.

    • Anonymous

      They have no concern for anyone’s safety. When a gun owner or a non gun owner is burglarized, shot or murdered, that is more news. More news equals job security. Their only interest is in making news.

      • Anonymous

        Why shouldn’t holders of pistol permits be known to the public? This is not branding those gun owners with a “scarlet letter”, unless they are somehow ashamed to be known as a gun owner. The point is this; permits are issued by the government and as such should be public knowledge. Nuff said!

        • Anonymous

          …. I don’t even know where to begin with this, and I really doubt that its even worth the keystrokes to attempt to explain privacy rights to you.

          • Anonymous

            There are also right to know rights. Should I explain them to you?

          • Anonymous

            While you anonymously work against the 2nd Amendment. Do I have a right to know who you are?

          • Anonymous

            Oh, no. I fully support the 2nd amendment as it was written…. for a well regulated militia. It has been interpreted since then to mean something else.

          • FrankC

            And when it was written, who were the militia? Anyone who was a law biding citizen… and probably a few who weren’t but would fight for their country.

          • Jonathan Smith

            Explain it within the context of the Constitution. Liberals scream about free speech and privacy except when it is their political rivals. Two faced much?

          • Anonymous

            Huh?

          • Anonymous

            Sure I can explain it: As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is only within the context of a well regulated militia that that right exists. Subsequent ‘interpretations’ by various Supreme Courts have ‘liberalized’ the original purpose of the amendment.

          • Jack Torrence

            what about if i wanted to know which neighbors of mine actually committed a felony? or were gay? or had been in a mental institute? don’t think that’d happen anytime soon

          • Anonymous

            Felonies are already reported every week in the paper. So you do know who is dangerous to be around if you wish to know. If they are not dangerous why would you want to know? Is this not about being able to protect yourself from those with lethal weapons?

          • FrankC

            Criminals now know where to go to steal guns, and now know where to go to rob houses because there’s no guns.

          • Anonymous

            Nah, I think they will target the home with guns. How many times has your house been burglarized? How many times have you been threatened by someone wielding a gun? Most often the people hurt actually know the perp. The odds are greater that I will not be a victim than be a victim. 8 to 100,000 according to the DOJ.

          • FrankC

            Just once – to both questions.

          • Jack Torrence

            he’s probably a lib

        • Anonymous

          What about victims of domestic violence? Their information is posted, pro or con, with little thought bout their consequences. Nuff said!

          • Anonymous

            This isn’t about domestic violence it is about gun permit holders. I’d buy into a comparison between having a drivers license and a gun permit.

            As concerns domestic violence, perhaps the perpetrator would be less likely to assault the victim if they knew the victim was armed. Heaven knows restraining orders don’t work!

          • Anonymous

            The info could be used for narfarious reasons, like a domestic violence victim’s house NOT having a CCW.

          • Anonymous

            why doesn’t the victim just arm themselves and stop being a victim?

          • Anonymous

            Just watched a show called stalked, and she got a gun, when he pulled up on the street she walked out with it so he could see it, he went away.

          • Anonymous

            The issue of domestic violence is not part of this discussion however I do agree with you if you are suggesting that our court system does not handle these cases well at all. Domestic violence, like gun ownership, has become a cultural problem that needs to be discussed and ultimately after a consensus has been reached America needs to act. Domestic as well as gun violence is further exacerbated by the mental health issues involved. Go back to BDN front page and read the story on LePage cutting back on mental healthcare resources again! LePage is of the opinion that if there isn’t any blood there is no problem. Once again he is mistaken.

        • Anonymous

          But the government and police should be the only ones to know this information. One circumstance could be now criminals no if they need to get there hands on a gun, they can break into these peoples homes since more then likely they will have more guns there. These people have done nothing wrong. What they should have done is have a registry for ex murderers etc so these people would have known what a nut bag they had living next to them.

          • Anonymous

            Come on!!!!! No one, or rarely, does someone break into a home when they already know the owner is armed. That would be suicidal. It is the other people who should worry.

          • Anonymous

            Really? Umm this list is only for people with ccw permits. Others people’s houses aren’t going to be broken into because there not listed, think about it many more people have guns in new york then have ccw permits, they are almost impossible to come by in new york. But if a criminal needs a gun they no they can wait till these people are at work and break in and take there guns. I don’t think you no how brazen criminals are. If you think this rarely happens you would be wrong.

        • Anonymous

          It was perfectly legal for a wolf hunt in Idaho but when they ran that hunt someone got the list of hunters that tagged out and some got threatened, harassed, and their personal information was put out there. When there are hot button issues and people donate to one side or the other there is a record of their donation to a campaign for example marriage rights, would it be ok to obtain that knowledge and list the people. Just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should. A better approach for them would of been to get a total number and make some sort of correlation or average for an area and leave everyone anonymous.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, not only do I think it is OK to publish the list of those who contributed money to subvert our Constitutional right to equality, I believe the media has been remiss in not doing so.

          • Anonymous

            Even at the possibility that with a list of names that people will face threats, harassment, ridicule. I don’t think names from either side of something like that should be published. In a perfect world you’d never have to worry about that, but people are not always nice. Just because you have the ability to get lists of names for things does not mean it is ethical to post things like that. There are further reaching consequences. Yes it is public record, but what you do with that information or anything that comes from it is on those that put it out there.

        • Jonathan Smith

          Right – then your street address and personal phone number should be publically published with your DMV motor vehicle registration since many use vehicles to commit homicide with.

          • Anonymous

            FYI – numerous states already SELL the complete contents of your driver’s license records. Given that, I see no problem with posting them publicly. (google: Florida sells driver’s licenses $62m)

          • Anonymous

            These guys don’t want to admit or understand that fact.

          • Anonymous

            People commit homicide with their vehicles? People have accidents and sometimes the innocent are indeed killed but one rarely hears of vehicles being deliberately used as a weapon. Nor, unlike guns, are they designed to kill. Yes, sometimes drunks kill while driving under the influence but their names and addresses usually are published. So what is your point? As for the phone number, mine is unlisted and thus not publicly available. I pay for my phone service, same as you, yet it is not considered a Right to have a phone in America so that example is a bad one.

          • Anonymous

            well, no, hold on there. I OFTEN hear of someone drinking and driving, and getting in an accident and killing someone with their vehicle. THAT IS a deliberate act.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with you on that one, completely. Drunk driving is no accident. It may be indicative of a mental health issue but it is no accident. I thought I said as much in my comment above.

        • Anonymous

          Welfare is issued by the government, should we publish the names and addresses of those who are on the dole, as well as how much they are hauling in each month?
          your ‘public knowledge’ argument is a complete joke

          • Anonymous

            That information IS public knowledge and if someone was interested they could request it. Want to know who is receiving public monies, submit a freedom if information request. As you know full well which public list gets published and which list does not depends upon the interest society shows in a particular subject. Right now that it gun ownership. That said, I’d urge you not to be ashamed of your opinion. If you have a concealed weapons permit be proud and announce it to the world. Tell us how many guns you have and which kind. It would be interesting to see if this starts a trend. Personally I am not against gun ownership however I do not own one. Were I to be raising livestock I certainly would as the coyotes are pretty numerous around here. Meanwhile I have no need to carry concealed nor do I even feel I need to defend the homestead from all those drug crazed thieves you 2nd amendment guys prattle on about. Oh, and I don’t expect a foreign country to overrun the US anytime soon either. Assuming anyone is left alive after the nuclear holocaust that would precede such a situation.

          • FrankC

            Please publish your name & address so we can see how that works, now that some druggie can be sure that you have no gun.

          • Anonymous

            Jack, I agree with you 100%. Another example is what people pay for real estate, and how much and from whom they borrowed the money to buy that property. This is all public information and available to people that want or need to know, but it isn’t something that is published along side the police log in newspapers on a regular basis. The point is, does making the general public aware of this information via a mass media outlet benefit them in any way?

        • Anonymous

          The information is public knowledge and available to those who care to look it up. Other than to cause trouble in one way or another, what is the purpose of publishing it?

          • Anonymous

            As concerns gun ownership, I believe it is called the courage of your convictions.

        • Anonymous

          I have numerous firearms in my home, a number of which are collectables. The flip side to the publication is that criminals now know where to target burglaries if they want firearms. This would be the same, as far as I am concerned, as publishing a list of people who purchased items at a jewelry store or electronics outlet. Gives criminals a head start on their shopping list without having to do more than read the newspaper.

        • Anonymous

          Superb logic.
          I would like to know the names of all people with

          registered pitbull dogs.
          Public safety being foremost since the tragic outburst from
          the mentally unhinged young man in Conn.
          And also the names of violent juveniles in our midst.
          We cant take anymore chances.

      • Jonathan Smith

        It’s modern journalism – reporting without ethics or morals. And the BDN will jump on the bandwagon to sell more papers.

        • Anonymous

          The BDN is a newspaper. It reports news. It is not endorsing anything by this article.

    • Anonymous

      Actually thieves would be more interested in the guns than the neighbor’s tv.

      • Anonymous

        If they are being carried, then the guns won’t be there unless the armed permit holder is home.

        • Anonymous

          So then if you have jewelry it will not be in your home unless you are there also, because you always wear all the jewelry you own?

          • Anonymous

            Let me rephrase. If they go to the home of an permit holder, there will be a threat of being shot. If they go when no one’s home, there may be no loot.

        • Anonymous

          How many guns can you carry? My bet is someone who feels the need for a gun owns more than one.

  • Anonymous

    Government media strikes blow for glorious socialist state.
    What wonderous blow to evil freedom loving capitalist pigs in struggle to disarm and bring them under protection of all knowing state.
    The future is being written as we speak komrades.

    • Anonymous

      It is about the right to know who has killing machines in their homes or on their person.

      • Anonymous

        Killing machines. Now those are loaded words right there. So that doctor left a killing machine in the rest room? These people on the map have killing machines in their homes? Bizarre choice of words KM

      • Jonathan Smith

        Do you drive? You have a killing machine – it’s called a car. Stop the rhetoric liberal psychobabble about “killing machines”

        • Anonymous

          Nothing liberal about it.

  • Anonymous

    The NRA says that guns protect. So it follows that people who are known to carry a gun should feel safer.

    • Anonymous

      But something like this could also make someone a target of theft, it’s a map and all a criminal has to do is pick a spot that is out o the way and wait till they leave cause odds are they might not be a CCW just a guy with a permit to own a pistol which is stashed in the house. It may have been information that anyone could get but how many people are honestly going to take the steps to obtain it, and if you obviously didn’t have a reason to get it, that would make some red flags. Not only that but doing something like this is likely to cause people to circumvent the permitting process so they won’t get put on the map, it kind of creates a situation that makes people not want to follow the law. The majority probably wouldn’t do it but there are likely plenty that would.

      • Anonymous

        Hopefully it will be an impetus for many gun owners to take their guns to the local police station and turn them in.

        • Anonymous

          If they are illegal owners or have no business owning them, than yeah absolutely. But if they are a legal, responsible individual than they should feel no pressure or obligation to turn them in.

          • Anonymous

            So aren’t those really the BIG questions here? Who has a “business” owning a gun? Who and what is “responsible”? I say it above and I’ll say it again. I am not against gun ownership however there needs to be a national dialogue regarding those questions and how we will deal with the answers.

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely there should be dialogue, but any action that gets taken shouldn’t keep anyone from legally owning a firearm, nor make it cost prohibitive to own one. Though from what I’ve heard the market is doing that on it’s own at the moment.

          • Anonymous

            Shouldn’t keep “anyone” from owning a gun?

          • Anonymous

            illegal owner will not be on the list, because they did not fill out the paperwork to get the gun.

        • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

          When pigs fly.

        • Anonymous

          Ridiculous.

        • Anonymous

          What dream world are you in, you think you can shame a gun owner, please, get a dam clue.

    • Anonymous

      First off, guns don’t protect. Guns are no different than a car or a sledge hammer. In the right hands, they are useful tools. In the wrong hands, you have death and destruction. People who own, and know how to properly use guns, are safer than those who don’t.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not antigun but it is ridiculous to say that guns are “like a car or sledge hammer”. Guns are designed to kill whereas cars and hammers are not. Yes these tools, cars and sledge hammers, can kill but only guns are designed for that function. Come on!

        • Anonymous

          More intellectual dishonesty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

        • Anonymous

          So where did you get that information? oh ya the internet because everything on the internet is true.

          • Anonymous

            hahahahaha he’s the ‘french model’ lol!

        • Anonymous

          In the wrong hands a car can kill more people than a gun with a high capacity magazine. Also you have missed my point. A gun laying on a table can not hurt anyone.

    • Anonymous

      But I do not feel safer. In fact I have taken to asking whenever I enter a building whether I can be assured that no one in the building has a gun. It is a rhetorical question, but one I am asking to make a point.

      • Anonymous

        Have you talked to a counselor about this? I hear there’s a free counseling session every time someone gets upset these days. They tell you on tv, be watching for the next one. Bob Carlson used to “be there” for the troubled in case of an upsetting situation where normal people just couldn’t cope.

        • FrankC

          That’s right – He was… good one

      • Anonymous

        You can ask everybody in that building, do you think the individual who is intent on committing a crime in that building will answer you honestly? Schools are a no gun zone and that did not stop the deranged, homicidal, maniac, who stole the weapons he used from going on his cowardly rampage. However, an armed, legal, citizen exercising their rights may have stopped that tragic assault a lot sooner.

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        So, short of all patrons and employees being frisked personally by you, you will never know who in the building has a gun, regardless of the answer you’re given by management.

        • Anonymous

          When they start fishing around in kayakmomma’s underpants, she may feel differently about her fear issues.

      • FrankC

        better not go to Utah!

        http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16206006-utah-teachers-get-free-gun-training-in-response-to-newtown-shooting

        Utah teachers get free gun training in response to Newtown shooting

        • Anonymous

          Texas teachers already carry

      • Anonymous

        U need to be medicated

  • Anonymous

    Nosey busy bodies love this stuff.

    • Anonymous

      You shouldn’t refer to the Obama administration as “nosey busy bodies”

      • Anonymous

        So sorry, I wont let it happen again…LOL

      • Anonymous

        Dcuhabeg comment.

      • Anonymous

        Y not, calling it like it is I say.

    • Anonymous

      If you have a right to have a gun, I have a right to know.

      • Anonymous

        No you have a right to access the public record and get that information if you so wish. That may be arguing semantics but, that is exactly what it is, you don’t have the right to know until the government says you do. Which is why we can find out what foods contain what, and what chemicals are harmful that we can be exposed to. Before someone said we had a right to know we didn’t know, but you could find that information on your own.

      • Anonymous

        No you dont, you may think so, but nope..

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        No you don’t.

      • Jonathan Smith

        Absolutely not – it’s none of your business. Maybe in Europe but not in America

      • Anonymous

        No you dont. You have a right to know NOTHING about me, or anyone else. You ONLY have the right to know what I wish for you to know, anything else is an invasion of privacy, and yes, things may be on public lists but I oppose that also. People and agencies have gone too far for far too long… and it is a serious issue that causes serious problems. I have nothing to hide, have never been in trouble, I got a speeding ticket once about 20 years ago…. but you are wrong if you think you have a right to know anything else about me. I believe they used to call people who thought it was their right to know everything about everyone busybodies and gossipers….

      • Anonymous

        Who and what gives you the right to know? You do not have the right to know how where and what I spend my earned money on.

  • Anonymous

    Newspapers shouldn’t be playing with Guns.

    • Anonymous

      Symbolically bringing paper to a gun fight.

      • Anonymous

        The pen is mightier than the sword, no?

        • Anonymous

          True,but word of mouth, as anyone in business knows, can take down empires. And the “chatter” doesn’t even have to be true.

  • Guest

    What have they got to hide ? It’s public information.

    • Anonymous

      My point exactly!

    • It has nothing to do with hiding anything, it’s about respect of privacy for law abiding citizens.

      How about printing lists of anyone receiving public assistance? Or lists of voter registrations?

      I have nothing to hide, though I sure don’t want my property or person searched for this reason (“if you have nothing to hide you should have no problem with it” is a standard police line), nor my name printed in any papers. :

      • Anonymous

        Voter registration rolls are public.

        • Are they printed in the paper?

          • Anonymous

            No, but they could be. Political parties have access to them, clearly. Why is being inscribed on dead tree pulp somehow significant in this day?

          • A lot things could be. Could and should are two different things, are they not? There are plenty of people who buy military grade weaponry “because they can” – though this does not necessarily mean it represents good judgment, does it? It’s not a question of legality, it’s a question of judgment.

            Dead tree pulp? Hah. It just doesn’t work that way today and you know it. Publishing on the internet means it’s there, forever.

          • Anonymous

            Let me try another approach: if there is a problem (and I actually don’t believe there is) the problem is with the law, not the newspaper.

            I can guarantee you that before the newspaper collected and published these statistics, the only people who had regular access to them were the Republican party, the NRA, and private data aggregators such as Experian, ChoicePoint, and Acxiom – for lobbying and marketing purposes. If you’re not familiar with the last two, I recommend you read their Wikipedia page.

            So that leaves us with three choices: nobody has the information, a privileged few have the information, or everybody has the information. The newspaper has moved us from the middle state to the last state, and I think for the better. If you wish the latter state, the law will need to be changed. A cogent argument can certainly be made for complete privacy with government transactions, but our society traditionally does not operate that way – as a quick visit to your local registry of deeds web site will tell you.

            And, as the NRA is fond of pointing out: when information is illegal, only criminals will have information.

          • The problem is the media. The problem are partisans. The problem are lobbyists and special interest groups. All of who represent minorities and think they can speak for the majority. I’m sick of the fanatical left and right agendas.

            Most people support 2nd amendment rights and reasonable regulation. It’s those on the extreme poles who advocate otherwise.

            If someone wants to seek out the information, that’s fine. Though no, the media should not be printing the information to create drama and sow discord. It serves no other practical purpose. They are making things worse, not better.

          • Anonymous

            Your points are also well put sad_statue. I suppose the media is under some pressure to respond to recent events because they have been guilty of underreporting gun violence for, well, forever. So now in typical mass media fashion they will over-promote the story because it’s cheap news to acquire and a topic of general interest right now. Yet I thing as you allude to there IS a social issue involved here. I think it needs to be discussed until a consensus has been reached and then as a culture we should act upon it. I believe it might be productive to have a daily list of gun violence in America. Gang violence in particular where guns are used. It might give Americans a greater understanding of how big a problem this really is.

          • A thoughtful, rational discussion I’m always up for listening to. Blind ideologists spouting their cliche rhetoric, I’m always up for turning off.

            I realize these forums aren’t an accurate microcosm of Mainers (more polarized), though it would still be nice to have something bordering on a real conversation time to time, so I do thank you for your response.

            My hope is that people will start displaying responsibility and good judgment without prodding from the government – though it’s probably setting the bar too high.

          • Anonymous

            What a well reasoned argument. Nicely put!

          • FrankC

            I believe they pay big bucks for the lists -= or they used to

      • Guest

        I feel the same way, so chill sad statue. You are quick with those knee jerk reactions………
        No I don’t think it was a great idea but public information is just that. I don’t believe names of those on the dole would fall under the realm of public information nor should their names be released.

        • I’m super chill, thanks. ;)

          It’s not the public info thing that fired me up, it’s the “if you have nothing to hide” statement, (which as stated), is a common argument used to deprive people of their rights. I’ve heard it from a lot of Brits in their justification of their Orwellian lifestyles. So knee jerk? Maybe a bit. The solutions that both the extremes on this issue are proposing are scary for their own reasons.

          • Guest

            Good to know. I don’t get rattled about much any longer in this life, it isn’t worth the hassle.

    • Anonymous

      so is your house and family

      • Guest

        Look if something is public information it is just that.
        I made that statement, mainly due to the fact when I have objected about certain privacy issues, many a conservative poster made that observation of me, mainly because it was a liberal issue.

        Now the shoe is on the other foot about your privacy issues and it isn’t sitting very well with some of you.

        • So sinking to the level of people you disagree with is the basis of your argument? How inspiring!

          • Guest

            I’m not claiming to be a deep intellectual as some here do.

            I simply made an observation wasn’t going for inspiring, your disdain is duly noted. But it is public information, it may have been tacky but it’s done.

          • It’s not an issue that requires deep intellectualism. Either you believe in privacy or you don’t. I think it’s pretty simple.

            It sets a bad precedent. It’s not just what is done, it is what could be done next. With partisans, it’s never eye for eye – like in an arms race, the stakes continue to be raised. It has to stop somewhere.

          • Guest

            Wow it’s amazing how obsessed some people are about being ‘right’.

            Where did I say I don’t believe in privacy? Must have hit a nerve with a few. I value privacy don’t think I don’t. Public information can be good and like a little bit of knowledge it can be dangerous.

            I am not anti gun for what that’s worth which usually falls on deaf ears……

    • Anonymous

      Your home mortgage is public information recorded at your county registry of deeds, would it benefit anyone to have it published in your local newspaper?

      • Guest

        Where did I say I agreed with this? I didn’t and I don’t.
        People are being thick about this. I did not say publishing names is a good idea as I don’t think it is……..

  • Anonymous

    There should not be lists of people that are simply exercising their rights. There a good debate for ccw, but not for everyone that simply owns a handgun. Remember we also have or are supposed to have a right to privacy.

    • Anonymous

      There is also the ‘right to know’.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, km, there is a law that makes certain records public. What is interesting is the comment in the article that criminals will also have a good idea which residents are likely unarmed, thus potentially increasing the likelihood their home will be invaded vs a known gun owner. But hey, why worry about them???????? What a wonderful thing to expose a legal gunowner and leave their unprotected neighbors exposed to danger.

      • Jonathan Smith

        You are making up your own Constitution….again

      • Anonymous

        No there isn’t. As long as I’m not breaking the law I have a right to privacy. Its called the fourth amendment. Please let me know who’s constitution has a right to know. Because it is not in the USA.

      • Anonymous

        It would be great for criminals to reverse engeneer the list to find out who isn’t armed.LOL!!! Great Plan Momma

      • Anonymous

        Please post where you have the right to know anything about my home or life. Privacy Act 1973 says you don’t.

  • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

    This is why I would never get a concealed weapon permit.

    • Anonymous

      So do you advocate people carry illegally?

      • I don’t know if he is, though the Journal News is certainly encouraging it.

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        Yes. Felons already are carrying illegally. They are not concerned about being in compliance with gun laws. I’m no more worried about a person with honorable intentions carrying “illegally” than I am about somebody who is carrying with a ccw permit.

        • Anonymous

          good point.

    • Anonymous

      Just think of all the illegal concealed weapons that are not on a list. Our country is going down the toilet with politically correct attitudes. This public list with personal info is nothing more than an invasion of privacy.

  • Anonymous

    Unbelievable….how about a map of where all the Prozac popping zombies live? Or where the people live who take anti psychotics? That makes a lot more sense

  • How disgusting. This does nothing to make anyone safer and is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. The far left on this issue is just as bad as the far right. :

    • Anonymous

      Hardly. It is public information which the right to know laws make available to anyone who would like to know.

      • A paper posting your name, address, phone number and voter registration (and perhaps political donations) – would this sit well with you, even though it is all public information?

        Tell me, how does this make anyone safer?

        • Anonymous

          it’s not about imporving the safety of others, it’s about making momma FEEL better

          …pure emotion and complete detachment from reality,
          typical democrat lefty

          • Anonymous

            Don’t blame this on the Dems.
            Blame it on the Liberal progressives!!

          • Anonymous

            Same thing

          • Anonymous

            No, it is about creating a new dialogue around the mania for guns in this country. What is that old saying about people in glass houses? You own a gun. You take the risk. Your gun is much more valuable to someone wishing to burglarize your home than anything I have in my home.

      • Anonymous

        Most likely since there over 15 millon guns in the State of Maine, with 1.2 millon people KayakMomma that the people in every house around yours is armed.. Lets make it better OK KayakMomma, Get a sign made and post it outside your home that states it a gunfree home. That sure will make it safer for you.

        • Anonymous

          Actually according to DOJ stats 8 in 100,000 are gun related victims. The odds are pretty much in my favor. But should I become a victim of a gun related incident it will not be a reason to got out and get a gun. It will be a reason for me to join the effort to make guns very, very hard to get. I am all for a well regulated gun toting populace.

  • Anonymous

    I asked BDN to do the same. I have a ‘right to know’ who around me has a gun.

    • Anonymous

      I want to know how many people around me take psychoactive drugs. I want to know how many people around me are having serious domestic issues or custody battles. I want to know how many people around me have a background in theft. Slippery slope the public database is.

    • Anonymous

      Just like I have a “right to know” if any of my neighbors have ever collected public assistance, unemployment, or reduced school lunches. All the list will do is disclose the people who are in compliance with the law, criminals won’t be on any list.

    • Anonymous

      So where do you stand on open carry?

    • Jonathan Smith

      It’s Maine – try everyone – this isn’t Boston or Cape Cod. If you don’t like it there is Massachusetts waiting with open arms

    • FrankC

      Lets take the other current hot news today – “Gay Marriage”

      After a while and in especially larger (more densely populated) areas, there may be a significant number of gay folks who really don’t want everyone or anybody to know that they’re gay. But now that they’re registered, its public information and its a right to know. Yes or no ?

      • Anonymous

        Um, I do not think their marriage license states that they are gay. Just that they are married. But yes, anyone wanting to know who was issued marriage licenses would have access to that information unless it is protected by law, such as medical records.

        • FrankC

          Just read today that they now have sex or gender on the registration. So now its in the system and public info.

    • Anonymous

      It is really none of your business, I don’t drink I want to know when you buy beer, or wine or whatever you may get drunk and wonder in my yard, you might be dangerous as a drunk I have the right to know. Please.

  • Anonymous

    Some people see a gun they just curl up in the corner and nurse their thumb..

    • FrankC

      Don’t ask me how I got to this train of thought but ..

      How come primarily liberal areas have restrictive laws about smoking but these same areas are open to marijuana , so where does the doper go to smoke?

      • Anonymous

        They are in there own world……Screwy thing is that NY City is totally different than the rest of NY State………The West half of NY is actually half normal……

  • Anonymous

    Time to start publishing the names, addresses, license plates numbers, car make and model, and telephone numbers of the newspaper employees. Perhaps a couple hundred people hanging out on their front lawn might instill an understanding of the word “privacy.” Maybe they’ll just get their neighborhood occupied the way the Occupy Wallstreet people did! I’m sure the city will provide porto-potties. That would be true justice.

    • Anonymous

      A blogger did so yesterday, at least the names and addresses, there is a map out there. Time to add to it.

    • Anonymous

      That is just what we need to do fight fire with fire., enough with this being quiet and nice like romney did, the gloves are off baby.

  • Anonymous

    This sounds like a good case to pass a national open carry law. Becareful what you wish for you just might get it.

    • Anonymous

      Open carry is legal in Maine, isn’t it?

      • Jonathan Smith

        Yes, wherever guns can be legally carried – important to carefully read up on Maine statutes though

      • Anonymous

        In Maine yes it is. However, I believe that the firearm cannot be loaded. My point is if people want so badly to know who is armed then why not simply pass a nationwide law allowing open carry. After that is passed then I’m sure a provision will be sought after to allow loaded firearms to be openly carried.

        • Anonymous

          Is there a way to tell by mere observation if it’s loaded?

          • Anonymous

            You could try and see if there is a clip in the firearm or if this is not the case you could hope that the carrier is a responsible law abiding citizen and is not abusing their privilege the same way that all people who hold a valid drivers license are trusted not to drink and drive.

          • Anonymous

            Could still have bullets in the clip, and not know or one in the chamber and not know either, a revolver when pointed at you u can see the bullets, but not a good time to find out.

          • Anonymous

            My Springfield XD has an indicator on top by the sights that sticks up when a bullet is in the chamber. If the gun is in a holster you will not be able to see this.

        • Anonymous

          The clip can be loaded and in the gun, but, not one in the chamber. A revolver can be fully loaded because the is no chamber.

  • Jonathan Smith

    Blatant disregard for the owner’s rights and personal safety by intentionally making them the target of criminals by posting their STREET ADDRESS. Nothing new under the sun when it comes to liberals who claim to hate gun violence and subsequently attempt to create more.

  • Anonymous

    Fast. and. Furious. Just a reminder that all is not as it seems. Look further. Dig deeper.

    • Jonathan Smith

      It’s “okay” for Obama to give automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords. Just look the other way everyone and who cares if federal law enforcement were murdered in the process. Hypocrites and liars our leaders are and yes US federal agents were called killed because of Obama’s and Holder’s actions. The same agency that would be enforcing a gun ban.

  • Anonymous

    Holy crap. There are so many things wrong with what they did. Nothing is sacred anymore, not the right to privacy, nothing. I would sue. We do not have a right to know everything that goes on in our neighbors homes or lives, what they believe in or dont believe in. Enough is enough! What’s next? Brand of toilet paper? How many times they visited the bathroom? Color of underwear? How about how many pairs of scissors or knives? Yes, they just opened the door and made it soooo much easier to locate guns for theft, yes, they now warned the criminals of which homes to take extra precaution becasue the homeowner is armed, or who to avoid in a mugging. This whole damn world has gone crazy thinking they have the ‘right’ to know everything…and the ‘right’ to limit the rights of others. Know what you have the right to? Freedom, (and someone paid the price for that), speech (someone paid the right for that too) liberties, (again- someone paid for that right) and to mind your damn business.

  • Anonymous

    Just because something can be told, doesn’t mean that it should be told.

    • Jonathan Smith

      Well said

  • Anonymous

    Click here: BREAKING NEWS: SENATOR BALL ISSUES STATEMENT ON JOURNAL NEWS GUN PERMIT MAP AND INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO PREVENT
    or click or copy and paste to your browser.
    Here’s a State Rep that doesn’t mince words about the media.
    The video is better than the print.
    http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-senator-ball-issues-statement-journal-news-gun-permit-map-and-introduces

    • FrankC

      Good to post here for all to read:

      “The asinine editors at the Journal News, have once again gone out of
      their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm
      owners throughout the region. The immediate elimination of the
      information posted on the Journal News Website is the only way we can
      ensure the safety and liberty of these New Yorkers. This is clearly a
      violation of privacy, and needs to be corrected immediately. The same
      elitist egg heads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and
      criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual
      predators. Am I surprised? No. Should every person with commonsense be
      offended? Yes. Furthermore, the Journal News has placed the lives of
      these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals
      and nut jobs,” said Ball. “Publishing this information on a website
      provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from
      lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes. Preventing the
      theft of guns and their criminal misuse is an important public-policy
      goal. This map is bad for the good guys and good for the bad guys.”

      • Anonymous

        A guy with common sense, something liberals do not have.

  • Anonymous

    this is just another attempt by the anti-gun,anti freedom left to stir up controversy and maybe get somebody to commit some sort of crime to bolster the anti-gun stance.it is important to remember that the left has no compassion for the victims of tragedies like the newtown shooting.their tears are crocodile tears,pushing their agenda is the only thing that matters.civil liberties,individual responsibility,and the concept of limited gov’t. are enemies of the left.Do not fall for these it,the push to curtail individual freedom is about to get ramped up,and mob tactics are a common tool for the socoalists

  • Anonymous

    let them keep it up. the people who own guns legally aren’t doing anything to be ashamed of, nor illegal. and it makes a great tool for criminals! who wouldn’t want to know if the house they intend to rob is armed? also great for neighbors, they know who to run to when there is trouble.

Similar Articles