Why protect AIDS carriers, when their misbehavior could directly result in more infections, resulting in more deaths?

This is one reason HIPPA is a mistake.

This is one reason HIPPA is a mistake.

That's what we get when we let hippies occupy the White House. :lol:

You have to be able to prove that harm would be done by revealing the info. I just don't see where that's the case.

 

Which amendment guarantees our right to privacy?

 

That would be the Roe v Wade "amendment".

This comment was not for me but just from reading it that would show me a responsible gun owner. The use of a gun as protection should be a last resort only - matter of life and death of ones person or a loved one. I am just thankul that we as Americans have The Right To Keep And Bear Arms if we so choose. That is given to us by the 2nd amendment of The Constitution Of The United States Of America. I am not wanting to argue the point, just saying that it is our right as Law Abiding Citizens of this country. We should not have to defend it, rather stand up and claim the right.

 

I respect others that do not want to own a gun but I do not respect the ones in society that want to take my right to own a firearm / firearms of my choice away.:thumb:

 

 

Using oldramblers post, reminds me of an argument/debate that many have had.

 

Do individuals really have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms? The words "well regulated militia" are not totally clear. Some may see this as the US military forces, National Guard, Civil Air Patrol, ect. Some may argue that in the days of the revolution, every citizen was part of the town militia, and hence the connection.

 

Has there ever been a Court case where an interpretation of this language in the 2nd Amendment been made from the bench? Has the constitutionality of individuals rights to own a gun either been challenged or affirmed?

 

I personally don't think that the answer to the above questions even matters in todays society, because we have grown accustomed to the right to bear arms, as we have the right to privacy. Also, I disagree with the names of conceald weapons permit possesors to be released. Although there is some, and has been some in-court interpretation over the limits and boundaries of privacy rights, I don't see many challenges, especially not getting to the Supreme Court, agianst the right of individual gun ownership.

If one takes in the entire body of work created and approved by our nation's forebears in the establishment of this great nation a pattern emerges in which the true power of America is vested in the people, not in the government.

 

The government was established to serve the needs of the people, not for people to serve the needs of the government.

 

From this perspective, the second amendment makes sense only by granting the right to keep and bear arms to peace loving and law abiding individuals as a check against the perversion of our own government into an all powerful collective or a totalitarian dictatatorship.

 

A superficial review of American history supports this premise.

 

While a gun free Utopia is certainly something to hope for someday, we will never be able to live safely on this earth if good and decent people lay down their arms. We cannot trust the wicked to respect our desires for peace. Again, a swift review of world history validates this point.

 

This was the genius of our founding fathers, and a burden that free and peace loving people must bear.

You successfully dodged every question... :lol:

 

My point was, whether morally or ethically grounded, every one of those examples have to do with protected private information directly linked to legal activities.

 

You answered why we protect some of that information. There are good reasons for keeping all of that information private.

 

The irony/hypocrisy here is that if some agree with the root cause or activity, the information should be kept private. If they disagree, we should "out" its practitioners. The newspaper was playing dirty pool.

 

Why protect AIDS carriers, when their misbehavior could directly result in more infections, resulting in more deaths?

 

Do you honestly believe discrimination is one way? Would you honestly consider the qualifications of two job applicants equally, if you knew one had a concealed carry permit? If so, you're exceptional.

 

I have asked, several times, a very direct question relative to concealed carry licenses. Yet, you've taken the time to dodge that question and post about AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Who's dodging whom? My question (again) is THIS:

 

Exactly what harm would there be if concealed carry license information is known?

 

I love how you consistently belittle my responses as "insane", "hypocritical", etc. Maybe not as a direct affront to me, but the implication is clear. Yet, you have yet to provide me with a reason to change my mind.

 

So....in the interest of staying on topic, could you please address my question without posing questions?

I think that its everyone's right to know if their idiot neighbor has a concealed carry permit .

...And I guess it gives the criminals the names of those who do not.

Exactly what harm would there be if concealed carry license information is known?

 

Honestly, the main reasons that I am concerned about the names being printed publicly is:

1. It unfairly but the people listed in danger of violent crime, criminals have an opportunity to know who in their community is most likely be carrying a firearm.

2 It unfairly but the people listed at an increased risk of robbery, giving criminals an opportunity to know which housed have firearms worth stealing.

3. It singles the people out on the list for increased scrutiny by people who want to criticize the second amendment.

4. The listing of the people with CCDW was meant to discourage law abiding citizens from applying for CCDW permits for fear of public notice by the media.

 

I don't want to argue, you asked a legitimate question, here is my legitimate answer.

2 It unfairly but the people listed at an increased risk of robbery, giving criminals an opportunity to know which housed have firearms worth stealing.

And to know which houses they are likely to get shot at...

Honestly, the main reasons that I am concerned about the names being printed publicly is:

1. It unfairly but the people listed in danger of violent crime, criminals have an opportunity to know who in their community is most likely be carrying a firearm.

2 It unfairly but the people listed at an increased risk of robbery, giving criminals an opportunity to know which housed have firearms worth stealing.

3. It singles the people out on the list for increased scrutiny by people who want to criticize the second amendment.

4. The listing of the people with CCDW was meant to discourage law abiding citizens from applying for CCDW permits for fear of public notice by the media.

 

I don't want to argue, you asked a legitimate question, here is my legitimate answer.

 

I would say as someone without a gun or a concealed carry permit, those would be reasons why I would NOT want the list published.

 

1. If your a dirt-bag criminal, I would think you'd be far more likely to avoid those people that could actually shoot back and target those that are un-armed.

 

2. See above. By the way, I can promise you that no matter how many guns you have there are a lot of houses you can tell from the street that possess many, many things of greater value that are easier to carry. I don't think one needs to be a rocket science to predict from the street what houses have things of great value and which don't. But again, Joe Dirt-ball criminal, I would think, would prefer to target those homes where he knows Charlton Heston isn't going to come down in his robe in a blaze of glory.

 

3. I can agree with that.

 

4. Could well be the case.

 

My opinion here is meaningless as I am not a gun carrier / owner / licensed shooter, but if I became said carrier I'd have no problem with people knowing. Just my two cents.

If one takes in the entire body of work created and approved by our nation's forebears in the establishment of this great nation a pattern emerges in which the true power of America is vested in the people, not in the government.

 

The government was established to serve the needs of the people, not for people to serve the needs of the government.

But even from the beginning of American politics, there was a difference of opinion between factions as to whether the government should be a strong federal government or whether the Constitution should more closely resemble the Articles of Confederation. If you study political history, you quickly realize that not much has changed in the past 230 years.

 

I agree that our government was established to serve and protect its people. However, in the past 50 years we have gone through tremendous turmoil to correct past mistakes, civil rights in particular, that the government has gone from protecting us from outside forces to protecting us from ourselves. We are in a horribly mix up period where we are asking for protection of our privacy out of one side of our mouth while demanding protection from every possible adverse situation out of the other side of our mouths. We hold up signs that say don't tax me, but on the flipside say give me more. We are a confused and weakened country vying for whether we will go the way of Octavian Rome or 4th century Rome.

I think one could make a well reasoned argument concerning CCWs being a part of public information. The 2nd Amendment is subject to government regulation, and if, for whatever reason, the state feels this needs to be public information I believe they could do it. I think it would be a really dumb idea; I’m more concerned with the guys stealing guns and filing off the serial number. And I don’t think anyone is going to break into my house to steal my guns if they new I had them…I think that would make a great TV show actually: “Dumb Criminals: Breaking and Entering Gun Owners Homes.” But, this isn’t the point.

 

This newspaper is attempting to pull some kind of poseur intimidation for the gun owners in that area. Instead of fostering debate they are trying to take some ill-conceived backdoor cheap shot and I think they need to be called out on it.

I would say as someone without a gun or a concealed carry permit, those would be reasons why I would NOT want the list published.

 

1. If your a dirt-bag criminal, I would think you'd be far more likely to avoid those people that could actually shoot back and target those that are un-armed.

 

2. See above. By the way, I can promise you that no matter how many guns you have there are a lot of houses you can tell from the street that possess many, many things of greater value that are easier to carry. I don't think one needs to be a rocket science to predict from the street what houses have things of great value and which don't. But again, Joe Dirt-ball criminal, I would think, would prefer to target those homes where he knows Charlton Heston isn't going to come down in his robe in a blaze of glory.

 

3. I can agree with that.

 

4. Could well be the case.

 

My opinion here is meaningless as I am not a gun carrier / owner / licensed shooter, but if I became said carrier I'd have no problem with people knowing. Just my two cents.

 

I understand what you are saying, but:

1. I mean if a criminal comes into a bank and set on robbing it, without anyone knowing it, if he sees a person on the CCDW list it puts that person at an increased risk of being harmed first by the criminal, because the criminal knows he is very likely carrying a firearm. The person with the CCDW would, more then likely not draw his firearm, unless he felt that himself or others were in eminent danger.

2. I mean that a criminal who needs firearms will more likely break in an steal firearms from a person on the CCDW list while the owners are not home. No risk of being shot if no one is home. This is the main way criminals acquire firearms because they are more the likely not qualified to buy one legally, and more then likely have a criminal record, so the only way for them to get a firearm is to steal it.

3. :thumb:

4. :thumb:

I have asked, several times, a very direct question relative to concealed carry licenses. Yet, you've taken the time to dodge that question and post about AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Who's dodging whom?

I'm not dodging a thing, you aren't getting it. :lol:

 

If we’re not going to make public the home addresses of abortion doctors, HIV/AIDS carriers, etc. to protect them from irrational actions by deranged objectors, there is no rational reason the newspaper had to publish the names of 2,700 people with legal concealed carry permits. I doubt any of them carry a weapon 24/7. In fact, I doubt many of them carry a weapon much of the time. With their name in the paper, many may now have no choice but to carry more often.

 

This was a purely political snake job that should be punished the same way you would want a publisher punished for listing the names of women who've had abortions, HIV carriers, or some other cause you think should be kept private.

My question (again) is THIS:

 

Exactly what harm would there be if concealed carry license information is known?

007 and Ram made some excellent points. The whole point of carrying a concealed weapon is the ability to conceal it. We’ve grown up watching too many old westerns where everybody in town struts around with a .45 strapped to his hip. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys wear black hats. Even in life and death duels, certain rules are followed to make things fair… but only in Hollywood.

 

In a potential crime situation, it is foolish to advertise that one is packing heat. A gun is an absolute last resort, but if it’s on display the choice of last resort is removed. No criminal intent upon inflicting harm is going to walk ten paces face you and see who has the quickest draw. If a gun is openly displayed, it removes the option of avoiding or ending the threat without injury or death.

 

While there may be a few Barney Fifes out there who want everyone to know they’re legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, most with a concealed carry permit want that fact to remain unknown to anyone other than the law enforcement entities who screened them, trained them and granted the license and privilege. For some of them, this could be a life and death trade off.

 

I love how you consistently belittle my responses as "insane", "hypocritical", etc. Maybe not as a direct affront to me, but the implication is clear. Yet, you have yet to provide me with a reason to change my mind.

 

So....in the interest of staying on topic, could you please address my question without posing questions?

You may choose to take umbrage with my comments and personalize them, but I assure you that none of them were directed at you personally - either directly or in a backhanded manner. I promise you, that if I am going to insult you, I will do it directly so there is no confusion okay?

 

My comments are directed at the double-standard in our media and culture which cuts both ways (both conservative and liberal.) Simply put, we believe in privacy for people and causes we believe in, and seek open sky for those we don’t… regardless of what is morally or ethically right.

But even from the beginning of American politics, there was a difference of opinion between factions as to whether the government should be a strong federal government or whether the Constitution should more closely resemble the Articles of Confederation. If you study political history, you quickly realize that not much has changed in the past 230 years.

 

I agree that our government was established to serve and protect its people. However, in the past 50 years we have gone through tremendous turmoil to correct past mistakes, civil rights in particular, that the government has gone from protecting us from outside forces to protecting us from ourselves. We are in a horribly mix up period where we are asking for protection of our privacy out of one side of our mouth while demanding protection from every possible adverse situation out of the other side of our mouths. We hold up signs that say don't tax me, but on the flipside say give me more. We are a confused and weakened country vying for whether we will go the way of Octavian Rome or 4th century Rome.

Dang...

 

You ever play golf or go fishing Dad?

 

We need to get out sometime... soon. I'm feeling Octavian surges...