(December 26, 2012 at 1:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 26, 2012 at 1:12 pm)Tobie Wrote: Most people here would agree that this was a bad move, left wingers included, but it was done by one person, not the entirety of the political left wing, so no, this isn't the left gone crazy.


Again, this is one guy being hypocritical, so this isn't "leftist double standards".

I didn't say that. I am a "lefty" myself. I am saying this kind of tactic is dangerous, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT IN THE MEDIA. This was one paper, agreed.

Chill out Brian, I was replying to/quoting A Theist. Sorry for not making it clearer.

(December 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:The privacy of citizens is also a valued concept.

No disagreement there. I really don't think we are on different pages. I said it was an abuse of power on that Newpaper's part. I did not in any of my posts say what this paper did was right, I have flatly condemned it's actions.

We are on different pages. You clearly don't mind the fact that this data is publicly accessible:

Brian37 Wrote:...my problem isn't that government documents are public, THEY SHOULD BE...

I disagree completely. I don't mind registering guns with the government; I don't mind having a license to own a gun. What I do mind is the information on my gun registration form, or my gun license, being made public for everyone to see. There is no reason any member of the public needs to know which people own which guns...none at all. It is a violation of privacy.

The majority can do whatever it likes to the minority - and by the word ''can'' I mean...is able to.

Obscure notions like ''ought'' and ''should'' seem to be a little misplaced.

If you want to keep your guns, your privacy, your marriage laws, your printing presses, your constitutional *cough* rights, etc. you need the imprimatur of the majority - even if they are Luddites.

(December 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The majority can do whatever it likes to the minority - and by the word ''can'' I mean...is able to.

Obscure notions like ''ought'' and ''should'' seem to be a little misplaced.

These seem like overly broad statements. Are you willing to supply some context?

(December 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: If you want to keep your guns, your privacy, your marriage laws, your printing presses, your constitutional *cough* rights, etc. you need the imprimatur of the majority - even if they are Luddites.

If you're speaking of the United States, this statement is incorrect. In the Constitution of the United States, there are specific safeguards (however imperfect) in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

(December 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm)SkyMutt Wrote:

(December 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The majority can do whatever it likes to the minority - and by the word ''can'' I mean...is able to.

Obscure notions like ''ought'' and ''should'' seem to be a little misplaced.

These seem like overly broad statements. Are you willing to supply some context?

Yes. Might = right.
Right...as in the majority has the collective the right to do whatever it wants. So the context is anthropology.

(December 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm)SkyMutt Wrote:

(December 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: If you want to keep your guns, your privacy, your marriage laws, your printing presses, your constitutional *cough* rights, etc. you need the imprimatur of the majority - even if they are Luddites.

If you're speaking of the United States, this statement is incorrect. In the Constitution of the United States, there are specific safeguards (however imperfect) in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Well, you see, the Constitution arose from the Declaration of Independence.

Quote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth....

Quote: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

The majority in the USA can make a new Constitution anytime they like and who is going to stop them? The King of England?

Uhm..... am I the only one who thinks it's silly to complain about a newspaper publishing information that's already available to the public?

I think it hinges on what you mean by ''available''.

Most people wouldnt expect to have their gun ownership details published in a newspaper.

If I was a gun owner I wouldnt want anyone to know.

Glomar response.

Im with tiberius, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to tell the public the home addresses of citizens. That's just asking for trouble. Names, when involved with dealings with the government sure (licenses to own guns doesn't count, nor would cars...), but home addresses? fuck off.

The government won't tell people where you live when you say something unpopular, as you (sometimes) have the right to do under the 1st amendment
Why is it telling people where you live when you own a (type of) gun, as is your right under the 2nd?

(December 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(December 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm)SkyMutt Wrote: These seem like overly broad statements. Are you willing to supply some context?

Yes. Might = right.
Right...as in the majority has the collective the right to do whatever it wants. So the context is anthropology.

Anthropology is still a very broad category. We are not talking of some sort of Hobbesian "state of nature" here, but rather of a Western civilization in the early 21st century. Your simplistic "might=right" equation is completely inadequate to describe its workings. The majority in the United States does not have "the collective the right to do whatever it wants," and if you believe that it does, I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country.

(December 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(December 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm)SkyMutt Wrote: If you're speaking of the United States, this statement is incorrect. In the Constitution of the United States, there are specific safeguards (however imperfect) in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Well, you see, the Constitution arose from the Declaration of Independence.

No, it did not. The Constitution of the United States was written later, and was originally described as being a reworking of the Articles of Confederation. The convention produced a completely new document, however, and reformed the country under different principles.

The sentiments in the Declaration of Independence may resonate with some people to this day, but they remain only that--sentiments. They have absolutely no legal standing in the United States or elsewhere.

(December 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The majority in the USA can make a new Constitution anytime they like and who is going to stop them? The King of England?

Again, this is incorrect. I don't know where you learned about the political history and workings of the United States, but it appears you've been misinformed. The process by which the Constitution of the United States might be revised is not so simple as "the majority wills it."

You've ignored my point about the inherent protections in the Constitution of the United States against a tyranny of the majority. I would reinforce that by stating that well established legal precedent in the U. S. also thwarts a tyranny of the majority. I'd hate to think you're ignoring my point simply because it refutes your position. Are you perhaps taking the time to study up on those protections? There's no rush--get back to me when you have a cogent argument as to why they are not relevant to this discussion.

(December 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: There is no reason any member of the public needs to know which people own which guns...none at all.

But is there a reason they shouldn't?

(December 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Why is it telling people where you live when you own a (type of) gun, as is your right

I dunno', apparently it's my right to know who and where a convicted sex offender lives. I assume the reasoning behind that one is they are potentially dangerous/malicious. Now that I think about it, the same reasoning can be applied to the gun situation, too. Then, again, a lot of people are potentially dangerous.