What is the purpose?

One has to wonder what the real purpose of publishing the names and a map of all the people that have a license to own a gun.

Let’s think about this a little bit. What would be the purpose of publishing the names and a map of the following people who are also exercising their constitutionally protected rights?

  • All women who have had an abortion.
  • All people of Jewish heritage.
  • All Muslims.
  • All people in an interracial and/or gay marriage (may not be constitutionally protected in all jurisdictions).
  • All people who have written letters to the editor hostile to a government official or policy.
  • All people with ancestors who were slaves.
  • All people who are members of the ACLU and/or NAACP.
  • All people who have invoked their right to have an attorney present when being questioned by the police.
  • All people who have invoked their right to a jury trial when accused of a crime.
  • All people that voted for Obama.

Certain rights are specifically enumerated and protected because they are known to be subject to disapproval and attack by certain people and government authorities. By publishing lists of people that have long been known to be at higher risk of disapproval and attack I can only conclude one thing. That information has a high likelihood of being used for criminal purposes by fanatics hostile to certain categories of people. Furthermore anyone that published such information would be highly suspect of intending the people on such a list to suffer adverse consequences for their exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.

Show me some data or a logical argument why my conclusions unfounded. Show me a reason why I should believe the people that would do such a thing have the best interests of the targets of such a list at heart. Show me why I would be unjustified in accusing them of desiring that harm come to the people on their list.

15 thoughts on “What is the purpose?

  1. Joe,

    While I don’t necessarily agree with you that the publishing of this data was done with malice and forethought, I do agree that the results of the publication does paint a target on all of these individuals.

    I think in this case though you give too much credit to the journalist that published the data. I think it was a shallow knee jerk reaction where no though was given to the consequences. I just don’t think this guy is smart enough to think that far ahead.

    • Although you could be right, “I was stupid not malicious” is not considered a valid defense for drunk driving. Why should it be here?

    • Oh, yes they are. Don’t you believe for a second that they weren’t chortling in the news room, saying to themselves or out loud ‘that’ll fix ‘em! The Oregonian was in a similar situation and howled to the heavens when it was suggested that their editorial staff’s personal info be published.

  2. Actually the purpose of such lists is to dissuade people from exercising a right. It is a direct and focused attempt at intimidation. As such it falls under 18 USC 241 and is a federal crime. The language fits perfectly. If this were being done to the leftists, it would be met with law suits or criminal prosecutions. In this case I guess nothing like that will happen. We do not have the infrastructure (or the will?) to get the job done. The NRA might bitch about it, but will do nothing. Maybe the SAF could muster some will and resolve here, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Lyle, it’s looking nasty and people over on this side of the pond are watching closely what you guys do. The left is trying to turn the Constitution over and those who care for the Constitution have to support it. It might be your Constitution but we are affected by it too and many of our freedoms here stem from that creaky old document over there.

      • By “this side of the pond” I’ll assume you mean the U.K.
        Anyway; Canada is in some ways better off than the U.S. at the moment, but they have elected conservatives to high offices while we have elected communists. The EU was asking Canada for bail-out help, but the Canadians told them they hadn’t listened to Canada’s advice and therefore the EU could sod off. Would that the U.S. had such resolve in all matters– the world would be a much better place.

          • Lyle, so we need something in the order of an Anti-SLAPP lawsuit (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and is a lawsuit intended to as you say, prevent someone from exercising a right.

            Canada said that? (not in so many words, of course, but they said no help?) Canada is becoming useful for something besides bringing coffee and donuts to the NATO exercises again, and as an American who is aware of Canada’s contributions to liberty, I am happy to see that again.

  3. No, its malicious and with malice aforethought! The info published was not gahtered by “googling” some obscure website or by accidental research. It was secured through specific and deliberate FOIA-like requests to specific government agencies.

    The perps knew exactly what they were doing and had intimidation in mind as a direct result of their acts. They admitted same: “We thought these people’s neighbors should know what was going on in their neighborhood.” is their ostensible excuse. Unfortunately, the one thing they seemed to have overlooked was that these “hoods also contain a number of bad actors.
    The addresses of these journo-perps has been made public now, so we will see if there any ramifications.

    • Earl – it is malicious, very much so. I’ve just written a piece on political correctness and its origins [not posted at this time], courtesy Bill Whittle and it encompasses this gun business. They lie and they are malicious.

      I had a leftist come over and try to argue the Daily Kos case about how the 2nd was all about militias and not individual rights to have a gun and yet all she had to do, that woman, was be honest and quote the two court cases upholding individual rights and she didn’t.

      Why not? Rank dishonesty. It’s the dishonesty which has got me very, very angry and hell – I’m not even living in your country, guys. I can tell you this – there are a lot of people around the world watching this – you are not alone by any means.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » Dehumanizing

  5. I can’t rebut your questions, Joe, all I can do is affirm your beliefs about the danger of revealing ostensibly public information, and with only two words. Rebecca Schaeffer.

    Somebody will be Rebecca Schaeffer in this latest blabbing by the media, and if we don’t find out about it it will be because of media omerta.

Comments are closed.