|

New York newspaper puts legal gun owners at risk

A local New York newspaper placed thousands of gun owners in danger after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits.

The online map was published by The Journal News along with an article under the headline: “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.”

The newspaper obtained the names and addresses through a Freedom of Information Act and then published this information of legal gun owners living in two suburban counties.

Luckily the newspaper was given only the names and addresses of those who had a license. The paper had also requested the number and types of guns owned by those who had licenses.

On The Journal News website, readers were for the most part furious at this known anti-gun news outlet. One reader said, “Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are.”

Other commenters worried about law enforcement officials, “You have judges, policemen, retired policemen, FBI agents — they have permits. Once you allow the public to see where they live, that puts them in harm’s way.”

Excerpt from Newsmax:

“You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and  murders,” wrote another. “These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals.”

One reader, in an attempt to “turn the tables on The Journal News to see how they would like it,” posted the home addresses of the newspaper’s president, top editors and the reporter who wrote the story.

This misused “freedom of the press” is out and out intimidation of people who have followed the local gun control laws and lends credibility to gun owners who say they do not want to register their guns because of exactly this type of exposure.

Where’s the American Civil Liberties Union when gun owner’s rights need to be defended? All we hear is deafening silence – obviously gun ownership doesn’t fit the ACLU’s definition of civil liberties – primarily to keep gun owner’s information private, except for law enforcement agencies.

Hopefully, someone whose name and address appears in this gun-control newspaper could file a lawsuit against the newspaper for placing them and their families in harm’s way simply to increase circulation.

The article, written by reporter Dwight R Worley, was partially justified by the newspaper opining that Mr. Worley owned a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011.

Permits are hard to get in New York, and Mr. Worley must have felt at some point that he needed protection. Obviously, the newspaper that published the article sees no danger to gun owners, including their reporter.

In any event, should you wish to examine Dwight’s 357 Magnum, the newspaper’s Facebook website tells you where to view it. Since Dwight’s address and phone number were also listed, you may call him first to let him know that you’ll be dropping by to see his gun.

Share:

46 Comments

  1. JRM_CommonSense

    That darn freedom of information act, it will get you sometimes and help you sometimes. I guess we are going to have to legislate who can use the freedom of information act and who can’t.

  2. If possible, those gun owners should file a class-action lawsuit against the newspaper, for putting them at risk. There is no newsworthy reason to release the names and addresses of lawful gun permit holders.

    BTW, I understand that this same publication WILL NOT print lists of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS. So, it is easy to see where their biases lie.

    Also, this could encourage criminals to break into houses NOT on the list, since they know that no legally-owned guns are there.

  3. snuss – The houses not on the list might have rifles or shotguns since according the article they are not required to have a permit.

  4. Yea, I would agree the non-gun owners are the ones in more danger now. Criminals go where the guns aren’t (Gun Free School Zones, Gun Free Theatres, etc.) Anti-gunners always do the opposite of what they should. LOL, Bless their hearts…

  5. JRM_CommonSense

    First we hear that criminals would avoid places where they know that guns are present! Now we here that by letting criminals know where guns are, the gun owners are being put at risk (see the posts title). Could you guys make up your minds which you want us to believe.

    • Ted Biondo

      A newspaper like this puts everybody at risk by providing criminals a map of who does and who doesn’t own a gun. Nitpicking again JRM, by trying to confuse the issue that the newspaper consists of a bunch of liberal jerks who don’t care who they put in danger – just increase circulation, which is obviously working.

  6. JRM_CommonSense

    BTW, I understand that the names and locations of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS are matters of public record already and published as a matter of process. So why would any newspaper have to freedom of information requests or publish them to being with. But nice try at building another boogieman.

  7. So, other than an attempt to threaten lawful gun owners, what purpose does publishing this information serve?

  8. As you know now, a NY blogger released the names and adresses of the people at the newpaper that published the gun owner’s names. Gees, I hope nobody harasses them!!

  9. JRM_CommonSense

    If there were no people around to pick the nits in this world, extremely biased people would not realize that there are other sides to the arguments they believe are one-sided. Nor would they have the increased blood flow that happens when they realized that a picked nit makes them seem silly.

    Ted, you are right that the newpaper is way out of line in publishing the names and addresses of gun owners. However, you should not use a title for your post that directly contradicts previous conservative positions that state that having guns in your home will discourage criminals from going there out of fear of getting shot. Which one is true? It has to be either having a gun will deter criminals OR having a gun will attract them and put you at risk. That’s the nit I picked; and the one you ignored.

  10. It’s OK, JRM. Ted has a habit of ignoring things that he can’t logically address.

    I’m a big supporter of FOIA and of journalistic freedom in general. However, I do agree that this paper crossed the line with this list. In the end, though, I think this is a lot of ado about nothing. There could be plenty of those “non-gun” houses where guns are present. Remember, the “gun-show” loophole? Those homes could have guns purchased at a gun show or a private sale that wouldn’t show up on any list. The idea that criminals are somehow going to sit down with a spreadsheet and figure out which houses to target is a bit laughable. I don’t give most criminals that much credit.

    Most people, who work normal hours during the day, are at far greater risk of having their home burglarized when they are NOT HOME, than they do of being robbed while they are home.

  11. Of course, criminals who want to STEAL guns now know where to look. Just wait until the owner leaves, break in, and find the guns.

  12. JRM_CommonSense

    So having a gun in your house doesn’t stop criminals from breaking in and stealing it, it encourages them. If these people were responsible gun owners, they would have their weapons properly secured so that someone breaking in cannot steal them especially when they are leaving their homes and the guns remain behind.

    And what would stop armed criminals from attacking schools during the day where they know there are teachers armed with guns that would be easy to steal once they just mowed them down, or hold the children hostage to get the weapons. After all, in most cases the only time anyone knows these shooters are in the schools, shopping centers, etc. is after the shooting has started.

    • Ted Biondo

      I do agree with your nit, JRM, that the nongunowners may be placed at greater risk due to the newspaper article, however, stealing guns from the cold dead hands of teachers or policemen patrolling the schools after mowing them down ( the school guards are going to just stand there and be shot after being trained to shoot) is a little far-fetched, don’t you think?

  13. For those of you who believe in gun-free zones so strongly, I suggest that you sign this petition:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs

    Prove that you aren’t just a bunch of Leftist Liberal hypocrites!

  14. Not just far-fetched, but borderline delusional, as the following shows:

    http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

  15. If we’re going to post armed guards at schools, oh and arm teachers and prinicpals as well, what about armed guards at churches, malls, sports stadiums and arenas and anywhere else more than 10 people are gathered at a time? The NRA’s recent push for this is ludicrous. A free society carries with it risks EVERY DAY. That’s the price of freedom.

    • Ted Biondo

      monkey, wouldn’t it be much simpler to let those who choose to arm themselves, after the proper training, under the 2nd amendment to “bear arms” wherever they go, so criminals wouldn’t know where gun-free zones actually existed – no armed guards needed.

  16. JRM_CommonSense

    Not far-fetched at all, Just an extention of the logic that Mr. SNuss and the NRA proposed which was arming and training the teachers.

    Those teachers will be in the classrooms teaching when the shooters enter the school, not patrolling the halls. So they will only know when shots are fired.

    We will then expect them to leave the classrooms and confront the shooter(s)? If so, who will be responsible for getting the students organized and into safety positions?

    Or will they take defensive possitions in the classroom and wait for the shooter to enter. That would mean that EVERY teacher will need to be armed because we will not know which classrooms they might enter. So much for stopping any killings.

    As far as police officers patrolling the schools, you have failed to identify how they will be paid for. Remember, you guys are the guardians of cutting costs. So are you going to take the money you save on Social Security reductions, Medicare reductions, Medicaid reductions, closing the EPA and Energy Department reductions, AND EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REDUCTIONS, and use it to hire policemen to patrol every single school in this country? Seems like that approach will have little effect on balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Sorry, but the scenarios are not far-fetched. They are in fact nits that need some serious picking.

    • Ted Biondo

      The police security can be paid as soon as the pensions are paid directly from the employees checks, JRM, instead of paid by the district to the state and by charging their teachers more than $170 dollars a month for insurance benefits that cost over $20,000, like the taxpayers have to pay for their insurance. They could pay an army to guard the schools, Mr. Nitpicker, if everyone in the schools paid their “fair share.”

  17. Speaking of armed guards at churches……

    The Aurora Shooting You Didn’t Hear About In The Media

    While this past weekend’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado got a lot of national attention, a previous shooting, which took place in April and virtually no one heard about it. On April 22, 2012 convicted felon Kiarron Parker, just released from jail, entered the parking lot of an Aurora, Colorado church and shot and killed one of the members of the congregation before being killed himself by a member carrying concealed.

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/#ixzz2GSQ0tbeY

    How many more would have died, had one “good guy with a gun” not been there?

  18. JRM_CommonSense

    So now your plan is contingent on significant changes to how public employees pay for their pensions. And this idea comes from someone who continually complains about the ineffectiveness and slow moving political process in Illinois. So exactly how long will we have to wait before your solution to this problem even comes close to being a reality? Will we have to wait until the illinois House, Senagte, and Governor’s mansion are staffed by elected Republicans – like you claimed was necessary at the national level?

    You better bring the suggestion of teachers paying more for their beenefts to the teachers before the become a bunch of “armed” teachers and you might be surprised what could happen. On top of that the teachers will probably ask for hazard duty pay if you want them to carry guns to work and expect them to defend our children, but you are going to make them pay more for their benefits.

    And maybe we should make all members of the school board and the administrative staff pay more of their benefits. They should then also carry weapons when they are at the administrative offices, school board meetings, and in the school buildings to make sure that they understand what they expect of their employees and pitch in if the need arises. After all, they would then also be paying their “fair share”.

    • Ted Biondo

      What kind of fool thinks the school board gets benefits of any kind, JRM. It’s strickly volunteer work, except for an occasional sandwich before an average 5-6 hour board meeting plus all the needed preparation for the 2 meetings a month plus whatever committees a board member is appointed to.

      What a warped view of public service. School Boards are not like the state and federal officials you vote for. They are elected to balance the the needs of the school system while protecting taxpayer’s money from the people you apparently agree with. You must not have ever volunteered for any public service dealing with public funds to make a statement like that. The board receives no salary and no benefits. Wise up, JRM!

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, you and most teachers would be suprised that I too once said that teachers should receive hazard pay for what they must put up with during their day from some of their charges! Also, the board already pays it’s fair share because they are paid nothing at all – how much more fair could it be?

  19. Why not tell the Federal Reserve to authorize the printing of even more money? They have been doing that for years, so what is a little more?. Soon, our money will look like this:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/20_millionen_mark.jpg/800px-20_millionen_mark.jpg

  20. JRM_CommonSense

    Oh Ted, you are so sly. Only a true politician can imply that someone is a fool and attempt to belittle them by making a statement like ” You must not have ever volunteered for any public service dealing with public funds to make a statement like that” while blatantly patting themselves on the back for being such an altruistic guy. And at the same time completely ignoring the questions that you were asked but have no desire to answer. If you are true to form here, you will now say that you are too busy saving taxpayer millions of dollars to spend time answering the questions of people who take exception to your boogieman approach to the truth.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, you were the one who wrote – “And maybe we should make all members of the school board and the administrative staff pay more of their benefits.”

      Do you really think people who volunteer to run for the school board do so because of the benefits? You can’t be serious. I don’t care if you ever ran for a school board or not, but you were way off base accusing elected school board members of doing so for the money or benefits they receive. They receive nothing in the way of monetary compensation, so there is nothing to pay more for.

  21. JRM_CommonSense

    Well, Ted, I guess you have a reading problem. I NEVER accused “elected school board members of doing so for the money or benefits they received”. You are the one that decided that that is what you wanted my words to mean.

    My point was that all personnel related to the school system and your position of arming teachers and putting armed police and/or armed guards in the schools need to have the same skin in the. You just chose to call me stupid and uncaring by chosing to point out that school board members don’t get benefits. Okay, so I gave you an opening and you took your shot. It just shows that you are not the only one capable of putting your foot in you mouth.

    I noticed that you failed to comment on the part of the statement that addressed the administration of the school system and every other statement in my post, but made sure you took the school board shot. Bravo for you. Now stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and answer the questions I asked rather than avoid them. Otherwise you too could be classified as a nitpicker.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM – you said this – “And maybe we should make all members of the school board and the administrative staff pay more of their benefits.” I’ll leave it up to the readers to say what they thought you meant. Pay more of their benefits obviously means that school board members had benefits in the first place, right?

  22. What do gun owners have to fear by this? Gun owners afraid of criminals knowing where they live? I thought guns made you safer? Let them criminals try to break in.

    @snuss. About that shooting in Col. The guy with the CC didn’t do a thing to prevent the first person from being killed did he? I suppose it could be argued that other lived were saved but we really don’t know do we? Maybe that shooter was going to kill himself but was interupted?

    • Ted Biondo

      How do you prevent the first guy from getting killed, Todd A – be a mindreader? Should the guy with the CC shoot someone because he looks suspicious or wait until he actually acts out his delusions? Then the gun control advocates would be right. I’ll bet you would have liked to have the guy in Colorado shoot the idiot, if you were going to be next or the third or fourth one shot.

      The guy in the grade school would have killed even more, if the police with guns hadn’t arrived when they did, and if someone armed had been there when the guy shot his way through the door there would have been a lot more children alive today. And we do know that people would have been saved in most cases, in malls etc. – it’s been documented. It’s just that the liberal media, with the “make love not war” mindset, don’t cover it.

      Gun Control Wingnuts, continue to want the gun free zones, so the freaks know exactly where to go have taget practice.

  23. JRM_CommonSense

    Yes, that is true Ted, I was wrong there. However, you are the one who claimed that I was ” accusing elected school board members of doing so for the money or benefits they receive.” Show me where I said that exactly as you said I did. Not the case. It is your unique ability to interpret the things people say to mean something totally different than was said. It is your trademark and I am calling you out on it. I made no such statement, and you cannot show where I did.

    Now, when are you going to answer my questions rather than continue to play your typical jack-and-jill-grab-a$$ misdirection and avoidance of facing the issues that you brought up in the first place. AND still waiting for your justification of supporting a group that took Christ out of Christmas, and answering my questions about your “war on relgion” boogiemen from several of your previous posts.

    I have agreed with you that I was mistaken about school board members receiving benefits. Now let’s see if you are a big enough man to admit that you accused me of saying something about the school board members that I did not say. Ball’s in your court big guy. Put up or shut up!

    • Ted Biondo

      I’m putting up – here is what I wrote – show me where I accused you of saying that school board members seek office for the money or benefits they receive?

      “What kind of fool thinks the school board gets benefits of any kind, JRM. It’s strickly volunteer work, except for an occasional sandwich before an average 5-6 hour board meeting plus all the needed preparation for the 2 meetings a month plus whatever committees a board member is appointed to.

      What a warped view of public service. School Boards are not like the state and federal officials you vote for. They are elected to balance the the needs of the school system while protecting taxpayer’s money from the people you apparently agree with. You must not have ever volunteered for any public service dealing with public funds to make a statement like that. The board receives no salary and no benefits. Wise up, JRM!”

      Where in those two paragraphs did I write that you said that school board members seek office for money? Misdirection – you are the king of misdirection!

  24. @ ToddA; Had a “good guy with a gun” been at Sandy Hook school, there might have been only ONE murder, rather than TWENTY-SIX. Any victim of violent crime is a shame, but SAVING twenty-five others is a definite improvement in the results.

    I leave you with some VERY sensible words from a LA Cop:

    I am neither a member of the National Rifle Association nor an avid shooter. But I have carried a gun as a tool of my trade for more than 30 years, and have come to appreciate the advantages of being armed in those moments when a deadly threat presents itself. That said, I am not among those who would place a weapon in the hand of every teacher. For one thing, not every teacher is qualified to handle one. There is no shame in this. Using a firearm for self-defense requires a certain mindset and level of proficiency that few teachers — indeed few people in most professions — possess. (Though I suspect the number of teachers hoping to achieve that mindset and level of proficiency has just increased.)

    But the mere possibility that one or two staff members at a school might be armed may offer just enough deterrence to inspire second thoughts in any but the most determined assailants. And if such a determined assailant proceeds with an attack, is it beyond the pale to hope for intervention by an armed teacher? Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) appeared on Fox News Sunday on December 16, and he was widely derided (here, for example) for expressing the wish that the principal at Sandy Hook, who died in the attack, had “an M-4 [rifle] locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”

    For those who find that absurd, a question: is that scenario not preferable to what actually occurred?

    There are limits on what the law and government agencies can do to protect the public. Though I’ve been a cop for 30 years, nearly every day of which has been spent on the streets of Los Angeles, I can recall only a handful of times when I was able to interrupt a violent crime in progress, either by responding quickly to a radio call or by coming across it randomly while on patrol. You’ve heard the expression: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. It’s trite but no less true.

    Even when the criminal justice system is functioning optimally (but does it ever?) these lapses can occur. We in the trade have a name for people who rely on the police and the justice system to keep them safe: we call them victims.

    It may sound uncivilized, but so be it. When the Bad Guy shows up with a gun, there are just two questions to be asked: where is the nearest Good Guy with a gun, and how long will it take him (or her, as the case may be) to arrive, get a sight picture, and if necessary squeeze the trigger? Everything else is wishful thinking.

    Read the rest at: http://pjmedia.com/blog/childish-fantasy-gun-control-and-the-victim/?singlepage=true

  25. JRM_CommonSense

    It was not in those two paragraphs Ted. But nice try at mis-direction again. Here is the direct quote from your December 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm post Ted.

    “Do you really think people who volunteer to run for the school board do so because of the benefits? You can’t be serious. I don’t care if you ever ran for a school board or not, but you were way off base accusing elected school board members of doing so for the money or benefits they receive. They receive nothing in the way of monetary compensation, so there is nothing to pay more for.”

    Now tell me that you did not say the I was way off base for accusing elected school board members of doing so for the money or the benefits. And now show me the exact quote where I accused elected school board members of what you said I accused them of.

  26. Since I can’t post on Ol’ Race-Baitin” Pat’s Leftist blatherfest, I hope Ted won’t mind if I respond to him here:

    Here’s how Pat Cunningham lies about the Second Amendment

    Given that, anyone can see that the militia under the Constitution was an instrument of the state from the first, and never meant to safeguard the people from the state. What the NRA is doing is trying to confuse colonial militias–when there was no United States–with militias under the Constitution.

    The record likewise makes clear that personal gun ownership was protected by the Second Amendment as a way to arm the militia. Of course, lots of people owned muskets or rifles then anyway. And in general, most people didn’t care. But a glance at the historical and legislative record explains why the Second Amendment has three clauses in one sentence and can’t be understood without considering all of it–screams from the right notwithstanding.

    The facts:

    The 2nd Amendment, 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.

    The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

    Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined”

    While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed….”

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[

    Read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  27. JRM_CommonSense

    Ted, I am so glad to see that you have ended the old year by slinking away and refusing to admit your mistake and apologize for accusing me of statements that I did not make. Your failure to “”man-up” is very telling about how you wish to present your positions and the lack of honestly you wish to bring to your public discourse. Just keep in mind, you failed to meet the integrity standard that you so blatantly demand of others. Well done!

  28. jrm DID post “And maybe we should make all members of the school board and the administrative staff pay more of their benefits. “.

    Since board members are not compensated for their service, such a demand is a non sequiter, but is entirely consistent with jrm’s style of inane blather-mongering. JRM will not admit it, since he must first be a “man’, in order to “man-up”.

  29. JRM_CommonSense

    The mouth that roared SNussy didn’t bother to read where I did admit that I was unaware that school board members didn’t get benefits and admitted my mistake. That can be seen in my post above dated December 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm Where I said Yes, that is true Ted, I was wrong there” in my response to his pointing out my mistake.

    It is in the same post where I pointed out his inaccuracy in statements that he attributed to me. So SNussy, unlike Ted, I was “man” enough to “man-up” to my mistake. I am still giving him a slight benefit of the doubt that he might yet prove he has integrity. We will see.

    You, on the other hand, Mr. SNussy have proven over and over again that the only ability you have is being able to regurgitate other people’s words that support your misguided biases and being a little deficient in the ability to come up with any original ideas. But we are use to that by now, and it actually has become quite funny. You make us all giggle, but no one takes you seriously. Well, Ted does once in a while, but it is usually because you quote a source he likes, not because you add anything original to the discussion. Kind of like how one would treat a lapdog. “Good one boy. Roll over boy and let me rub your stomach! Here’s a treat boy! Fetch your sock toy, boy!”

  30. Congratulations. You have admitted your ignorance, and learned. Too bad that your didn’t find some better character traits and/or humility to go with it

  31. JRM_CommonSense

    And this from someone who should see a professional because he has an inordinate fixation with other people’s rear ends and seems to always have a comment relating to sheep.

    And we still have not seen an apology from your buddy Ted. Hey Ted, your credibility and honesty ratings are sinking fast. There is something radically wrong with a person who is incapaable of admitting that they made a mistake. Soon you will be on the ssame level as your lapdog SNussy. That’s some company!

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, I’m tired of your harrassments trying to personally impugn my credibility and constantly demanding that I beg your pardon. Let me tell you something buddy, you haven’t been to or even seen the levels I’ve been to in the last 20 years and the decision processes that I have had to deal with week after week for two decades dealing with people just like you!

      You never will understand these levels of credibility unless you are willing to invest the time I have – thousands of hours each year. So get off your GD high horse and speak to me with respect or I will erase everything you place on the blog as soon as I see it! Stick with the issues and leave off the personal stuff or goodbye – got it?

  32. Actually, it is the quality and quantity of your commentary which reminds me of large piles of what farmers scrape out of their feedlots.

    Meanwhile, back to the subject, I see that the Leftist cowards who dished it out, are now running scared:

    Newspaper That Printed Gun Owner Names Hires Armed Guards

    The Journal News, which covers Rockland, Westchester, and Putnam Counties in New York, faced a backlash from readers after publishing the names of residents who had handgun permits registered to their names. The newspaper created an interactive map which showed permit owners’ names and addresses, which they posted on Dec. 23, 2011, as part of their coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

    Read more at: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/newspaper-that-printed-gun-owner-names-hires-armed-guards/

    Typical Leftist hypocrites!

  33. One difference, the manure that jrm posts isn’t even good enough to use as fertilizer. Perhaps he uses it as bedding, back under the bridge.

  34. JRM_CommonSense

    All I ask Ted, is that you speak the truth and not accuse me of saying things that I did not say. That is not a GD high horse, it is what you expect of everyone else and something that you should be willing to do.

    I guess you are choosing not to do that, so I will have to live with that. If you want to erase everything that I post, that is your decision, I cannot stop you because it is your blog. However, it appears to be rather vindictive, abridges my freedom of speech, and confirms that you do not wish to hear opinions other than the ones you agree with.

    Let me tell you something “buddy”, you haven’t been to or even seen the levels I’ve been to in the last 35 years and the decision processes that I have had to facilitate and deal with week after week as a global business consultant dealing with the top management teams at some of the largest companies in the world. You never will understand the levels of credibility that you must have to accomplish that unless you are willing to invest the time that I have – thousands of hours each year dealing with management and executive teams who wanted my help in structuring and managing some of the biggest companies that exist and were willing to pay large sums of money to get it.

    If you feel it is necessary to erase my posts and decide that 35 years of business success and experience are of no value to your discussions, I cannot stop you. You have the power to muzzle anyone you want to. If you desire to be spoken to with respect, then you need to provide that same level of respect to the people that you speak to. Truth and honesty are the first steps to giving respect and the first steps to gaining respect. Being able to admit when you make a mistake is also another large component of gaining respect. If you want my respect, you need to give me yours and be honest and truthful. That is exactly what you claim you want from us! If I didn’t have a pretty high level of respect for you, I would not waste my time reading and commenting on your posts. If you decide you cannot “tolerate” or “consider” what I say and erase my posts, then I guess this is goodbye -got it! If that is the message you want to send, then that is your choice. Hopefully you are a bigger man than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>