quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
What doesn't surprise me about your post is your ignorance or, worse, your intentional obfuscation of the fact that the USA did in fact announce it had developed the A-bomb before it dropped two of them on Japan.

Trinty A-bomb test

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that the web page you pointed me to begins with the title "Trinity Test, July 16, 1945 - Radiation Monitoring" does not mean that the page was actually on air on July 16th of 1945. (Perhaps you need to begin by learning a thing or two about the history of the internet.) Au contraire, as it says further down within that page, all that stuff was TOP FUCKIN' SECRET at that time. My goodness, the kind of moronity one has to deal with in this forum!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.

Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I think people are forgetting something...all of this was a matter of public record. Anyone thiefs included, just had to go to the Hall of Records and find this information.
"All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records."
The newspaper did nothing wrong.

Depends on your definition of "wrong." What they did wasn't illegal by any means. However, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Doing something legal isn't necessarily not wrong.

Still there is nothing wrong..it is a matter of public record..anyone could go to the Hall of Records gotten the information and done whatever they wanted with it. Just because a paper published does not mean any wrong...anyone could get the information and posted on the internet....

Yes, what they did was "legal". However, "right" or "wrong" is not always a matter of whether something is "legal" or not. I think most of the people here would agree that the things Westborough Babtist Church does is "legal", but it sure as hell is "wrong". Same thing here.

Yes, anybody could go to Public Records, do the legwork, pay the fees, get the information, etc. But most thieves aren't going to be that ambitious. Most thieves would rather spend their money on video games or drugs rather than information. And many, if not most thieves probably would not even have known about or thought about getting that information from public records. But now they don't need to do any of that, do they? They know exactly which houses they need to go to. They know exactly which houses to watch for the family to be gone. Or they know exactly which houses they might want to do a blitz attack on in order to catch the family off guard and force them to open their safes. They don't have to do "do their homework" because the newspaper was kind enough to do all that for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.

Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

the world court in La Hauge(sp)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

I guess what bugs me most about this analogy is the historical ignorance that it exhibits: when the USA developed the bomb, they did not announce that they did, nor did they demonstrate it by blowing off the top of Mt Fuji or some uninhabited island; instead, they performed two surprise attacks against fleshy targets containing huge numbers of civilians. So, historically, a more apt analogy would be "if you one day go buy yourself a gun, why not go meet that guy you frequently get into fistfights with, and surprise him by blowing his head off?"

What doesn't surprise me about your post is your ignorance or, worse, your intentional obfuscation of the fact that the USA did in fact announce it had developed the A-bomb before it dropped two of them on Japan.

Trinty A-bomb test

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I think people are forgetting something...all of this was a matter of public record. Anyone thiefs included, just had to go to the Hall of Records and find this information.
"All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records."
The newspaper did nothing wrong.

Depends on your definition of "wrong." What they did wasn't illegal by any means. However, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Doing something legal isn't necessarily not wrong.

Still there is nothing wrong..it is a matter of public record..anyone could go to the Hall of Records gotten the information and done whatever they wanted with it. Just because a paper published does not mean any wrong...anyone could get the information and posted on the internet....

Yes, what they did was "legal". However, "right" or "wrong" is not always a matter of whether something is "legal" or not. I think most of the people here would agree that the things Westborough Babtist Church does is "legal", but it sure as hell is "wrong". Same thing here.

Yes, anybody could go to Public Records, do the legwork, pay the fees, get the information, etc. But most thieves aren't going to be that ambitious. Most thieves would rather spend their money on video games or drugs rather than information. And many, if not most thieves probably would not even have known about or thought about getting that information from public records. But now they don't need to do any of that, do they? They know exactly which houses they need to go to. They know exactly which houses to watch for the family to be gone. Or they know exactly which houses they might want to do a blitz attack on in order to catch the family off guard and force them to open their safes. They don't have to do "do their homework" because the newspaper was kind enough to do all that for them.

I fail to see any comparison between publication of public records and the Westboro Church. Your comment that most thieves play video games and use drugs is general. There are very professional thieves who research their targets and do not use whatever they steal to play video or use drugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I think people are forgetting something...all of this was a matter of public record. Anyone thiefs included, just had to go to the Hall of Records and find this information.
"All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records."
The newspaper did nothing wrong.

Depends on your definition of "wrong." What they did wasn't illegal by any means. However, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Doing something legal isn't necessarily not wrong.

Still there is nothing wrong..it is a matter of public record..anyone could go to the Hall of Records gotten the information and done whatever they wanted with it. Just because a paper published does not mean any wrong...anyone could get the information and posted on the internet....

Yes, what they did was "legal". However, "right" or "wrong" is not always a matter of whether something is "legal" or not. I think most of the people here would agree that the things Westborough Babtist Church does is "legal", but it sure as hell is "wrong". Same thing here.

Yes, anybody could go to Public Records, do the legwork, pay the fees, get the information, etc. But most thieves aren't going to be that ambitious. Most thieves would rather spend their money on video games or drugs rather than information. And many, if not most thieves probably would not even have known about or thought about getting that information from public records. But now they don't need to do any of that, do they? They know exactly which houses they need to go to. They know exactly which houses to watch for the family to be gone. Or they know exactly which houses they might want to do a blitz attack on in order to catch the family off guard and force them to open their safes. They don't have to do "do their homework" because the newspaper was kind enough to do all that for them.

I fail to see any comparison between publication of public records and the Westboro Church. Your comment that most thieves play video games and use drugs is general. There are very professional thieves who research their targets and do not use whatever they steal to play video or use drugs.

The comparison is in the way that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it "right". Though I'm pretty sure you know that and are just looking for an arguement.

And yes, the comment about thieves playing video games and using drugs is a generalized statement. It does not encompass all thieves, and was not intended to, as indicated by the word "most". Most (there's that word again) petty theft and home invasion is done by small time criminals...usually fairly young, and it is often driven by their want or need to get cash to buy drugs. Why don't they get a job to get the cash for the drugs? Because they are lazy. While sitting at home being lazy, what do they do? They often play video games.

A criminal that meticulously plans and researches a crime is in it for a bigger score. They are expecting a payoff that will make that research and planning time worth while. They aren't going to spend days, weeks, or months planning a robbery just for a few items to pawn or for one or two guns. You are talking about a very different breed of thief, and that is one that is actually very rare and has little or no bearing on the present conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Newspaper is protected by the lst Amendment the Westboro Church get court ruling..however that one Sheriff had a good idea. There is to me still no comparison between the two. You seem to know alot of what criminals do, although there are criminals who do use drugs, the vast majority of substance abuser are not criminals, rather mainstream...many even have jobs. Your comment on video games remind me of the 1954 Senate Hearing on Comic Books and their relationship to juvneile delinquency. Oh and I never heard of a any study that laziness is a causation of crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Newspaper is protected by the lst Amendment the Westboro Church get court ruling..however that one Sheriff had a good idea. There is to me still no comparison between the two. You seem to know alot of what criminals do, although there are criminals who do use drugs, the vast majority of substance abuser are not criminals, rather mainstream...many even have jobs. Your comment on video games remind me of the 1954 Senate Hearing on Comic Books and their relationship to juvneile delinquency. Oh and I never heard of a any study that laziness is a causation of crime.

I definitely feel sorry for you if you can't see that "legal" does not equal "right", and that both instances contain elements that illustrate that fact.

I didn't say that most substance abusers were criminals. What I did say was that most petty thefts were committed by people wanting money to buy drugs. There is a BIG difference in those two statements. If you want to argue, then at least argue about what I actually said. I will say that perhaps "most" is a bit of an exageration, but there is no doubt that at least a large percentage does fall into that catagory.

There probably isn't a study that would suit your wishes. However, I HAVE known a lot of petty criminals, nearly all of which didn't have the desire to hold a steady job because they were simply lazy and found it easier to take what other people worked for. Just because there is no study doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you don't want to believe it, that is your right. I do hope you take precautions to keep the sand out of your ears while you have your head burried.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

I do understand that there is a difference between what is legal and what is right... The newspaper which published public documents had the right and it was not wrong. If those gun owners did not want it known they own firearms then they should not have registered them, but that would be against the law. Or simply not obtained the weapons in the first place.

People who own firearms are not required to register them in the first place. What the paper published was the names and addresses of people who were duly licensed to carry concealed. The purpose of carrying concealed is to prevent the bad guys from knowing who is armed. In doing what it did, the newspaper deliberately defied and contravened the purpose of the concealed carry law.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Newspaper is protected by the lst Amendment the Westboro Church get court ruling..however that one Sheriff had a good idea. There is to me still no comparison between the two. You seem to know alot of what criminals do, although there are criminals who do use drugs, the vast majority of substance abuser are not criminals, rather mainstream...many even have jobs. Your comment on video games remind me of the 1954 Senate Hearing on Comic Books and their relationship to juvneile delinquency. Oh and I never heard of a any study that laziness is a causation of crime.

I definitely feel sorry for you if you can't see that "legal" does not equal "right", and that both instances contain elements that illustrate that fact.

I didn't say that most substance abusers were criminals. What I did say was that most petty thefts were committed by people wanting money to buy drugs. There is a BIG difference in those two statements. If you want to argue, then at least argue about what I actually said. I will say that perhaps "most" is a bit of an exageration, but there is no doubt that at least a large percentage does fall into that catagory.

There probably isn't a study that would suit your wishes. However, I HAVE known a lot of petty criminals, nearly all of which didn't have the desire to hold a steady job because they were simply lazy and found it easier to take what other people worked for. Just because there is no study doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you don't want to believe it, that is your right. I do hope you take precautions to keep the sand out of your ears while you have your head burried.

I do understand that there is a difference between what is legal and what is right. Your comparison between the newspaper and the Westboro Church I do not think is correct. The newspaper which published public documents had the right and it was not wrong. If those gun owners did not want it known they own firearms then they should not have registered them, but that would be against the law. Or simply not obtained the weapons in the first place.

Perhaps there is no study...but some documented evidence would help support your claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.

Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

the world court in La Hauge(sp)

General MacAruther convened a court made up of various legal scholars from the countries that were are fought Japn, the purpose was just as the Nuremburg trials. However, lawyers for the some of the defendents argued before this court the US caused the war, the Judge from Indian agreed. Many of the lawyers defending the Japanese were from US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.

Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

the world court in La Hauge(sp)

General MacAruther convened a court made up of various legal scholars from the countries that were are fought Japn, the purpose was just as the Nuremburg trials. However, lawyers for the some of the defendents argued before this court the US caused the war, the Judge from Indian agreed. Many of the lawyers defending the Japanese were from US.

and during the first Menedeze trial one juror voted for aquital she felt sorry for them because they had lost their parents

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Newspaper is protected by the lst Amendment the Westboro Church get court ruling..however that one Sheriff had a good idea. There is to me still no comparison between the two. You seem to know alot of what criminals do, although there are criminals who do use drugs, the vast majority of substance abuser are not criminals, rather mainstream...many even have jobs. Your comment on video games remind me of the 1954 Senate Hearing on Comic Books and their relationship to juvneile delinquency. Oh and I never heard of a any study that laziness is a causation of crime.

I definitely feel sorry for you if you can't see that "legal" does not equal "right", and that both instances contain elements that illustrate that fact.

I didn't say that most substance abusers were criminals. What I did say was that most petty thefts were committed by people wanting money to buy drugs. There is a BIG difference in those two statements. If you want to argue, then at least argue about what I actually said. I will say that perhaps "most" is a bit of an exageration, but there is no doubt that at least a large percentage does fall into that catagory.

There probably isn't a study that would suit your wishes. However, I HAVE known a lot of petty criminals, nearly all of which didn't have the desire to hold a steady job because they were simply lazy and found it easier to take what other people worked for. Just because there is no study doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you don't want to believe it, that is your right. I do hope you take precautions to keep the sand out of your ears while you have your head burried.

I do understand that there is a difference between what is legal and what is right. Your comparison between the newspaper and the Westboro Church I do not think is correct. The newspaper which published public documents had the right and it was not wrong. If those gun owners did not want it known they own firearms then they should not have registered them, but that would be against the law. Or simply not obtained the weapons in the first place.

Perhaps there is no study...but some documented evidence would help support your claim.

We will have to agree to disagree about whether the comparison is a good one or not. Personally, I think it is spot on.

When I say it was "wrong" for the paper to publish those addresses I mean it was morally "wrong". I stand by that. If you don't, that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion no matter how "wrong" it is.

When the paper published that information they painted targets on EVERYONE in the area covered by the gun owner information. They painted a target on the gun owners for the thieves that want to steal guns, and they painted a target on every house that was not listed because now the thieves can be more assured as to which houses aren't protected by a firearm. While printing that information is "legal", as you like to point out, it was very careless and negligent of them to do so and that makes it morally "wrong" in my opinion, since it puts every one of those residences at risk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
Well the comparison is debateable. As to your premiss now gun owners are in danger from criminals, igor, I will say in the realm of possibilities it could happen, also a large rock could fall from the sky tomorrow and send us into a new Ice Age. It is just going to have to be a wait and see. I am going a little further in saying that in the begining as a response to recent events, those supporting gun ownership showed a icon claiming that the 2nd Amendment protected the lst Amendment, now that someone has excersived the lst Amendment rights the pro gun owners are upset. And why should they be...they are protecting free speech, or is all this simply a weak justification to own guns. Then there is John Lotts' study on more guns, less crime. The gun owners should be over joyed, there are some here who have pointed to Lotts repeatedly discreadit study as justification to own weapons. The publication of would be an excellent way to prove Lotts theory that when a commiuty has guns criminal will leave, rather as many say the gun owners are endanger. Then it could all be just another pathic attempt to justifiy gun ownership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime