• Gun rights advocates can publish lawmakers' addresses, judge rules
    133 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51889233]why the fuck are people using a shitty law passed in NYC to justify a shitty ruling passed in California[/QUOTE] Political tribalism, casus belli.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51889165]real life isn't software and it's pretty obvious this is being used more to intimidate politicians than anything else one of the people spearheading (who was responsible for getting people to send the threatening messages) this writes under a pseudonym on his blog this is nothing but hypocrisy[/QUOTE] It's not really hypocrisy to believe that our elected officials should be more accessible than private citizens.
[QUOTE=srobins;51889469]It's not really hypocrisy to believe that our elected officials should be more accessible than private citizens.[/QUOTE] That's perfectly fine to expect. Publishing their addresses is uncalled for, regardless of politics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51889490]That's perfectly fine to expect. Publishing their addresses is uncalled for, regardless of politics. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".[/QUOTE] I don't know, I think maybe it's reasonable to expect their address to be public for the sake of protest. If people are threatening them we have laws to put them in prison as a response.
[QUOTE=srobins;51889469]It's not really hypocrisy to believe that our elected officials should be more accessible than private citizens.[/QUOTE] There are already plenty of channels by which you can contact your representatives without opening them up to harassment and violent acts. Don't kid yourself by saying that this is a move to make them more accessible. It's a violation of their privacy and a straight up malicious move made just to prove a point.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51889941]There are already plenty of channels by which you can contact your representatives without opening them up to harassment and violent acts. Don't kid yourself by saying that this is a move to make them more accessible. It's a violation of their privacy and a straight up malicious move made just to prove a point.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you can call their secretary and send their secretary letters. Calls which are never returned, messages which are never listened to, and letters which are never read. Their mailbox may as well feed straight into an incinerator. If you want to be a public official and influence/control the lives of thousands of an electorate you open yourself up to protest and direct contact imo. If you can't handle it, fuck off and continue being a lawyer or whatever else you were doing before. I'm tired of politicians being an elite class completely disconnected from their constituents.
[QUOTE=srobins;51890259]Yeah, you can call their secretary and send their secretary letters. Calls which are never returned, messages which are never listened to, and letters which are never read. Their mailbox may as well feed straight into an incinerator. If you want to be a public official and influence/control the lives of thousands of an electorate you open yourself up to protest and direct contact imo. If you can't handle it, fuck off and continue being a lawyer or whatever else you were doing before. I'm tired of politicians being an elite class completely disconnected from their constituents.[/QUOTE] Wrong, I've both got a letter, and gotten a call for two things now.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51890286]Wrong, I've both got a letter, and gotten a call for two things now.[/QUOTE] I'm happy that you have one of the, like, three American politicians that do their job as intended, unfortunately your positive experience doesn't make up for everyone else's negative ones.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;51886672]They should buy a gun for protection then, in case someone tries to break into their home and hurt them.[/QUOTE] Anti-gun crusader Dianna Feinstein owns a handgun even though she believes Americans should not be allowed to. Hypocrite.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51890753]Anti-gun crusader Dianna Feinstein owns a handgun even though she believes Americans should not be allowed to. Hypocrite.[/QUOTE] To play devils advocate, she owns a gun because somebody leaked her personal information, and her families, so her and her husband were getting death threats on a daily basis. Kinda similar to whats happening here.
[QUOTE=srobins;51890259]Yeah, you can call their secretary and send their secretary letters. Calls which are never returned, messages which are never listened to, and letters which are never read. Their mailbox may as well feed straight into an incinerator. If you want to be a public official and influence/control the lives of thousands of an electorate you open yourself up to protest and direct contact imo. If you can't handle it, fuck off and continue being a lawyer or whatever else you were doing before. I'm tired of politicians being an elite class completely disconnected from their constituents.[/QUOTE] Revealing home address kinda seems like crossing a line to me. Go and protest at town halls or wherever their office is located, people's homes should be off limits.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51890787]Revealing home address kinda seems like crossing a line to me. Go and protest at town halls or wherever their office is located, people's homes should be off limits.[/QUOTE] I think the original point here was that if ordinary people aren't protected by law from having their home addresses published as an intimidating tactic, lawmakers should get the same treatment, the idea being that perhaps that will cause lawmakers to make it illegal to publish people's home addresses. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that that was the original argument. Not sure what it's mutated into now.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51890811]I think the original point here was that if ordinary people aren't protected by law from having their home addresses published as an intimidating tactic, lawmakers should get the same treatment, the idea being that perhaps that will cause lawmakers to make it illegal to publish people's home addresses. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that that was the original argument. Not sure what it's mutated into now.[/QUOTE] It's evolved into 'lawmakers have no right to privacy because of their job', courtesy of srobins.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51889165]real life isn't software and it's pretty obvious this is being used more to intimidate politicians than anything else one of the people spearheading (who was responsible for getting people to send the threatening messages) this writes under a pseudonym on his blog this is nothing but hypocrisy[/QUOTE] You completely missed my point and grabbed the most shallow thing you could to make an attempt at a rebuttal. Why do you think it has come down to using intimidation tactics for something like this? NYC aside, if your politicians aren't listening to you, and you have exhausted all official channels for reaching them. How do you propose someone make their voice heard? This is just civil disobedience, which I think is agreed on as an effective form of protest. And you're right, it is hypocrisy. Except you can find it in equal amounts on either side of the argument.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51892050]You completely missed my point and grabbed the most shallow thing you could to make an attempt at a rebuttal. Why do you think it has come down to using intimidation tactics for something like this? NYC aside, if your politicians aren't listening to you, and you have exhausted all official channels for reaching them. How do you propose someone make their voice heard? This is just civil disobedience, which I think is agreed on as an effective form of protest. And you're right, it is hypocrisy. Except you can find it in equal amounts on either side of the argument.[/QUOTE] When you protest against a lawmaker, you don't protest against them as a person, you protest against them as a government figure. Their professional lives should be separate from their personal lives. As citizens of the United States they should enjoy the same right to privacy that every other citizen enjoys.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51892078]When you protest against a lawmaker, you don't protest against them as a person, you protest against them as a government figure. Their professional lives should be separate from their personal lives. As citizens of the United States they should enjoy the same right to privacy that every other citizen enjoys.[/QUOTE] I understand that. However, when you try all legitimate means to achieve something, and you are denied every time, you don't have many options left. Surely you wouldn't suggest someone in that situation to just put everything down, and try again another day and hope they get lucky? I'm applying this to more general purposes, not specifically gun laws. Politicians avoiding constituents is a growing theme as of late.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51892101]I understand that. However, when you try all legitimate means to achieve something, and you are denied every time, you don't have many options left. Surely you wouldn't suggest someone in that situation to just put everything down, and try again another day and hope they get lucky? I'm applying this to more general purposes, not specifically gun laws. Politicians avoiding constituents is a growing theme as of late.[/QUOTE] I understand the frustration but intruding into their personal lives crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. In my opinion, directing any protest at their place of work sends a stronger message and is also less morally questionable.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51892111]I understand the frustration but intruding into their personal lives crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. In my opinion, directing any protest at their place of work sends a stronger message and is also less morally questionable.[/QUOTE] Which is the stronger message in your mind? "This issue is important to people because they picket outside townhall 2 days a week" or "This issue is important to people because I and my family are getting death threats". I don't disagree, leaking personal information like that is shitty, and it's even shittier to use that information for gain, but abuse of that information sends a much stronger message than just protesting.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51892858]Which is the stronger message in your mind? "This issue is important to people because they picket outside townhall 2 days a week" or "This issue is important to people because I and my family are getting death threats". I don't disagree, leaking personal information like that is shitty, and it's even shittier to use that information for gain, but abuse of that information sends a much stronger message than just protesting.[/QUOTE] No, one message is "While they're trying to paint them as a bunch of gun nut psychos, they're law abiding responsible citizens" while the other message is "The gun nut psychos are gun nut psychos, who would have guessed".
[QUOTE=froztshock;51887158]It'd be funny if lawmakers actually got shot by some nut because of this. Oh wait no it wouldn't.[/QUOTE] When did I say it would be funny?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51890781]To play devils advocate, she owns a gun because somebody leaked her personal information, and her families, so her and her husband were getting death threats on a daily basis. Kinda similar to whats happening here.[/QUOTE] It's still a bad case of [I]Laws for thee, not for me[/I].
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51892078]When you protest against a lawmaker, you don't protest against them as a person, you protest against them as a government figure. [B][U]Their professional lives should be separate from their personal lives. As citizens of the United States they should enjoy the same right to privacy that every other citizen enjoys.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] No other citizen enjoys this privacy. Remember Brandon Eich? Remember Donald Sterling? Remember people justifying THEIR breach of privacy? This monster was not created overnight.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51892858]Which is the stronger message in your mind? "This issue is important to people because they picket outside townhall 2 days a week" or "This issue is important to people because I and my family are getting death threats". I don't disagree, leaking personal information like that is shitty, and it's even shittier to use that information for gain, but abuse of that information sends a much stronger message than just protesting.[/QUOTE] The latter just makes you sound insane and discredits any message you're trying to send, so frankly I think the former sends a stronger message.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51893281]No other citizen enjoys this privacy. Remember Brandon Eich? Remember Donald Sterling? Remember people justifying THEIR breach of privacy? This monster was not created overnight.[/QUOTE] Brandon Eich held a public position that lots of people found untenable. Not really sure how that's comparable. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] and even still, two wrongs don't make a right
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51893536]Brandon Eich held a public position that lots of people found untenable. Not really sure how that's comparable. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] and even still, two wrongs don't make a right[/QUOTE] Eich held a position almost a decade ago that was so popular in CALIFORNIA that it was passed twice. Even then, employees said that they never had a problem with Eich, and that he was never intolerant towards them.
"But.. but two wrongs don't make a right!" How about we talk about the initial problems that started all of this in the first place? That would be way more productive than slinging out an arbitrary saying that holds little water in the real world. It's just getting old at this point.
Even then Eich only donated privately and the only reason we know he did is because the list got leaked in a vindictive move to name and shame.
[QUOTE=DuCT;51893577]Eich held a position almost a decade ago that was so popular in CALIFORNIA that it was passed twice. [/QUOTE] A couple decades before that black people were drinking from different water fountains, what's your point? [QUOTE]Even then, employees said that they never had a problem with Eich, and that he was never intolerant towards them. Even then Eich only donated privately and the only reason we know he did is because the list got leaked in a vindictive move to name and shame.[/QUOTE] eh alright, I wasn't super familiar with what happened to the guy.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51893536]Brandon Eich held a public position that lots of people found untenable. Not really sure how that's comparable. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] and even still, two wrongs don't make a right[/QUOTE] I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. I'm saying that when keeping professional and personal lives separate was brought up in those instances, people were ok with crossing that line and encouraged it. Now that it's something people don't agree with, NOW they want that boundary respected. It's disingenuous at best. But I digress. He argues that we, as citizens, enjoy a right to privacy that keeps our personal lives separate from our professional lives, and lawmakers should enjoy the same right. However, as has been pointed out, we as citizens apparently DON'T have this right, so neither should they.
The law is the law. Is anyone meant to be above it? No, because then it's only words on paper with a poignant little saying. "Two wrongs don't make a right" If you let one side get away with sideswiping it, whether the law is good or bad, it's going to lead to the inevitable. A situation just like this and it happens all the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.