• Gun rights advocates can publish lawmakers' addresses, judge rules
    133 replies, posted
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;51892951]When did I say it would be funny?[/QUOTE] Nah I s'pose ya' didn't you just tried to make a smug point about how if someone were scared and intimidated enough they'd see YOUR side. "Lol, that idiot is even MORE scared of gun people now that they've published his place of residence and personal information, maybe that'll make him see that we're not monsters that want to use the freedoms he's trying to legislate on to kill his family! This [B]definitely[/B] proves that we have the maturity to own firearms for self defense and recreation!" Like do you people think this shit through? If I wanted to ban guns I'd be fucking rubbing my hands together with glee over this. Just pay some people to astroturf more pro-gun groups into doing stuff like this and you'll have the best argument against gun ownership that's existed in decades, rofl. "They literally have public lists of the residences of people who they hate..." Like, by all means I don't give that many shits about gun law myself, but like... This is advice. Don't do this shit, or your fight [I]will[/I] get harder. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51893611]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.[/QUOTE] TBF I also thought the Eich situation was bullshit and another example of the worst excesses of those few years. Proooblem is that the SJWs are gone, friend. They seem to have gotten bored, or simply have no public sway anymore, and what do they have to prove for it? Shit all. Nothing. They [I]lost[/I]. Now the right wing is running the show, has the overton window, and ooooh boy are they fucking it up hard. Get ready for the next swing back, it's gonna' be fucking [I]weird[/I].
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51893306]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] Im not asking which is the more sane or credible. Which has more of an impact on a person; death threats, or sign holding?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51893916]Im not asking which is the more sane or credible. Which has more of an impact on a person; death threats, or sign holding?[/QUOTE] death threats presumably, since we might as well give up the pretence that America operates as a functioning democracy if anything goes now
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51894900]death threats presumably, since we might as well give up the pretence that America operates as a functioning democracy if anything goes now[/QUOTE] If America was functioning as intended people wouldn't feel like their voices were being blocked out, and our politicians exist in their own echo chambers. But no, please continue to neglect all negativity happening and push your idea that everything around you is operating perfectly, and it's just "everyone else" who is doing it wrong.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51894925]If America was functioning as intended people wouldn't feel like their voices were being blocked out, and our politicians exist in their own echo chambers. But no, please continue to neglect all negativity happening and push your idea that everything around you is operating perfectly, and it's just "everyone else" who is doing it wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm like, didn't Sobotnik's grand old United Kingdom just vote for Brexit? He spends all day every day talking down to Americans about "their" failing government completely ignoring the fact that his own is just as shit, just not as overt.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51894900]death threats presumably, since we might as well give up the pretence that America operates as a functioning democracy if anything goes now[/QUOTE] Your government saw fit to censor fucking facesitting porn and held a referendum whose results are disastrous so what the fuck is with your weird British-superiority complex.
[QUOTE=srobins;51895070]I'm like, didn't Sobotnik's grand old United Kingdom just vote for Brexit? He spends all day every day talking down to Americans about "their" failing government completely ignoring the fact that his own is just as shit, just not as overt.[/QUOTE] It's not even about what his government is doing compared to ours. When he posts in threads like these and tries to debate, he just comes across as the kind of guy who would tell you his house isn't burning down because he has a note that says "This house is fine". Meanwhile, everything around him is crumbling. But because it's on paper, it must be that way, and it must be true or else everything else is wrong. I'm half-asleep with painkillers from a surgery yesterday, so that may not make 100% metaphorical sense, but I tried my best...
[QUOTE=geel9;51895107]Your government saw fit to censor fucking facesitting porn and held a referendum whose results are disastrous so what the fuck is with your weird British-superiority complex.[/QUOTE] i don't recall where i said in the thread that the british government was superior [QUOTE=Revenge282;51894925]If America was functioning as intended people wouldn't feel like their voices were being blocked out, and our politicians exist in their own echo chambers. But no, please continue to neglect all negativity happening and push your idea that everything around you is operating perfectly, and it's just "everyone else" who is doing it wrong.[/QUOTE] the point i keep trying to make is sending private death threats to politicians and then pretending that this is a workable solution to a problem is just pathetic. it's depressing to see such a great country having its basic institutions made a mockery of [QUOTE=srobins;51895070]I'm like, didn't Sobotnik's grand old United Kingdom just vote for Brexit? He spends all day every day talking down to Americans about "their" failing government completely ignoring the fact that his own is just as shit, just not as overt.[/QUOTE] well it is in serious trouble, and i don't think dismissing legitimate concerns by saying "your country is also shit" is an argument you should be making
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895235]well it is in serious trouble, and i don't think dismissing legitimate concerns by saying "your country is also shit" is an argument you should be making[/QUOTE] I'm well aware of the issues my country's government has, I'm literally advocating for protest outside of politicians private residences IN THIS THREAD. I'm saying your snide and condescending tone towards Americans due to a flawed government most of us already detest is unnecessary and obnoxious.
I hope as a Canadian I am still allowed to be condescending towards my fellow anglophones.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51895228]It's not even about what his government is doing compared to ours. When he posts in threads like these and tries to debate, he just comes across as the kind of guy who would tell you his house isn't burning down because he has a note that says "This house is fine". Meanwhile, everything around him is crumbling. But because it's on paper, it must be that way, and it must be true or else everything else is wrong. I'm half-asleep with painkillers from a surgery yesterday, so that may not make 100% metaphorical sense, but I tried my best...[/QUOTE] No I think it's a great analogy. The British government is failing their people just as is the American government, just without all the fireworks and flashing lights.
[QUOTE=srobins;51895318]I'm well aware of the issues my country's government has, I'm literally advocating for protest outside of politicians private residences IN THIS THREAD. I'm saying your snide and condescending tone towards Americans due to a flawed government most of us already detest is unnecessary and obnoxious.[/QUOTE] i think the problem is more in that i find posting the private addresses of politicians (with the obvious intention that anonymous people are going to send them threats) is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic tradition anybody who claims to defend democracy and liberty and yet ignores (or worse yet) justifies things that are actually serious problems is a fucking hypocrite. i'm sorry but that's a plain fact
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895346]i think the problem is more in that i find posting the private addresses of politicians (with the obvious intention that anonymous people are going to send them threats) is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic tradition anybody who claims to defend democracy and liberty and yet ignores (or worse yet) justifies things that are actually serious problems is a fucking hypocrite. i'm sorry but that's a plain fact[/QUOTE] Protest outside of a private residence and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, what are you even talking about? Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's anti-democracy.
[QUOTE=srobins;51895370]Protest outside of a private residence and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, what are you even talking about? Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's anti-democracy.[/QUOTE] it's really fucking obvious that this being used to intimidate legislators one of the bloggers advocating doxxing and sending threatening messages to them literally has a pseudonym. i mean how fucking hypocritical can you be?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895393]it's really fucking obvious that this being used to intimidate legislators one of the bloggers advocating doxxing and sending threatening messages to them literally has a pseudonym. i mean how fucking hypocritical can you be?[/QUOTE] The fact that it can be used to threaten legislators doesn't make it undemocratic lol. Knowing the address of the White House enables people to threaten the President, while simultaneously allowing people to peacefully protest on the curb outside. No matter how much you kick and scream, just because you disagree with it doesn't it's undemocratic.
[QUOTE=srobins;51895441]The fact that it can be used to threaten legislators doesn't make it undemocratic lol. Knowing the address of the White House enables people to threaten the President, while simultaneously allowing people to peacefully protest on the curb outside. No matter how much you kick and scream, just because you disagree with it doesn't it's undemocratic.[/QUOTE] it's the context of it this ruling reverses a law which allows legislators to ask for their information to be removed if they have been receiving threats of such a nature that their lives (or that of their families) come to be in danger and now they are receiving consistent threats from a very obvious organised source, threats that actually have weight and could be backed up do you not see the problem in this?
All everyone's response have been "two wrongs don't make a right". That's true, but now the playing field is even. And now maybe legislators would be more willing to pass legislation that protects all rather than just themselves.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51895521]All everyone's response have been "two wrongs don't make a right". That's true, but now the playing field is even. And now maybe legislators would be more willing to pass legislation that protects all rather than just themselves.[/QUOTE] you do realise that this ruling basically hands cowards and hypocrites free reign to send the children of politicians death threats now right this isn't a ruling that common people are going to profit by. it's going to be hypocritical cowards who lack spinal cords, it's going to be them who will send more death threats to people and justify it on the grounds "they aren't listening to me" this is utterly disgusting and i think you should be ashamed for trying to justify it on the ground "it levels the playing field".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895572]you do realise that this ruling basically hands cowards and hypocrites free reign to send the children of politicians death threats now right this isn't a ruling that common people are going to profit by. it's going to be hypocritical cowards who lack spinal cords, it's going to be them who will send more death threats to people and justify it on the grounds "they aren't listening to me" this is utterly disgusting and i think you should be ashamed for trying to justify it on the ground "it levels the playing field".[/QUOTE] Considering that the publishing of Conceal carries names in the papers did exactly the same thing to those whose names were posted I'd say yes. Like I said, maybe the legislators will pass a bill protecting both.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51895667]Considering that the publishing of Conceal carries names in the papers did exactly the same thing to those whose names were posted I'd say yes. Like I said, maybe the legislators will pass a bill protecting both.[/QUOTE] "maybe pass a bill" isn't going to cut it even if one wrong thing happens it doesn't mean you should go on doing the wrong thing. the only precedent doing the wrong thing sets is to consistently keep on doing the wrong thing in the vain hope that somebody smarter than you will do the right thing in the comfortably distant future
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895720]"maybe pass a bill" isn't going to cut it even if one wrong thing happens it doesn't mean you should go on doing the wrong thing. the only precedent doing the wrong thing sets is to consistently keep on doing the wrong thing in the vain hope that somebody smarter than you will do the right thing in the comfortably distant future[/QUOTE] In today's current political climate we're potentially looking at a whole lot of "one wrongs". You can take the moral high ground all you'd like, but the world isn't full of sunshine and rainbows. Sometimes doing the right thing means you get fucked, and when it's the government doing the fucking there's a serious problem. So if it's OK for the government to post my information to the world to be harrased and doxxed for owning guns, what's my legal recourse against a government that doesn't have to play by the same rules I do? Wait months and spend thousands of dollars in the courts? Place my 1 vote towards another candidate in hopes of voting my 1 senator/representative out of office? Or is it better to remind them that they in fact to have to play by the same rules we do? The "Right thing" to do there puts a lot of what ifs and maybes into the equation, where the "wrong thing" gives you instantaneous results. When you're talking about the people as a whole who are potentially affected by this, there isn't enough time in a lifetime to hope that the right way is going to work. The government was elected to serve the people, not the other way around, and if they think they hold a higher level of protection or can be subject to a different set of rules because of their position the only way you're going to change that is to knock them down to your level and remind them that they get to play at the same rules we do.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51895813]In today's current political climate we're potentially looking at a whole lot of "one wrongs". You can take the moral high ground all you'd like, but the world isn't full of sunshine and rainbows. Sometimes doing the right thing means you get fucked, and when it's the government doing the fucking there's a serious problem. So if it's OK for the government to post my information to the world to be harrased and doxxed for owning guns, what's my legal recourse against a government that doesn't have to play by the same rules I do? Wait months and spend thousands of dollars in the courts? Place my 1 vote towards another candidate in hopes of voting my 1 senator/representative out of office? Or is it better to remind them that they in fact to have to play by the same rules we do? The "Right thing" to do there puts a lot of what ifs and maybes into the equation, where the "wrong thing" gives you instantaneous results. When you're talking about the people as a whole who are potentially affected by this, there isn't enough time in a lifetime to hope that the right way is going to work. The government was elected to serve the people, not the other way around, and if they think they hold a higher level of protection or can be subject to a different set of rules because of their position the only way you're going to change that is to knock them down to your level and remind them that they get to play at the same rules we do.[/QUOTE] sending death threats to politicians isn't going to fix this though, which is literally what i've been arguing todays political climate is actually one that creates "solutions" like the ruling made by this judge, which does nothing but worsen matters this isn't a case of taking the moral high ground - this is a case where you're actually going to make the problem much worse and will do the opposite of what you want believe me, gun owners are going to ultimately lose more rights because of this ruling and the precedent thus created
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895848]sending death threats to politicians isn't going to fix this though, which is literally what i've been arguing todays political climate is actually one that creates "solutions" like the ruling made by this judge, which does nothing but worsen matters this isn't a case of taking the moral high ground - this is a case where you're actually going to make the problem much worse and will do the opposite of what you want believe me, gun owners are going to ultimately lose more rights because of this ruling and the precedent thus created[/QUOTE] You keep talking about death threats like this is a bill that titles itself "Freedom of Death Threat Act". It's simply about publicly releasing addresses of politicians. No one advocates threatening them or their families. But if they aren't hearing us out through official channels, then we're going to get them through private ones. I'm sure they get death threats from anonymous people in official mailings too, it's just now more of an inconvenience. Your willingness to absolutely bend over to make everything around you seem acceptable is amazing.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51895907]You keep talking about death threats like this is a bill that titles itself "Freedom of Death Threat Act". It's simply about publicly releasing addresses of politicians. No one advocates threatening them or their families.[/QUOTE] i don't think you get that the entire drive of many of the people supporting this ruling was to make it easier to threaten and intimidate them the law itself allowed public officials to demand their personal information to be removed if they or their family was being threatened as a result of it. [quote]A California blogger who goes by the pseudonym "Doe Publius" and writes under the name "The Real Write Winger" posted the identifying information for 40 state lawmakers after Governor Jerry Brown signed several gun control bills into law in July 2016. It was later republished by another blogger. "These tyrants are no longer going to be insulated from us," he wrote. "These are the people who voted to send you to prison if you exercise your rights and liberties" as a gun owner. At least six state senators reported receiving threatening phone calls or social media messages that appeared to have been prompted by the blog entry, according to court documents.[/quote] saying "this doesn't mean they get death threats, see how innocuous this is" doesn't cut the cake when the fucking direct result of it and the people spearheading this movement is to intimidate politicians [quote]Your willingness to absolutely bend over to make everything around you seem acceptable is amazing.[/quote] I mean what does this even mean? I'm saying this isn't acceptable at all. I'm saying the exact opposite of what you are saying here?
Sobotnik what the fuck do you propose even [b]happen[/b]? Do you want the lawmakers to pass a bill making it illegal to share lawmakers' private details, but not illegal to do it for citizens?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895848]sending death threats to politicians isn't going to fix this though, which is literally what i've been arguing todays political climate is actually one that creates "solutions" like the ruling made by this judge, which does nothing but worsen matters this isn't a case of taking the moral high ground - this is a case where you're actually going to make the problem much worse and will do the opposite of what you want believe me, gun owners are going to ultimately lose more rights because of this ruling and the precedent thus created[/QUOTE] I understand what you have been arguing, to which I have been arguing that it was legally allowable to do so to civilians under current law. Being a victim of being doxxed I get it, but you have to understand that politicians hold positions that generally receive little to no repercussions for their actions. Lets frame this in a different light so I can better explain my train of thought. Lets pretend the same contexts of this issue is applied to say abortions. We'll say its in Arkansas, since that's an issue that has been recently highlighted. Lets say Arkansas passes legislation saying that life begins at conception. I'll say currently there are no laws barring people from publishing other peoples information (not sure if there is or isn't there). Someone decides to publish an entire list of everyone in the state who has had an abortion (which is a HUGE violation of HIPA in of itself, but for the sake of argument I'm putting that aside). So now everyone whose had an abortion is now publicly listed, and we'll just say everyone from the date forward who had an illegal abortion gets listed as well. What repercussions do the legislators face for any of this? Lets say a group comes together and gets a court case going and succeed in getting the list pulled. Doesn't change the fact that the list was published, and de facto the list still exists thanks to the internet. So now potentially thousands of people have had their personal information released, with absolutely no legal or other ramifications being imparted on the legislators who put the act more or less into motion. Now, if their information can be publicly shared as well all of a sudden the playing field is even. Now they can fall victim to the same tactics used to victimize those who had abortions. Now they do have to face consequences for their actions just as the people had to before. As such they are now more inclined to either draft legislation to protect themselves, which would look incredibly bad, or draft legislation to protect all. Of course that's not to say that they would for sure choose the later, but it now places them in a precarious situation that they need to react to. As I said, it evens the playing field and reminds legislators that they have to play by the same rules we do.
[QUOTE=geel9;51895958]Sobotnik what the fuck do you propose even [b]happen[/b]? Do you want the lawmakers to pass a bill making it illegal to share lawmakers' private details, but not illegal to do it for citizens?[/QUOTE] I've been saying continually throughout the thread that it's unacceptable to dox. I don't know where the hell you got the idea I support making it illegal for lawmakers but legal for citizens.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895972]I've been saying continually throughout the thread that it's unacceptable to dox. I don't know where the hell you got the idea I support making it illegal for lawmakers but legal for citizens.[/QUOTE] Then fucking good! Let's pass a law to make it illegal to dox people!
[QUOTE=geel9;51895977]Then fucking good! Let's pass a law to make it illegal to dox people![/QUOTE] lets do that then but where does making a ruling allowing doxxing public officials come into all this?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51895992]lets do that then but where does making a ruling allowing doxxing public officials come into all this?[/QUOTE] Because currently the law is that people can be doxxed. You seem to still not get it. [b]We don't want anyone to be doxxed.[/b] The only reason we're saying it's okay to doxx lawmakers is because [b]that's what the fucking law is.[/b] We are proposing that it be changed so that nobody be doxxed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.