Saturday, January 5, 2013

NY - Bill O'Reilly - Gun Owners Compared To Sex Offenders

Amen! If an online hit-list which puts ex-sex offenders and their families in danger is okay, then we should have an online registry for all sinners. What's good for one group is good for all groups. Fair is fair, right?  Don't get me wrong.  I don't agree in ANY registry, but if it's good enough to eradicate one groups rights, then everyone should be treated the same, we are all suppose to be treated as equals, right? I'd love to know where gun owners live, especially twisted individuals like Valerie Parkhurst in Florida.

Video Description:
Former New York City mayoral candidate and author Mark Green advocated for new legislation that would allow people to identify and locate gun owners who lived in their neighborhoods. He compared it to the already existing "Megan's Law," which lets citizens know if a convicted sex offender lives near them.

Then he flat-out compared sex offenders to gun owners.

"If we have a Megan's Law — because I think almost everyone might agree — that if you're a convicted child molester, a neighbor might want to know that because they're in your home, safe, but maybe they could hurt someone else," Green said, adding "Same thing with guns."

"There may be people who think the more concealed weapons, the better. Fine. Live in Texas or Florida," he said.

Green was reacting to the Journal News' decision to publish the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. The obvious flaw in Green's argument is that legal gun owners are not criminals and therefore no reasonable rationale exists to place gun owners on some sort of database similar to that of a sex offender registry.
- Many are not, that is true, but many have committed crimes and just haven't been caught yet.  Once a person has done their time, they should not continually be harassed, made to live under bridges, jobless, etc, they should be able to move on with their lives, just like anybody else.  What about all the other criminals?  I think we should post everybody's photo, name, address and work location online for all to see, so we know everybody who lives around us.  We have a right to know that, right?

Even Michael Smerconish, Chris Matthews' fill-in host, disagreed with Green's assessment and said he was not comparing lawful gun owners with convicted child molesters in any way.

However, Smerconish did agree that gun owner information should be publicly available. Putnam County, N.Y., Executive Maryellen Odell disagreed and said releasing lawful gun owners' information was an invasion of privacy.


Macintosh said...

O'Riley is wrong. The published names and addresses of gun owners is all public information. The newspaper did not disclose new information about gun owners, therefore, there is no legal violation of privacy or even an expectation of privacy by gun owners because they understood that their information would be made publicly available when they purchased a gun.

Mark Green puts forth the idea that gun owners should be on registries. There's no legal barrier to doing this now because the information is already public. The next step is to require gun owners to provide ballistics markings for each gun. Of course the ballistics information would only be available to the authorities and would be used only to match forensics evidence gathered at a crime scene (if you're not involved in a gun crime then you shouldn't have to worry ... right?) It's a very slippery slope. One that those on the sex offender list know all to well. Welcome to the club gun owners.

There's no distinction between having to register your car (and its vin # and license plate #) with authorities. One might argue that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right and car ownership is not. You'd be correct in the sense that car ownership is often (incorrectly) referred to a privilege and not a right. For those who have forgotten their Constitutional history ... here's a little refresher. When the current Constitution was being debated there was heated discussion about the Bill of Rights. There were three schools of thought about addressing rights. One group felt that having rights was so obvious that there was no need to explicitly write them down. This group also worried that if there was an explicit list, it would be interpreted that any rights not listed were not granted. A second group felt that Rights were so important that they should be a part of the Constitution itself and not tacked on as amendments later. Because there was a real possibility that the amendments (Bill of Rights) wouldn't pass. The third group sought compromise by creating the Bill of Rights and stated that the Bill of Rights is not a list of all rights, but rather a list of specially important rights. The Constitution itself states that it's purpose is not to describe the limits on the people rather it describes the limited powers that the people grant to government and that all other rights and powers belong to the people not the government. Since the government has no Constitutional right to know your vehicle information .... it's a right that has been given to them by the people, and it's a right that the people can take back.

deathklok said...

I think the thing these two registries have in common is that they won't prevent another tragedy like the one's that initially brought them about.
Knowing whether someone has a gun doesn't prevent them from shooting you.

The most sensible quote I gathered from this video:
Bili O'Reilly says "If somebody endangers the child, Obviously there are going to be criminal charges against that person."
This is how it works. The political control freaks cannot prevent every crime. No matter how much money they spend.

Is this registry meant to shame all gun owners and make them feel or look guilty for what happened in Connecticut? Or is the media spoon feeding us garbage and telling us to pick sides against one another? I'll pick the side with the biggest and most guns, But don't let me get in the way. I don't like guns.