Although publications like the Tennessean don’t value the 2nd Amendment like the First Amendment—I believe in ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL Citizens and they RESTRICT the government.

I wonder if the Tennessean editorial writers (notice they don’t attach names to their editorials) would be happy having to obtian a state permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, as gunowners must to carry for self-defense? Then would they want the government to make their info availabel in violation of thier right to be private in their effects? Probably not.

I do think the onus of a law should be on the government to keep our permit info confidential. Just as with me being a healthcare professional, I msut by law keep patient info confidential. I wouldn’t infringe of First Amendtment rights IF they published released information, jsut as I wold expect them to respect my 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment right to be private in my self-defense “effects”.

Remember: the Preamble to the Bill of Rights made it clear that they were “restrictive” of the govenment and “declarative” of the rights of the people. So any law safeguarding pinformatino should be on governmetn officials and agents who have required that info for our permit.

Of course, requiring a permit to exercise a right (RKBA) is unconstitutional—but that’s another argument.

This idea that they have a Constitutional right to do anything, no matter how illegal, no matter how morally repugnant, and no matter how dangerous, has got to stop. They could run the story on that felon without a specific name, and nothing whatsoever would happen. It’s a red herring. These wailing columnists also didn’t say anything was ‘boneheaded’ about Trejbal’s decision when he released the names of abused women in hiding, so my sympathy meter’s pegged at empty on that one.

The Orwelian media has been elbowing to become some modern-day Aztec priest for fifty years, sacrificing honesty and impartiality at the altar of power. The American people have awakened, realizing that the blood the media has shed hasn’t turned our fortune, and maybe the New Priesthood has some other motive. Don’t worry: that sound you hear? It’s just a toilet flushing.

ColtCCO

Personally, I have no problem with jail time for those lying jackals. The rights covered by the first ammendment do NOT give the media the right to invade people’s privacy and/or endanger them.

Furthermore, I believe that if someone gets attcked in their home because the media published that homeowner’s address that the people who published the list should be considered accessories to the crime and be delt with accordingly.

Of course, they left out they also published the names and addresses of women who had gotten carry permits to protect themselves should their stalker get their new address by, I don’t know maybe, it being published in the newspaper. I’m sure they would have played the battered women and children card if it wouldn’t have made the law seem reasonable.