Iin, that i believe liberals despise law-abiding people as peons?

22 Comments

As you may have heard by now, the Journal News in New York publicized the names AND addresses of all legal, registered, law-abiding gun owners in the same area.
Interestingly, they ignored listing the CONVICTED FELONS in the area.
Now, unless the newspaper people were stupid as butt plugs (and journalists have to be at least intelligent enough to get a college degree to be hired by most newspapers) they HAD to understand that they were putting out a nice hit list of homes for criminals to rob for guns (or alternately, a list of homes which DIDN'T have guns and were safe targets!) And registered felons, parolees, ect. were ignored by the journalists.
Mainstream journalists tend to be strongly LIBERAL in their political views. Liberals seem to romanticize violent criminals as modern-day Robin Hoods, or as misunderstood children who deserve our sympathy and respect (instead of properly viewing people who engage in predatory violence past the age of 18, as the dangerous vermin that they are.) Liberals also seem to crave power, and consider themselves a cut above "ordinary" people (who they view as ignorant, stupid peons. Liberal British expatriate Piers Morgan exemplifies this.)
It is clear to me that this liberal, leftist newspaper is putting out a list of what they consider to be worthless peons who defy said paper's statist notions on gun control, for the benefit of dangerous people they have a pathological soft spot for. Is it normal, that I perceive this situation thusly?

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 22 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • squeallikeasacofpigs
    10 years ago | pl

    LOL. Piers Morgan is only liberal in America.

    On another note, how is ethical for a newspaper to publish the private information of thousands or people? What the fuck. Aren't there privacy laws in America? I'm confused. I'd be publishing the name and address of the Newspapers owners if that happened to me.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    2
    2
      -
    • shade_ilmaendu
      10 years ago | pl

      There are supposed to be, but the internet has changed things. Now we have all these ignorant little shits who think they're smart because they read things on websites touting "Freedom of speech!" whenever they do things like this. Look at thedirty.com, look at registers for people with STDs. All illegal, but all of them have been up, running, and pretty damn popular for a few years now. I don't understand how they don't get taken down, especially since they have no fact checking and are probably posting a majority of false information.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
  • MissyLeyneous
    10 years ago | pl

    This whole entire "gun control" thing is fairly fucked up.

    In my eyes, gun control is a steady aim and a smooth trigger pull.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    2
    2
  • shade_ilmaendu
    10 years ago | pl

    Personally I think both sides are pretty full of themselves.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    2
    2
  • anti-hero
    10 years ago | pl

    I don't own a gun. But I wish they would put my name and address in the paper to make people think I own a gun. I would be less likely to be robbed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    1
    1
  • bagels
    10 years ago | pl

    I am a liberal and while I only kill people infrequently, I hold traditional conservative beliefs and believe that it's okay so long as you still accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, and make monthly donations to the NRA.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    1
    1
  • dappled
    10 years ago | pl

    Please don't deport Piers Morgan. We DO NOT want him back!

    I can't say for sure but I'd be stunned if the media in the U.S. was truly liberal. It doesn't look that way from the outside (although it's a useful accusation). It's not that way here, either. Most television news is reasonably balanced but the press are largely right wing and, in the case the Daily Mail, teetering on the edge of extremism.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    1
    1
      -
    • VioletTrees
      10 years ago | pl

      Maybe this will give you some idea: I've read various Daily Mail articles over the years, and although I didn't find them to my liking, it didn't occur to me until very recently that the Daily Mail would be considered particularly conservative, much less "teetering on the edge of extremism". I don't think it would be considered extreme at all here.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • dappled
        10 years ago | pl

        I wish they had an archive like The Times do (you can read The Times back to 1775, or something). This is only from memory (or conversation with others) so take it with a pinch of salt but I'd heard they got into trouble in the 1990s when they reported on a scientific paper about a genetic link to homosexuality. They trumpeted it as a great advance because now gay people could all be aborted before birth. I think they even reported that this is what scientists recommended.

        One article I do remember is Jan Moir's piece about pop musician Stephen Gately's death. She implied really rather strongly that he had died because he was homosexual and there was more than a touch of innuendo that gay people get up to strange, life-threatening sexual acts as part of their tawdry existences. In actual fact there were no suspicious circumstances and his family had yet to even bury him when she published this.

        At least once a week, all the problems of Britain are blamed on migrants or (as one of their columnists publicly calls them), "people from Ungo Bungo land". They seize on any science paper that can be twisted to support ultra-conservative views. My biggest worry is that this is what they think they can print legally. First, what do they write that doesn't make print? Second, what do they actually think but don't even write? Of their roster of twenty or so regular columnists, all but two of them I have serious issue with.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
  • jucedaguy
    10 years ago | pl

    All part of the plan I'm sorry to say. Why do you think they staged PA in Tasmania?
    Tightened gun laws, disarm the populace, etc. Etc.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
  • Moneybagschest
    10 years ago | pl

    Stupid as butt plugs. I love that. I think they encourage irresponsibility.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
  • DADNSCAL
    10 years ago | pl

    You're ignorant.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago | pl

      I'm ignorant? Of WHAT?
      You libtards claim to have this "secret wisdom" or other such sh!t, of which people like me are "ignorant".
      WHAT THE F*CK is this secret knowledge, pray tell?
      I'll tell you what it is. It is how to be a brain-dead, American Idol-watching, mainstream-media feeding, tabloid-reading SHEEP that I'm ignorant of! I'm ignorant of how to blindly believe and obey the powers-that-be, and of how to be a good little follower. I made the mistake of reading history and science books when I was younger, instead of watching shows like "The Dukes of Hazzard" and "The A-Team". I also made the error of enjoying hunting and martial arts, instead of obsessing over TV football, TV basketball, and the sex lives of Hollywood celebrities. Poor me!
      Trouble is, I LIKE being ignorant. You can keep your secret liberal wisdom (and stuff it you-know-where.)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      1
      1
        -
      • robbieforgotpw
        10 years ago | pl

        It's more than liberalism just nationally. They're trying to institute social justice world wide. Redistributing America's former wealth to the puppet masters. The economic crisies have been created and planned.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
  • dom180
    10 years ago | pl

    How did the Journal News get the information? Did they get it legally? Was it already in the public sphere?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI
      10 years ago | pl

      It was "out there", but you had to jump through some hurdles. The Journal News basically did the hurdle jumping for everyone else.

      Signed,
      Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
  • Sog
    10 years ago | pl

    What a bunch of crap.

    I had started to write a much more detailed comment, but then I deleted it when I released that this nonsense does not deserve one. If you want to believe that members of one political party are evil, criminal sympathizing, baby eaters, then go right ahead. There's nothing I can ever say to convince you otherwise.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
  • SuperBenzid
    10 years ago | pl

    Liberals generally are more educated, intelligent and successful than conservatives, so if they seem themselves "a cut above" then that would just be an accurate view of reality. Statistical studies have long backed this up.

    On the other part no it is not normal to judge the entirety of a political belief over the actions of a small news service in New York.

    Also statist simply means to believe in a central state so unless you are an anarchist then you too are a statist.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    -4
    -4
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago | pl

      Since you respect statistics so much, how about the studies which have found gun owners to be better-educated (and to make more money) than non-gun owners on average? Or the studies which show legal gun owners to be LESS criminally inclined than non-gun owners?
      Unless you're going to claim that criminals are smarter than law-abiding people on average, the results of the studies you mention don't amount to much (at least where the gun issue is concerned.)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI
        10 years ago | pl

        One side refers to one study, the other study refers to another one. Frankly, all the "studies" I've read all contradict one another. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

        Signed,
        Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        1
        1
      • SuperBenzid
        10 years ago | pl

        "gun owners to be better-educated (and to make more money) than non-gun owners on average"

        Guns cost money. People who own luxury items are likely to be wealthier than those who do not own luxury items. Also since felons can't be legal gun owners that will bring the average down.

        "studies which show legal gun owners to be LESS criminally inclined than non-gun owners"

        Again, obvious since felons can't be legal gun owners.

        These are trivially true because any population that cannot include felons is going to be better off than a population that does include felons. What a pointless comparison. About 7% of the US adult population are felons so obviously that will drag the average down in comparison to any population that cannot include them.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        -1
        -1