TexasCHLforum.com

twice in one day!

Venus Pax wrote:

LedJedi wrote: In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

These guys aren't kindergarteners. They knew exactly what they were doing.
As for using the law to fight them... changing the law could, and often does, take years. Publishing the editor's personal information was something that could be done immediately; I imagine it got the point across.

I imagine it only fueled the already raging fire in the media that pro-gunners are crazy. (yes, i realize the absurdity of that argument given they just did the same thing)

now, i'm not saying it wasn't .... hmmm, what's the word? Justified? that doesn't seem right.

It just wasn't really a productive move. It probably only made them even more upset. I can't think of a better tactic though. I'm not wild about some of the coverage that was given the situation afterwards either like news pieces about how they published information on people who were in hiding. the news piece just highlights that person even more.

The hole thing was poorly handled on both sides... hilarious in a sense, but poorly handled.

stevie_d_64 wrote:But I absolutely feel outrage for the folks in states that allow the blatant abuse of public data information...

i'm not saying that using public data to the ends of the dark side of the force is bad, but is there really such a thing as "abuse"... it is afterall, "public data".

if we dont like how folks use it, then we should change the laws so that the data isn't public, not be mad at how folks use the data. In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

hate the law, not the abusive idiots. if the law wasn't as it is the abusive idiots couldn't be abusive.

just my opinion.

para driver wrote:I think we should publish the home address, phone, email, ssn, etc of all the politicians who are gun grabbers.. Rudy, Hillary, Shumer, Fienstein, Pelosi, Kennedy and of course anyone who ever contributed a dime to the Brady Bunch.. I think it's a public service to those who agree with their viewpoints??

and point out in said publication that these folks are anti-gun and are almost assuredly unarmed.

I can't say I agree with this, but that doesn't keep me from giggling with glee.

< me inside

< me outside