"It's not something you are entitled to keep confidential," Orchard said. "No one forced you to acquire a handgun."That's fine, Jack--no one forced you to act like a Quisling--for profit. You want to be out there doing things for personal gain that impact the rights of your countrymen like this, it would seem fair if your private information became public--along with the private information of those employing you.
At some point, someone is going to realize that when people say they want to be left alone, they mean it.
One thing that gets me about this though, is no one is apparently trying an obvious reaction to this. We know the Mail Tribune is a prime instigator. We also know times aren't good for the newspaper industry as a whole.
Gun owners should organize and pick one advertiser, so they can keep their resources focused, and make it their problem, too. Convince them that their advertising dollars are financing an attack on their customers' rights, and persuade them to suspend it. Then move on to the next one. It's a peaceful and responsible reaction that allows for acting locally, and I'd bet a couple dozen committed and creative people could pull it off. And it doesn't have to be all stick--it doesn't take too much imagination to conceive of some carrots that could be offered to make it worth a retailer's while.
But I've been chanting that mantra for some time, to no avail. I really don't expect any but a handful to actually do anything, and any but a handful of those to do anything that doesn't rely on political popularity.
And we wonder why we're reaching the point where some of us, a small but serious percentage, are feeling like we're cornered with nowhere to go but through, while others scold us not to growl at the tormentors because it scares people and makes all gun owners, meaning them, look bad by association.
[Via Jeffersonian]
3 comments:
If somebody thought it would be a good idea to publish the private information of anyone in Oregon with a Journalism degree, because after all it's a public trust and we should know who these people are, this fellow Orchard would probably be somewhere at the barricades.
But that's different, of course. You can't hurt anyone with a newspaper. Right?
That was my first reaction, too, but then I figured that two wrongs don't make a right.
Still, someone did force the people to acquire a permit. (I can imagine a collection of posts containing, "We're the Permitted Ones...") I have yet to see a release of complete motor vehicle registration information, or state income tax returns, yet this is the third (?) case where carry permit information--effecting tens of thousands--is being published. We have witnessed "authorities" culling permit holders, for no reason, by rejecting renewals and applications. We have witnessed investigations that targeted permit holders because a crime happened to occur nearby. We have witnessed outrageous fee schedules and waiting periods.
I am wondering at this point if the permit system is more often abused by those with custodianship of the records than a weapon is abused by permit holders. I think a good case could be made.
Never mind that the 4th Amendment was already violated by Form 4473 and all that other bureaucratic crap that the GOVERNMENT does to us.
But I do agree that private enterprises do NOT need to know.
Post a Comment