Other State NYPD sued over access to Trump family gun records

[Joe Link]

NYPD sued over access to Trump family gun records

Read More

 

[nmwabbit]

Joe, thanks i needed that snippet to get a chuckle, but the most humorous portion of the cite is the "comment" section. Unbelievable!

Oh and thought provoking, e.g., "I wonder how liberals would feel about a list of people and addresses who DO NOT have guns being published in the papers. The criminal element would sure like it."

#1 commenter: I would like to see a list of all women under 40 who use abortion as their primary means of birth control.

#2 responder: You looking for your family members and/or a date ?

#1 commenter: A cheap date.

#3 responder: BAAAAAA line up little sheep !!!!

 

[wildcat455]

LMAO!!!

 

[targetshooter]

Seems like the primary allegation of these lunatics, that of eroding the publics trust in government by not revealing the information, is exactly the opposite of reality. We, THE PEOPLE, have the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, regardless of position. If the NYPD releases the info, THAT is an abrogation of our personal rights. Of course, in a liberal lefty state like NY, its pretty certain that there is some buttwipe judge who will find against the cops and force them to release the information.

I think the real issue is that no one ever heard of the DAILY DOT, OR WET SPOT, so this is a way to publicize themselves.

 

[nmwabbit]

Seems like the primary allegation of these lunatics, that of eroding the publics trust in government by not revealing the information, is exactly the opposite of reality. We, THE PEOPLE, have the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, regardless of position. Snipppp....

So targetshooter...could you point to a specific cite which substantiates such an unconditional constitutional 'RIGHT' to privacy for this nation's citizens?

As for position, I seem to remember DJTrump's privacy was strained for not releasing his taxes or Barack endured unmitigated grief to release his birth records and when he did, nobody believed the documents.

Ya regardless of position the people have the right...uh huh!

 

[philtbn]

Is there no subject that upon which your opinion doesn't have to be heard?
You need a different hobby.

 

[targetshooter]

So targetshooter...could you point to a specific cite which substantiates such an unconditional constitutional 'RIGHT' to privacy for this nation's citizens?

As for position, I seem to remember DJTrump's privacy was strained for not releasing his taxes or Barack endured unmitigated grief to release his birth records and when he did, nobody believed the documents.

Ya regardless of position the people have the right...uh huh!

TRY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND ARTICLE IV OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS . I'M SURE YOU WONT, YOU'LL INTEPRET IT INCORRECTLY, ETC., ETC., ETC.,

"Fourth Amendment
Main article: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[92]

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.[106] The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[107]"

 

[nmwabbit]

Sorry, targetshooter, you made the statement as gospel, but as anticipated, you have no cite, but do in fact misconstrue the 4th extremely well.

The concept of this thread is a private entity is seeking the private personal information of a citizen not unreasonable searches of citizens as governmental agents already have the judicial wherewithal to obtain warrants, etc., to investigate a crime.

"The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law.

• The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
• The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
• The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
• The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
• The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
• The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment...However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing." Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

The other privacy connotations are, as mentioned, statutory, not constitutional, e. g., financial, HIPPA, etc.

One hopes your fourth was pleasant targetshooter...

 

[targetshooter]

Sorry, targetshooter, you made the statement as gospel, but as anticipated, you have no cite, but do in fact misconstrue the 4th extremely well.

The concept of this thread is a private entity is seeking the private personal information of a citizen not unreasonable searches of citizens as governmental agents already have the judicial wherewithal to obtain warrants, etc., to investigate a crime.

"The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law.

• The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
• The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
• The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
• The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
• The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
• The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment...However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing." Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

The other privacy connotations are, as mentioned, statutory, not constitutional, e. g., financial, HIPPA, etc.

One hopes your fourth was pleasant targetshooter...

Tell me when a newspaper has become a PRIVATE ENTITY? You've just proven that your ability to understand facts is sorely lacking.

one hopes that you will eventually take your corrupt interpretation of everything, go back into your hole and stay there.

 

[nmwabbit]

So, targetshooter let's recap
1. Newpaper, a private entity, has sued NY PD to obtain a private citizen's personal firearm records.
2. You unequivocally stated, quote: We, THE PEOPLE, have the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, regardless of position. Unquote
3. This member asked if you had a cite or where in the constitution your statement was stated.
4. You misconstrued the 4th amendment's governmental agencies' constraints towards citizens by said agencies as protecting citizen's personal privacy.
5. This member specifically quoted and provided a viable cite stating citizens personal privacy is, quote While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution....

Yet In all your response(s) you insist on what you perceive are demeaning personal insults towards me insinuating I have some type reading or inability to understand. You might consider providing forum members viable specifcs justifying your commentary or rebuttals to my cited material instead of hurling the petty insults.

 

[nvshooter]

Trump and his sons most certainly should have handgun permits. Look at all the liberal idiots who wish to perpetrate harm upon them. Would love to see some looney wacko from the Insane Left take a shot at Trump. Would love even more to see the Secret Service use their Uzis to turn the looney wacko into the makings of sausage.

 

[nmwabbit]

Trump and his sons most certainly should have handgun permits. Look at all the liberal idiots who wish to perpetrate harm upon them. Would love to see some looney wacko from the Insane Left take a shot at Trump. Would love even more to see the Secret Service use their Uzis to turn the looney wacko into the makings of sausage.

Might wait by the front door for the knock from the nice LEs to discuss your 18 USC 871 commentary made on a very public forum.

Oh and please catch up, the UZIs are passe as current LGs of choice of HL agents are FN's P90 & HK's MP5.

 

[nvshooter]

Might wait by the front door for the knock from the nice LEs to discuss your 18 USC 871 commentary made on a very public forum.

Commentary must be credible for it to be of any interest to them. I wrote "take a shot at..." Nowhere is it written that I wished the shot to find its target. Nowhere is it written that I might try it. There is a reason I have you on Ignore. Try to keep up, dingbatus maximus...

 

[targetshooter]

Might wait by the front door for the knock from the nice LEs to discuss your 18 USC 871 commentary made on a very public forum.

Oh and please catch up, the UZIs are passe as current LGs of choice of HL agents are FN's P90 & HK's MP5.

SO THAT'S YOUR PLAY? You are a BAITER! Let us know when you MASTER it.

 

[nmwabbit]

Targetshooter so glad to see you are behaving true to form, tho 'fraid not even a good try as it fails to begin to reach elementary playground level...

 

[targetshooter]

Targetshooter so glad to see you are behaving true to form, tho 'fraid not even a good try as it fails to begin to reach elementary playground level...

I guess that means you've reached Nirvana.

Besides, its good enough to reach your level, ha ha ha. And if not, i'm sure you can stoop lower than you already have. LOL

 

[targetshooter]

I guess that means you've reached Nirvana.

Besides, its good enough to reach your level, ha ha ha. And if not, i'm sure you can stoop lower than you already have. LOL

By the way, you have reached my saturation point. You're so arcane, you turn my stomach, so I'm done even reading your comments, they arent worthy of any effort, as they are still ineptly interpreted.

So, enjoy life in your hole, mr. wabbit.

 

[Mrjenkins]

Are you just pissed off at the world? Seriously your picking fights with everyone. Go start your own forum and argue with yourself. We are all on the same side here except you. Your acting worse then the democrats screaming for gun control... calm yourself targetshooter for the love of god

 

[nvshooter]

Hmmm. Several posts have disappeared...

 

[targetshooter]

Are you just pissed off at the world? Seriously your picking fights with everyone. Go start your own forum and argue with yourself. We are all on the same side here except you. Your acting worse then the democrats screaming for gun control... calm yourself targetshooter for the love of god

hmmm, lets see? I supported the President's right to privacy in not having any gun ownership records revealed or released. Since then there has been a lemming disagreeing to our right to privacy, disagreeing with each statement I've made supporting a persons right to privacy while he has challenged our right to privacy. Seems to me that said lemming is attacking constitutional rights to privacy, and you accuse me of being WORSE THAN DEMOCRATS? IT APPEARS THAT I'M ON THE SIDE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORT IT, on the other hand it seems as though the other person, AND NOW YOU, suffer from the same lack of cognizance, in that you interpret thing incorrectly, at will, or decide you just want to argue about something. I'm just pissed off at goobers who cant read, don't understand or act foolish. I have only picked fights with those people who suffer these faults, which now include Y O U. You must be either a dumbasscrat or someone who just wants to mouth off.

I'm totally calm, you and mr. wabbit seem to be acting like the DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS who confront people in obnoxious ways, I guess to get your 15 minutes of fame.