Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

OH: Newspaper commits to publishing identities of permit holders; KABA will return fire
Submitted by: Angel Shamaya

There are 99 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is committed to publishing the names of people who receive concealed weapons permits in Ohio:

"[I]t is this newspaper's intention to obtain this information and publish it. Our readers deserve to know the identities of those who obtain permits to carry their guns in public. We hope other news organizations will do the same in their communities."

The editors of this newspaper can expect a taste of their own medicine.

As soon as they publish permit holders' names, we'll publish the names, phone numbers and home addresses of every single person on staff at the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Same goes for any other newspaper that singles out gun owners in this way.

And we will distribute that data as far and wide as we can, throughout the State of Ohio, through all channels of our influence -- just like these Gun Bigots are threatening to do.

Contemplate other legal ways to make this newspaper regret their commitment to violating the privacy of lawful gun owners. Post comments here; we'll be reading them.

I'm also requesting that people in and around Cleveland begin collecting intel on the staff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and forwarding it to me immediately. We've got a little time before permits are issued, but we may as well begin preparations for a measured, civil response to these hate-mongers right now.

Comment by: TheMrMitch@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

Absolutely publish names AND addresses of the paper's Editor and as many antis as you can.

Don't forget e-mails, phones and fax numbers. Hoo Boy.

Comment by: cropcirclewalker@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

I think it would be in the public interest to also publish the names, socialist security numbers, addresses, and phone numbers of local and state law enforcement officers. Especially (or limited to) those that harass the armed subjects of Ohio.

Comment by: public2@graystar.homeip.net (1/9/2004)

Wouldn't it be great to take out a full-page ad in their own newspaper and publish all that info! :)

Comment by: george@georgecombs.org (1/9/2004)

I think you guys are on the right track!

If my name gets published, I think I'll sue for unauthorized use of intellectual property, namely my name. I think I'll throw in an invasion of property charge just for the hell of it.

Comment by: sixguns@mtaonline.net (1/9/2004)

Find out about any previous convictions/accusations against members of the staff. Use any and all info you can get. After all, that's what they do to everyone else.

Comment by: darkluparim@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

OK, Householder WARNED them that if the open-id provision was abused, that he would take action. I'm going to forward this to him to show him that the loophole needs to be closed, NOW.

Never have the liberal media jumped through just the right hoops at just the right time to really help us screw them over.

Join me, anyone?

Comment by: gbs49@comcast.net (1/9/2004)

Also if any of them have a really neat car, publish a description with tag number noting that is undefended-easy pickings!

Comment by: heehee@mailinator.com (1/9/2004)

When you get their addresses, sign them up for as much junk mail as you can think of.

Comment by: Simonova (1/9/2004)

I would say keep asking why the newspaper is so eager to alert thieves where gunowners home are, and equally protective of police and .gov royalty who also "have permits", and hide thier names, addresses etc? Why the hypocritical double standard?

Publish also the names of royalty who "carry with permit". names, addresses, the works, local and state and fed (especially fed)

Comment by: wlemery@excite.com (1/9/2004)

Another idea is to contact the businesses that advertise in the paper and encourage them to advertise elsewhere. If the paper sees even a few advertising dollars depart the owners of the paper may change their stance.

As for publishing MY name and address in their paper, I only ask that they add a disclaimer: I'm ten for ten at 25 feet, rapid fire.

Comment by: dtrimble@lanset.com (1/9/2004)

This is just a list of where the criminal element should NOT go. You know these homes have guns so, go elsewhere. Leaves a pretty long shopping list for thieves unless they are after guns, then they'll come in shooting.

Davet

Comment by: mrpalazzolo@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

Ahh yes. So the "reporters" think it's their duty to publish the names of those that obtain a CCW "permit." I can hear them clamor: "It's going to be so scary for everyone in Ohio! Beware these people with guns! Look, they are terrorizing us by publishing our names and addresses for expressing our 1st Amendment rights! We need to ban these people from publishing private information because they are full of hate and are terrorists!"

Remember those in Europe that had to wear the Star on their shirts? It's going to come down to gun bearers not being able to walk down the street, go shopping, be entertained, visit a park, etc. without being harrassed. But the sheeple won't care because we're terrorists I guess. It's only going to get worse.

Comment by: pblank77@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

This may cross the line but I feel war has been made official in the "Paper".

One highly effective tactic, is to use their own distribution system. Insert into all of the newspaper machines loose leaf notices with private contact info.

Or obtain info on upper managements minor children, and threaten to distribute it to Ohio's registered sex offenders.

Comment by: keith.collins@centrilift.com (1/9/2004)

An editorette in Gillette, Wyoming, tried the same thing. It went to the WY Supreme Court, who ruled that privacy was "implied" in our CCW law, even though not stated. She didn't give up, but the court case delayed her and generated outrage that forced our legislature to fix our law immediately to guarantee anonymity, before she could publish names.

Ohio's Supremes might not rule for privacy, unless on 4th Amendment grounds, but filing a case could buy time to force the OH legislature to fix this.

When is Tyrant Taft gone?

Comment by: jpfonline@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

If Kaba publishes any addresses I pledge today to make sure I mail each person on that list a brick and a nice letter describing how much more inteligent the enclosed brick is than themselves.

If 100 others mail these perps a brick imagine what fun that person will have opening (or picking up) their mail.

:D

Comment by: gary@keepandbeararms.com (1/9/2004)

You guys are great. "Mail them a brick" - that's freaking hillarious. I, too, pledge to do this if addresses are published. Shoot, I'll include some instructions along with it: "Throw brick into air, position head beneath falling brick, allow brick to impact crown of skull, repeat until desired effect is attained." Maybe it'll knock some since into them.

Gary (Florida)

Comment by: gadsen@livefreeordie.com (1/9/2004)

Not just names, addresses, and phone numbers, but any public info like divorces, arest records, drug use, you name it.

If the newspaper wants to play that game, than let's give 'em both barrels a million times over.

Our enemies are ruthless. We must be ruthless too. Our rights and privacy are always under attack!

Comment by: ghostmaker@keepandbeararms.com (1/9/2004)

pblank - "Or obtain info on upper managements minor children, and threaten to distribute it to Ohio's registered sex offenders."

That's so wrong, but SO RIGHT !! No limits on freedom of information, alright then, let the games begin. Fire must be fought with fire.

If they're going to publish names and addresses of permit holders, invading their privacy, they should expect to have theirs invaded as well.
However, I might suggest the full page add being placed in a competitive newspaper, no sense in giving them the advertizing revenue.

Comment by: leroystubbs2002@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

Awaiting my first orders General, what's the first plan of attack?

Comment by: Director@KeepAndBearArms.com (1/9/2004)

"This is just a list of where the criminal element should NOT go. You know these homes have guns so, go elsewhere."

The problem is that you're right: criminals can target the homes of exposed gun owners, case the homes, wait until nobody's there -- and rob them. Then there is the issue of anti-gun employers harrassing their employees who obtain so-called "permits" to be "allowed" to defend their own precious lives.

Singling out permittees and publishing a list of them is pure gun bigotry at its worst. It's insulting to the extreme. These people can expect to be treated in the same way.

Comment by: micktbak@excite.com (1/9/2004)

In addition to posting the names of the papers staff, start a campaing to get folks to cancel their subscriptions and boycott the companies that place adds. You have to hit them in the pocket book.

Comment by: strehlem (1/9/2004)

Love the brick idea! I'm pledging to mail bricks as well!

Comment by: gadsen@livefreeordie.com (1/9/2004)

Here are a few other good ones:

1. Sign them up for a bunch of nasty, rude nudie/gay/lesbian magazines, to both their work and home addresses

2. Buy a bunch of fake, plastic guns. Take some duct tape and tape a fake gun to each of their front doors.

3. If you can find a vehicle of thiers that is not locked, place a fake (but real-looking) gun on the front seat. Then anonomously call the police as a "concerned citizen".

4. If they have kids, anonomously mail them pro-gun T-shirts: NRA, Remington, etc.

5. Bury old gun parts in their gardens, then tip off the BATF. You know how overzealous those guys are!

There are many ways to get to them, use your imagination!

Comment by: gadsen@livefreeordie.com (1/9/2004)

A couple more:

1. Sign thier kids up for Guns 'N Ammo or Soldier of Fortune magazine

2. Anonymous mail letters that contain one big word: "BANG!"

3. Call from a payphone. Yell "BANG BANG BANG!!" into the phone, be it voicemail or answering machine.

Comment by: chucksawders@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

My suggestion would be to take out billboard advertising drawing attention to the list of CCW holders and informing all "interested Parties" where they can find this list, and pointing out that those names that do not appear on it, including I assume, the publisher of the paper, are less likely to be able to defend themselves or their homes. As a further step, I would publish and/or advertise the names of every LEO and his/her home address in the state. In an effort , of course to provide for officer safety as well as public safety.

I should think that would be viewed as only fair by those wanting to spotlight CCW holders. As the criminals would know who and where to avoid, and who would be a "safe" target (this is about safety.

Comment by: Sarah@jointogether.org (1/9/2004)

You people are so mean spirited. Don't you see that we're just trying to keep everyone safe from gun violence? If people are allowed to carry handguns, there will be blood in the streets and daily massacres. My husband Jim was the victim of gun violence so I know first hand the pain these instruments of destruction can cause. Maybe all of you were never loved as children which is why you're so angry and mean. Please listen to reason, join our organization and make new friends. If we all "join together" we can make a better world, won't you please open your hearts?

Comment by: doug@dcfitness.com (1/9/2004)

All I can think of is Nazi Germany. People being identifed (and ultimately persecuted) for nothing but being a Jew. Now, gun owners doing nothing illegal will be labeled and eventually persecuted. There will be repercussions if names get into the paper. CCW carriers will be shunned by neighbors, looked at sideways by co-workers, lectured by priests. Is it not an invasion of privacy for me to publish the names of every known gay and lesbian? I'd like to see the Plains Dealer try that one and see the ton of bricks that would come down on their head.

Comment by: keith.collins@centrilift.com (1/9/2004)

Sarah,

I completely agree with you.

What's your full name, address and phone number, so that good, like-minded, open-hearted people can contact you.

Keith

Comment by: gkinslow@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

Sarah, first off, you have my (and many others here feel the same) sympathy for you and your husbands pain. But the time has come for you to realize that while a gun was used to cause this pain, the blame should be directed towards the person (criminal) who pulled the trigger! The time has come for you to open your mind and see our side of the issue. You may never fully agree with our position, but if you spend some time here and get to know us, you will see that we already have opened our hearts and have many loved ones. We choose to protect ourselves and loved ones with the best tool available, a firearm.

Comment by: saddenedcitizen@ev1.net (1/9/2004)

To the poster above, I HOPE that was sarcasm but if
not -
First I am sorry for your husbands misfortune however,
There are people in the world who will take from
you whatever they happen to want, money,
belongings etc. & may injure/kill you if you get
in their way.
Laws, support groups, singing together WILL NOT
stop or even slow them down.
If you wish to remain defenseless (the evil one
WILL NOT be) that's your choice,
but I will defend myself, home, loved ones etc.
911 (could be a long wait !!), talking to the
perp in a calm voice etc. will NOT help.
BTW, the blood running in the streets, gun fights
over parking spaces and all the other hysterical
proclamations has NOT happened in other states
that have passed CCW.

Comment by: bruce_krafft@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

I'm wondering what the paper's legal liability will be? If someone breaks into a home based on the knowlege that they have no guns, or based on the knowlege that they do (and he is looking for one) can the homeowner sue the paper?

Comment by: george@georgecombs.org (1/9/2004)

Way to toe the gun-grabber line there, Sarah. Blood in the streets, Dodge City, innocent people living in fear, and kids and cops being gunned down. When Florida made concealed carry legal, critics said the Sunshine State would become the Gunshine State and said those very things would become the norm.

But Houston, we have a problem. None of that ever happened, and the critics were left with egg on their faces.

Friends are great, Sarah, but this is strictly a safety issue, not a social issue. It's about defense of self, family, and home. You need to differentiate between the two.

Comment by: esquire@legal1.com (1/9/2004)

I think that the Cleveland Plains Newspaper should be reminded that if a CCW permit holder is targeted, they could be sued in a civil case as contributing to the cause of the incident. The real cost to them would be in a class action lawsuit brought by all CCW permit holders against the paper. While it all comes down to the makeup of the jury, I would think that the threat of a class action suit might make them change their mind, once they print the names, they can't un-print them. Of course they want other papers to do the same, they're trying to spread the responsibility.

...and of course if they print them, most retaliatory methods would be appropriate.

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

They passed state, local and federal background checks, and are "Certified Good Guys."

Why must HONEST citizens be licensed to exercise their right under the 2nd, but even Ex-Cons, Crooks, Liars, Spouse Abusers, Plagarists and all manner of unseemly nere-do-wells get to exercise their 1st Am. guarantees without restriction.

I submit that significantly more harm to the public has come at the hands of unregulated, dishonest, unprofessional yellow journalists than licensed gunowners. THEREFORE - Journalists MUST be registered and licensed.

Freedom of the press is well and good, but it should be subject to 'reasonable' restrictions.

Do it for the children!

Comment by: Sarah@jointogether.org (1/9/2004)

Excuse me sirs, but that's what police are for. As a society we are part of a group, governed by laws and the police enforce and uphold those laws. We have a court system and a penal system that punnishes evil doers and to allow untrained citizens to carry firearms about on their person is hazardous for one, and is sending the wrong message to the world, that being one of vigilantiesm. If we can't rely on our police to protect us, then it demonstrates a breakdown or fault in our society. We've created a legal, moral, and social structure in which to build our country on, going back to the ways of the wild west is not a step in the right direction.
I beg of you to open your hearts and minds and put a stop to the madness....for the children

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

Okay, let's play what if ...

What if, every time a 'so-called' journalist from this rag printed a controversial, inflamatory or untruthful story, their photo, phone number and home address got published on a website somewhere. (Overseas to prevent repercussions)

Would anybody want to start a pool as to how long it took them to scream about how illegal, immoral and dangerous such an action is?

BTW - I know quite a few people with CWPs who have little intention of carrying a firearm, and even a few who don't own guns. They got their permit 'because they could.'

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

I Also Submit That ...

Statistically you are much more likely to be (unjustly and illegally) killed or injured by a policeman than a CWP holder.

In the interest of fair play, they should also publish the names and addresses of all policemen. (Who also carry guns)

Yes, I'm sure some honest, hard working cops will die, get robbed or be injured because of such a publication, but after all, doesn't the publics' right to know trump the 4th?

Comment by: liberty@politicalforums.net (1/9/2004)

This "Sarah" is not doing anything but flame baiting and trying to get the attention off the subject. He/she needs to post to a different place under the proper subject heading.

In the mean time those who love liberty should keep a keen eye not only on this "news paper" but the ones in your own town. Not only do we have to keep the Government in check but we must keep ALL socialists in check, whatever "news paper" they spill they diatribes from.

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

Now that the Knee Jerks are done ...

The way I read the law is ...

A journalist can call and ask, "is John Doe of 223 Remington Street a CWP Holder?

They are entitled to a Yes/No Answer on a SPECIFIC individual.

That way, if John Doe is involved in a newsworthy and relevant event, they would be able to find his permit status, and I have little/no problem with this.

A blanket list of ALL CWP holders would not, however, be made available.

Correct me if I am wrong.

E

Comment by: keith.collins@centrilift.com (1/9/2004)

I hope "Sarah" needs a cop real fast someday.

Comment by: ghostyorange@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

As posted by Sarah@jointogether.org:

"...If we can't rely on our police to protect us, then it demonstrates a breakdown or fault in our society."

You obviously aren't responsible enough to protect your own life. By your very statements, you have proven that your life is not in your hands, but belongs to the police. Therefore, you are nothing more than slave.

Enjoy your chains.

Comment by: brianr@flash.net (1/9/2004)

Sarah,
I sincerely hope you are not a flamer or troll to this site. Regardless, let's look at this logically.
A. You have the right to not be armed and rely on the police.
B. I have the right to be armed and protect myself and family at the moment of occurance (sp?)
C. The courts have ruled numerous times that the police have no duty or obligation to protect individuals.
With those facts I respectfully ask that you and you're brethren leave myself and others that feel the same way alone, to protect ourselves, and we will gladly leave your ilk to the police.

Comment by: ghostyorange@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

As posted by Sarah@jointogether.org:

"Don't you see that we're just trying to keep everyone safe from gun violence...My husband Jim was the victim of gun violence so I know first hand the pain these instruments of destruction can cause."

You believe that if people couldn't own or carry guns, your husband would still be alive, because he couldn't be shot(although he could still be stabbed). That's because you believe evil exists only in the gun.

We believe that if people can own or carry guns, your husband would still be alive, because he ended the threat with his own gun, be it from another gun, knife, or other weapon. That's because we believe evil exists only in the hearts and minds of people.

Comment by: george@georgecombs.org (1/9/2004)

Sarah, what you fail to understand is that law enforcement is, by and large, are reactive. Usually, they can only react to the information given to them.

This is not a slight on them, but it's the truth. Law-abiding gun owners want to help make officers' jobs a bit easier.

Put it another way: Imagine how long it takes the police to arrive, then realize it only takes a mere fraction of that time for someone to die or be mortally wounded.

This is no outlandish theory, Sarah. This is fact, and history has bore this out.

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

Dear Sarah:

First, thank you for joining in our discussion. Regardless of the reactionary opinions of a few on both sides of this issue, open debate is encouraged here.

By posting your position here you WILL engender the wrath of a few of the reactionaries on our side, so please take their comments with a grain of salt.

I'd like to offer you a one-on-one debate on the issue, to be conducted in public, between JUST you and me, on my website.

If you would be open to this, I will provide you a private E-Mail address where we can discuss the issue.

If not ... well, maybe the reactionaries on our side are not so reactionary.

The Gauntlet is Down, The Ball is in Your Court.

Egg

Comment by: v_1dars@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

OK guys. Ignore Sarah. You would think that the "...For the children" line would have let you know that somebody is messing with you.

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

v1dars

You Said ... "the ...'For the children' line would have let you know that somebody is messing with you.

Unfortunately, these folks really think like that! (As they drive their SUVs to their Save the Planet rallys and consider an attendance of six [two of which are infiltrators from this board]at a 'million moms' meeting a 'capacity crowd.')

You do have to admit, however, the choice of the name Sarah is a good one!

Comment by: hayesmauck@comcast.net (1/9/2004)

It's totally messed up that we should have to PAY to exercise an inalieable Right. Permits and the mentality that they imply are the enemy.

Free people don't need to ask permission to save or protect a life.

Good luck Ohio.

Comment by: Director@KeepAndBearArms.com (1/9/2004)

There are some good suggestions here, and there are a few that are illegal and not supported here, for that reason. For example, it is legal to send mail to someone that is not threatening in nature. But it is not legal to enter someone's vehicle to plant a fake gun and then call the police about the gun. At least two laws would have to be broken to do that, so we oppose such an action.

Keep it above the belt, and keep the ideas coming. We'll leave those suggestions posted here because they are just plain funny. But we hope nobody actually takes them as serious -- and we're hoping for more ideas.

Meanwhile... (continued)

Comment by: Director@KeepAndBearArms.com (1/9/2004)

Meanwhile, I've just had a phone call with a man in West Virginia who says they are printing the names and home addresses of people who have permits. That's already happening there. So we can test out the publishing of those newspaper editors' home addresses before anyone in Ohio ever applies for a permit under this new law.

As soon as we have evidence in hand of this happening in WV, you'll see it here on this website. When you see that report, it will include a list of possible action steps.

Comment by: gunstuff@wirth-milyuns.com (1/9/2004)

My E-Mail to he Plains Dealer

Without getting wrapped up in the rhetoric of the 'Publish Concealed Weapons Permit Holders Info' I'd like you to answer ...

Why?

What public good will be served by publishing personal information about those who pass a criminal background check, are trained in the use and safety of firearms, and may or may not choose to carry one for personal protection?

Your response is appreciated.

Comment by: ghostmaker@keepandbeararms.com (1/9/2004)

Gunstuff, at a minimum, it's purely an intimidation tactic, meant to keep people from getting the permit. IMO, it's a good way to destroy a person's career and source of income if he happened to work for an anti-gun company (begrudgingly) and was fired as a result on his pro-gun stance. For this, any party involved should be sued since we're all bound by the rule of law...for now.
All that has to be done is to prove damages, and find a lawyer who's willing to take on the case. Make it a class action suit and they'll probably work on contingency, either way, a formal letter to the paper should be sent, certified mail. A formal warning, followed by subsequent damages shows negligent and reckless behavior. The rest lies with the jury.

Comment by: gkinslow@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

Ghostmaker,
All that has to be done is to prove damages, and find a lawyer who's willing to take on the case. EXACTLY!!!
Far too long we have been loosing the legal war that the gun-banners have been waging on us. This is still a paper war (lawsuits), we need to fight it on that level! Play their game and find a way to sue their pants off! Many of us here believe in Title 10, Section 311 and are ready to contribute whatever skills and supplies we can, but what this unorganized militia desperately needs right now is a JAG.

Comment by: reply@ravnwood.com (1/9/2004)

I say, why wait. Lets start at the top. The Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is Douglas Clifton. Here is his address and telephone number:

Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

Comment by: ghostmaker@keepandbeararms.com (1/9/2004)

On a "fun" level, how about the next St. Patricks day parade or Memorial day parade, every CCW holder carries a sign with the name, address and phone #, drivers license, ss #, (whatever possible) of the staff at this paper. That would be a great forum, covered as a local news event(national if we're lucky) on tv and would really bring the pro-gun movement up for discussion as well as the right to privacy. This Taft character seems to think that we have no privacy, so neither should he.

Comment by: gljohnson1@comcast.net (1/9/2004)

A list of every advertiser in the paper their adderss and phone number and a strongly worded statement that if they continue to advertise with the paper you will not trade in their establishment
Guy L Johnson

Comment by: heywuldjabloughmi@yahoo.com (1/9/2004)

stay away from "class action" lawsuits. the lawyers make money on them, you wont. how about a thousand individual lawsuits...all with a change of venue to the ccw's own county of residence. media outlets dont like lawsuits. and thats because jurys dont like the media...a thousand little cuts !!

hi "sarah", trust the "gov" to protect you...your husband did. doesnt it just tick you off to know "he's" allowed unsupervised visits with his family. oh and remember "sarah", your husband was in the protective company of the presidents detail, thats s.s. to you dear, and he got plugged in the head...so yes, i'll trust the same "gov" to protect me, oh yea, you better believe it, uh,uh...o tay!

Comment by: DesertEagleCal50@aol.com (1/9/2004)

I think someone ought to E-mail a link to this site to the news paper so the do gooders there can see what they are going to be up against. I believe if I were one of those people I'd be sweating it after reading the anger that they have already generated just on this thread. This not only threatens gun owners that have a permit but also the family members of these permit holders that live in the same houses as they do that will be targets for any deranged criminal that might happen to read the list. They think it's cute to threaten this group of people that they feel is inferior to themselves. Once the ball gets rolling they'll soon discover it wasn't such a good idea after all but by then it'll be to late.

Comment by: j_lolli@hotmail.com (1/9/2004)

I would suggest posting their names next to a statement that says:

"The following is a list of GUN FREE homes.
NO GUNS are in this home
to endanger any child,
resident or VISITOR
invited or otherwise!"

Comment by: Director@KeepAndBearArms.com (1/9/2004)

I left a message on the home voice mail of the editor of the Plain Dealer.

I also recorded that message I left, on my end, for evidence -- in case he tries to say I was threatening. I wasn't.

I told him I'm covering a story about the movement afoot to publish the home addresses of everyone on staff at the Plain Dealer, starting with editorial staff, and that in the interest of being fair and balanced would like to get a statement from him.

I was sickeningly sweet and hoped them a very nice weekend. I left my name, our organization's name and my phone number and asked him to please call me back as soon as possible. His home voice mail is done by his wife, whose name I didn't write down.

I used the number found above.

Comment by: blouisville@yahoo.com (1/11/2004)

You guys rock! Keep up the good work against these ultra-liberal gun bigots. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help spread their names and phone numbers.

Comment by: Wends99@aol.com (1/11/2004)

THANK YOU. I APPLAUD what you are about to do to that scumbag newspaper. The editors of that rag deserve everything about to be dished out to them for attitudes.

Comment by: saltplainsgunman (1/11/2004)

Don't let "Sarah"distract you guys from the mission .Stay focused.

Comment by: saltplainsgunman (1/11/2004)

Hey Sarah!Got a cigarette?

Comment by: phil@phildennison.net (1/12/2004)

As a former Clevelander, I'm not even a little bit surprised by this. The PD is and always has been -- Feagler notwithstanding -- firmly in the pocket of the Democrats and their pet issues. I plan to feature this on my blog and link to you.

Comment by: phil@phildennison.net (1/12/2004)

Comment by: I_called_Doug_Clifton@home.com (1/13/2004)

I called on tuesday 1/13/04 at 2230 hours.
His wife answered the phone and he was very surprised that some citizen would call about ccw and he became flustered and hung up on me...
In the words of Bob Dylan,
How Does It Feel?
eh doug?

Comment by: spark21@hotmail.com (1/16/2004)

The interesting thing about them listing the names and addresses of persons with CCW/CHL's, is that they may see a REDUCTION of crime in those neighborhoods...conversely, those addresses of the newsmen who are not ALSO on the CCW/CHL list may, in fact, see an INCREASE in crime. While I do not advocate crime against fellow Americans, this could be seen as a great opportunity for converts...

Comment by: MUGU@GUYMAN.COM (1/28/2004)

I am Mugu from Lome Togo.I really like your site cos it's very informative.And I'll like to others that they should keep off or move ahead cos I DON REACH HERE O MUGU.