34 votes

Yes, I shall gloat: The Editor of NY Newspaper, whom Unethically released Names & Addresses of LAWFUL Gunowners, FIRED!

Muahahahaha! Karma's a...

Bang! Editor fired after publishing gun-owner map
Released addresses of permit holders, then hired armed guard herself.

The Journal News of New York published an interactive map of permitted gun owners. Picture: Google Maps

Published: 15 hours ago

The editor of the New York newspaper that created a furor by publishing the names and addresses of gun-permit owners suddenly is out of a job.

According to the Rockland Times, a competitor to the Gannett-owned Rockland County Journal News, editor Caryn McBride is among the casualties of a recent purge at the Journal News.

The report said 17 journalists were among a total of 26 staff members at the Journal News who were let go.

It was the Journal News that in 2012 published the names and addresses of all gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties under the headline “Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?”

Janet Hasson Fires Caryn McBride

Posted August 7th, 2013


The recently fired anti-gun nut: McBride

The Rockland County Times has learned that Rockland County Chief Editor Caryn McBride is among the casualties of the recent purge of 17 journalists and 26 total staffers at the Gannett-owned Journal News newspaper.

McBride gained fame earlier this year for her involvement in the Journal News gun map fiasco. Police reports indicated McBride had called the Clarkstown Police Department to notify them of torrents of angry phone calls and letters the newspaper received following the publication of the map.

The Rockland editor said she felt threatened by the complaints, but local police did not agree a credible threat against the safety of employees of the newspaper existed. Unsatisfied, McBride and other executives decided to hire armed guards to protect their property, causing an uproar due to the perceived hypocrisy of the avowed anti-gun editors hiring gun-toting men.

H/T: TheGunWire



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How can someone be this stupid

she is asking for illegal guns to kill off legal guns, the road to hell is paved with democrats

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Tempest in a Teapot

The real culprit is the government permit system which makes this information public. Putting it in a newspaper simply made lots of people mad at the same time, which can turn out to be a game-changer.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

FiresofFreedom's picture

Sweet,Sweet Karma

Although this being the NYC metropolitan area there bound to put in other crazy leftists who will post just as ridiculous things. Its nice to see some cumupits once in a while, the fact that this is so rare makes it so much more sweet.

I quit proofreader department, got myself a better job.

It will be interesting to see if the shake-up improves the quality of the journalism and investigations.

Government is the criminal here. They released private information to their cronies, for some purpose.

Will the firings reduce useless government staff?

Free includes debt-free!

The salient point seems to have been missed

in the comments so far. I'm sure grammar is important for a professional writer, but highly irrelevant to me (obviously. Examples of my own poor grammar are legion).

The point of the post, IMO, is showing that someone finally got fired for doing something wrong and stupid.

That really is great news, and pretty rare in this world. It's non existent in government, and nearly so in media.

The only way forward is to hold accountable those morons, and stop their planned paradigm where ever possible.

Thanks for the post [poor grammar aside. ;) ].

Just open the box and see

aw, shucks .o)

that said, not to belabor the point, too much, but for whatever reason, "whom" vs "who" seems to be one of the most misunderstood grammatical usages.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whom

No matter how many times I explain this, it keeps popping up. Well, here's a shorthand, this time aroud: http://www.dailypaul.com/295296#comment-3162242

Though, seeing as how often this topic pops up, I'm thinking perhaps I should have a de rigeur ready-made rebuttal blurb ready, at all times!

lol.

Ah heck, I guess it's a sickness: I rarely lose joy at the prospect of being bemused by those who are less than informed on a topic, lecture others who actually are.

LOL: if I added a comma before "who actually are" to ", whom actually are, ..." in the last sentence of the above paragraph, it instantly becomes grammatically correct; am I and/or a few more wordsmiths here at DP, the only ones who are familiar with this fact?? .o/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

deacon's picture

who,whom and you

if i am talking about you to another,this wouldn't be a whom,but would it
make it a youm? (pronounced yoom) j/k
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I fully stand corrected: "YOUM" it is!

I shall chew, munch and swallow some crow.o/

lol.

xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

A "sickness" I understand

I'm no grammarian, but I have that sickness about many science topics. ;)

Keep on with the grammar lessons, perhaps it will eventually sink in. I have been caught in that who/whom debate many times, and I still fail miserably with it. I usually try to avoid it, the way a barefoot person steps gingerly through a cow pasture. ;)

Just open the box and see

hey, walking in cow pastures is healthy for you!

they're basically chewed up grass and GOOD pro-biotics!

plus, makes for a good fuel (dried, packed manure)/compost/fertilizer

.D

preppers know: good bread oven & slightly stinky rammed earth temporary or permanent shelter!

Hey, centuries of Mongolian and Bedouin traditions can't be wrong!

lol. okay, so theirs is camel and yak, not cow wow, but y'all get the gist: they're all vegetarians who produce the same useful poopy-poop!

P.S. 'Cause you know, seeing as how your avatar, Schrödinger's cat, in no way is a dead giveaway.O)

I'm no grammarian, but I have that sickness about many science topics. ;)

Just for you...well, and me!

http://youtu.be/yiRjywbypLA

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

heres hoping for amazon

heres hoping for amazon purchasing.....THE government

offcourse i am completely and utterly kidding, .......not for the wishfull result though

Interesting notion

Our government is obviously for sale. Amazon could hardly do worse than the current owners, and I really do like my Kindle.

"Meet Ron Paul" is in my "recommended for you" books in the Amazon store and yes, I bought it.

It's not a stretch to believe that I'm already on some "list" anyway.

See you in FEMA camp. ;) lol.

Just open the box and see

Karma's a

Beezy!

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

She unwittingly(?) endangered everyone

who is NOT listed on that map, while perhaps attempting to endanger or at least pressure those who are listed. Heck, she even endangered those who might wish to "teach a lesson" to gun owners by vandalizing, breaking and entering... who will most likely end up staring down a barrel.

Did the editor ever release a statement as to why she did this?

It's "who"...

...not "whom".

Actually, it IS "whom."

Please check with the MLA.

If you don't know what MLA is, you shouldn't be correcting people on grammar and/or punctuations.

.)

Yes, for the most part, the easiest 'trick' is to use the 'him' or 'them' qualifier, and the object of an action.

But sometimes, when separated by a comma, it IS acceptable, kinda like how "kinda" (kind of) and "irregardless" (no such word; it STILL means "regardless"), even though, particularly the latter, is wholly incorrect: it'd be a 'double-negative,' as it is used to communicate regardless, and its actual usage doesn't change the intended meaning of "regardless," whether you add the prefix "ir-" or not.

Suppose we can even parse the proper punctuation of single or double quotes, punctuations within or outside of quotes, like say... "regardelss," vs. "regardless", etc., etc., etc. No?

Could go on and on. LOL.

That said, I'm always amused by those who (or is it "whom?" or "whom"? Dan dan dan! LOL) seem to have a 'need' to correct others.

Never ceases to be bemusing.

Hey, I ain't immune from it, either. But I do, however, try to be as best informed as I can on the subject matter, before attempting to correct others xD

P.S. I forgot to put a comma in the headline; just fixed it. (See, I even know how to use semi-colon, properly.)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Actually It Is "Who"

The editor is the subject "She (subject) released the names" rather than the object "the newspaper fired her (object)."

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

First of all, did you read this part?

Yes, for the most part, the easiest 'trick' is to use the 'him' or 'them' qualifier, and the object of an action.

But sometimes, when separated by a comma, it IS acceptable, kinda like how "kinda" (kind of) and "irregardless" (no such word; it STILL means "regardless"), even though, particularly the latter, is wholly incorrect: it'd be a 'double-negative,' as it is used to communicate regardless, and its actual usage doesn't change the intended meaning of "regardless," whether you add the prefix "ir-" or not.

Secondly, are you familiar with who or what MLA is?

You can take it up with them.

If not, please research them, before responding.

If you have read that part, and are familiar with the MLA, and still disagree and feel that you're still 'correct'??

Well...c'est la vie.

P.S. Also, if you truly, truly want to be grammatically accurate, it's not just "subject" vs. "object": "whom" vs. "who" has more to do with the action enacted by and/or applied upon the object, that truly determines the proper usage of "who" vs. "whom."

For example:

"WHO do you think you are?"

vs.

"WHOM would you want to be?"

The first example asks the subject to enact ON a question at hand. As in, the doer, the en-actor.

The second example asks the 'SUBJECT' to mull what type of OBJECT they want TO BECOME. As in, the 'receiver' of the action.

Or, alternatively, for instance:

"He wants to become a robot, WHOM their traits are fully embodied in."

Or, equally:

"He wants to become a robot(,)* for WHOM their traits are fully embodied in."

* Use of comma BEFORE "for" can be optional, but would communicate relatively the same thing.

Because the second clause (the portion that proceeds the comma) can equally be written as Their (the robots') traits are fully embodied in HIM, the use of "whom" is wholly grammatically accurate.

OBJECT of the function (as in: who is the intended target of the intended action or activity?) is what truly determines "whom" vs. "who," NOT just object vs. subject.

And, lastly, as per the title of this thread:

"Yes, I shall gloat: The Editor of NY Newspaper, whom Unethically released Names & Addresses of LAWFUL Gunowners, FIRED!"

it's basically stating the following, in a slightly short(-er)hand:

"Yes, I shall gloat: The Editor of NY Newspaper, for Whom She Unethically released Names & Addresses of LAWFUL Gunowners, got FIRED!"

Like I said: not as common; use of comma is really the key. I do, however, apologize for the initial wholly unintentional typo comma-omission, which probably made it a bit confusing.

I hope that makes my intent and use of "whom," in the manner in which it was deployed, a wee bit clearer.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul