Sure, what the Journal did was legal. It was also wrong and unnecessary.
This pathetic attempt at defending such trash is sad.
If the Journal had any INTEGRITY it would admit that the posting of CCW-holders' names was completely unethical. The article, although slanted, would not have brought about such a sensational response without the inclusion of the names.
I guess stepping on the people who make our community safer just to get a rise out of the public is one way to get into the national spotlight.
0 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by
still wrong
on 10/04/2008 at 11:25 AM
Extra Extra!
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Re: “Unconcealed”
Sure, what the Journal did was legal. It was also wrong and unnecessary. This pathetic attempt at defending such trash is sad. If the Journal had any INTEGRITY it would admit that the posting of CCW-holders' names was completely unethical. The article, although slanted, would not have brought about such a sensational response without the inclusion of the names. I guess stepping on the people who make our community safer just to get a rise out of the public is one way to get into the national spotlight.