Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   It's one thing to break DC's gun laws when you're white and rich but if you're non-white and non-rich... oh you better believe you're going to get charged with a crime. Bonus: Defendant is an Army vet and applicant for US Marshal   ( washingtontimes.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, gun laws, miller, Ed Donovan, MPD, Dodge Charger, Pennsylvania Avenue, U.S. Marshals Service  
•       •       •

11985 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:04 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



310 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-06 01:12:37 PM  
One law for thee but not for me...
 
2013-01-06 01:21:52 PM  

Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...


Prove Gregory had a real mag.
 
2013-01-06 01:24:54 PM  
I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!
 
2013-01-06 01:25:18 PM  

Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...


Hi, and welcome to The United States of America. Be very careful of your skin color, as it will affect how you are perceived in Court.
 
2013-01-06 01:29:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


So, you think he was lying when he said it was real? That's what you're left with?

/you could hear the spring and see the follower
 
2013-01-06 01:30:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


http://www.wtop.com/41/3171388/NBCs-David-Gregory-may-have-violated- DC -gun-laws-during-interview-
"The official said he took a phone call on Friday from someone at NBC who wanted to know about showing ammunition and a gun magazine on the show. "

Loaded or not, that sure sounds like it was a real mag.
 
2013-01-06 01:33:40 PM  

Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

So, you think he was lying when he said it was real? That's what you're left with?

/you could hear the spring and see the follower


vudutek: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

http://www.wtop.com/41/3171388/NBCs-David-Gregory-may-have-violated- DC -gun-laws-during-interview-
"The official said he took a phone call on Friday from someone at NBC who wanted to know about showing ammunition and a gun magazine on the show. "

Loaded or not, that sure sounds like it was a real mag.


Go to court with that and see what happens.
 
2013-01-06 01:45:25 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


You are actually coming up with defense strategies because you agree with his position, or think he is cute, or want to do your hair that way or some other absurd reason. There is probable cause to believe (and video to help us see) that he broke the law and you want to argue that he didn't.

Simply amazing.

What flavor was the Kool-AId?
 
2013-01-06 01:49:10 PM  

St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!


They have always cared about them, they don't just use them for political expediency or as background props in advertisements. They don't drop into strange dialects when speaking to African-Americans like Sec. Clinton, or when speaking to Asian-Americans like Vice President Biden.

They see them as people with the same goals, needs and families as themselves, not as votes to be duped into being cast for them through lies and manipulation.
 
2013-01-06 01:53:02 PM  

feckingmorons: There is probable cause to believe (and video to help us see) that he broke the law and you want to argue that he didn't.


Take that to court.

The guy in the article was busted with the mags in his possession. I'm not saying he should be prosecuted but these are entirely different types of evidence.
 
2013-01-06 01:54:23 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: vudutek: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

http://www.wtop.com/41/3171388/NBCs-David-Gregory-may-have-violated- DC -gun-laws-during-interview-
"The official said he took a phone call on Friday from someone at NBC who wanted to know about showing ammunition and a gun magazine on the show. "

Loaded or not, that sure sounds like it was a real mag.

Go to court with that and see what happens.


Yeah, speculation is not proof.  Lack of proof appears to be enough for a few people who are quite concerned though.
 
2013-01-06 01:55:18 PM  
Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?
 
2013-01-06 01:58:19 PM  

BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?


It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.
 
2013-01-06 02:02:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Take that to court.


Take the prop mags to court. What would the court's opinion be if a defendant refuses to produce evidence requested?
 
2013-01-06 02:05:24 PM  

Mrbogey: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Take that to court.

Take the prop mags to court. What would the court's opinion be if a defendant refuses to produce evidence requested?


Ah yes, the defense is legally required to provide to the prosecution evidence that could be used to convict them.  That's a nice corollary to the 5th Amendment.
 
2013-01-06 02:05:34 PM  

BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?


One should be able to trust the MPD on taking unregistered GUNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE but personally I would have made two trips.
 
2013-01-06 02:11:36 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

One should be able to trust the MPD on taking unregistered GUNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE but personally I would have made two trips.


I would have as well, and that doesn't mean the guy shouldn't get a lecture.  I just don't think society is made safer by prosecuting this guy.  Or David Gregory.
 
2013-01-06 02:18:15 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

One should be able to trust the MPD on taking unregistered GUNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE but personally I would have made two trips.


The man was a Maryland resident who was transporting his gun legally, as a judge found. He was not subject to DC's registration requirements.

This kind of behavior on the part of the city prosecutor does not help dispel the notion that DC's gun laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with punitive punishment and active discouragement of civilian gun ownership (and mostly minority gun ownership at that).
 
2013-01-06 02:22:28 PM  

GAT_00: Ah yes, the defense is legally required to provide to the prosecution evidence that could be used to convict them. That's a nice corollary to the 5th Amendment.


"Okay we have tape of you holding an item which appears to be contraband. You're stating in the tape that it's contraband. We have witness statements testifying that it was indeed contraband. But you're refusing to produce it and claiming it's not contraband. Okay."

Wanna discuss the limits of withholding physical evidence in terms of the fifth amendment?
 
2013-01-06 02:26:19 PM  
I fail to see the controversy.  From the pic Mr Brinkley is obviously African American.  We all know we can't let those kinds of people have weapons of mass destruction like empty Glock magazines.
 
2013-01-06 02:28:53 PM  

Mrbogey: We have witness statements testifying that it was indeed contraband.


Who's going to make that statement without incriminating themselves?
That is, who can verify it was a real mag without being at least as guilty of possession as Gregory?
 
2013-01-06 02:55:11 PM  

Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

So, you think he was lying when he said it was real? That's what you're left with?


When have you ever known a TV pundit to tell the truth?
 
2013-01-06 03:14:53 PM  

Mrbogey: GAT_00: Ah yes, the defense is legally required to provide to the prosecution evidence that could be used to convict them. That's a nice corollary to the 5th Amendment.

"Okay we have tape of you holding an item which appears to be contraband. You're stating in the tape that it's contraband. We have witness statements testifying that it was indeed contraband. But you're refusing to produce it and claiming it's not contraband. Okay."

Wanna discuss the limits of withholding physical evidence in terms of the fifth amendment?


The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves.  It is obtained by police through warrants.  But hey, good job tossing the 5th Amendment so you can throw a political enemy in prison.
 
2013-01-06 03:20:59 PM  
Is bogey giving his views on the law, again?
 
2013-01-06 03:24:42 PM  
Ya'll are insane... and this thread is a perfect example of why can't have a reasonable discourse about gun control in this country.
 
2013-01-06 03:27:18 PM  
Even if a bank robber passes a note stating he has a gun he's going down for armed robbery if all he's got is a rotten banana in his pocket. And in some states that's a minimum jail term outside the judge's discretion.
 
2013-01-06 03:29:00 PM  
Obviously, DC's gun laws are designed to get guns & accessories off the streets, not out of TV studios.  It has nothing to do with race or socioeconomic status.
 
2013-01-06 03:30:04 PM  

GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.


Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".
 
2013-01-06 03:31:33 PM  

OregonVet: Even if a bank robber passes a note stating he has a gun he's going down for armed robbery if all he's got is a rotten banana in his pocket. And in some states that's a minimum jail term outside the judge's discretion.


"I've got this case locked up."

www.lileks.com
 
2013-01-06 03:34:06 PM  
Errr... subpoena.
 
2013-01-06 03:34:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "I've got this case locked up."


Well at least I pointed out a fact.
 
2013-01-06 03:34:20 PM  

Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".


Gregory: "Sure. Where is it?"
 
2013-01-06 03:36:17 PM  

OregonVet: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "I've got this case locked up."

Well at least I pointed out a fact.


And now all you have to do is show Gregory robbing a bank with videotape of magazine.
 
2013-01-06 04:03:36 PM  
In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.
 
2013-01-06 05:36:35 PM  

Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.


I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense
 
2013-01-06 05:54:05 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense


You could always move to Mexico... guns are illegal there. Seems like a safe place.
 
2013-01-06 06:08:00 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Hi, and welcome to The United States of America. Be very careful of your skin color, as it will affect how you are perceived in Court.


Or if you're a Kennedy.
 
2013-01-06 06:09:25 PM  
I'm so glad I live in America instead of D.C.
 
2013-01-06 06:11:07 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

So, you think he was lying when he said it was real? That's what you're left with?

/you could hear the spring and see the follower

vudutek: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

http://www.wtop.com/41/3171388/NBCs-David-Gregory-may-have-violated- DC -gun-laws-during-interview-
"The official said he took a phone call on Friday from someone at NBC who wanted to know about showing ammunition and a gun magazine on the show. "

Loaded or not, that sure sounds like it was a real mag.

Go to court with that and see what happens.


How retarded are you??!? Seriously?
 
2013-01-06 06:12:01 PM  
Good jerb, subby. Played the race card like a good libby lib.
 
2013-01-06 06:15:31 PM  
5 things to remember when you enjoy firearms.

1.) never goto california
2.) or newyork
3.) or illinois
4.) or DC
5.) if you are doing something possibly illegal do not mention it to an authority.
 
2013-01-06 06:16:19 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense


Haha cuz all gun owners are Cletus the slack jawed yokel. Ha ha


Shut the fark up.
 
2013-01-06 06:18:09 PM  
I, for one, would like to express my most sincere condolences to the victims of James Brinkley's heinous crime and hope that he rots in prison for ruining those peoples lives.
 
2013-01-06 06:18:12 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense


crime rates in the UK and US are pretty similar, despite that the US has a much more diverse population with more economic disparity
 
2013-01-06 06:18:48 PM  
Progressives gonna progress.
 
2013-01-06 06:19:10 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: 5 things to remember when you enjoy firearms.

1.) never goto california
2.) or newyork
3.) or illinois
4.) or DC
5.) if you are doing something possibly illegal do not mention it to an authority.


Ironically, good luck hanging out in those cities (Chicago for 3) at night without one.
 
2013-01-06 06:20:20 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


I like how this is the new, ever-evolving defense. Pretty soon, you're going to claim that it was CG'd in, even though they have it on record that the show called the police AND that he SAID it was a magazine, not that it was a replica.

Tune in next week, when the defense is that the corner of the studio where he held the mag up was actually in a parallel universe...
 
2013-01-06 06:20:24 PM  

St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!


.
You should step off of the plantation from time to time.

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com
 
2013-01-06 06:22:04 PM  
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told The Washington Times, "We feel it was a valid arrest, and the appropriate charges were brought." Moments later, a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general's office, Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley's acquittal, the ruling "doesn't mean the judge is right, and we're wrong."

/actually, you're being wrong with charging him with a crime is EXACTLY what the judgment means.
 
2013-01-06 06:23:17 PM  

feckingmorons: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

You are actually coming up with defense strategies because you agree with his position, or think he is cute, or want to do your hair that way or some other absurd reason. There is probable cause to believe (and video to help us see) that he broke the law and you want to argue that he didn't.

Simply amazing.

What flavor was the Kool-AId?


What bothers you more: That the clip is illegal, or that a journalist from the mainstreamliberalmedia had one in his possession?
Conservative cognitive dissonance is always fun to watch.
 
2013-01-06 06:23:30 PM  

GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


Or maybe it would be nice to give him some pause before he uses his media outlet to advocate that anyone ever convicted of a firearms related offense be required to remain 5,280 feet from a school lest they be publicly executed, or whatever else that asshat wants to do to gun owners.
 
2013-01-06 06:24:33 PM  

St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!


I'm a little confused - I've always heard the same people say that the reason blacks are overrepresented in our penal system is that they commit so many more crimes than other people. Maybe having a gun makes you a "good darkie". Somebody needs to tell the Crips and the Bloods about this sudden change of heart.
 
2013-01-06 06:24:44 PM  

GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.
 
2013-01-06 06:25:39 PM  
 
2013-01-06 06:27:09 PM  
We came close to ruining a law-abiding working man's life, and are arguing about causing a TV anchor grief, because of a silly, arbitrary limit on a simple device any car mechanic could make. And people still think our gun laws are too lax?
 
2013-01-06 06:28:13 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Hi, and welcome to The United States of America. Be very careful of your skin color, as it will affect how you are perceived in Court.


Has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with one being a normal dude and the other being a rich and connected TV personality.

Average white dude would probably face similar bullshiat. Al Roker would have gotten a pass.
 
2013-01-06 06:29:10 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: feckingmorons: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

You are actually coming up with defense strategies because you agree with his position, or think he is cute, or want to do your hair that way or some other absurd reason. There is probable cause to believe (and video to help us see) that he broke the law and you want to argue that he didn't.

Simply amazing.

What flavor was the Kool-AId?

What bothers you more: That the clip is illegal, or that a journalist from the mainstreamliberalmedia had one in his possession?
Conservative cognitive dissonance is always fun to watch.


It's called a magazine, not a clip. And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged. Double standards are bullshiat no matter how you look at it.

/b.s. ban is b.s.
 
2013-01-06 06:29:21 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


I heard that mr gregory may or may not have had possession of a real high capacity magazine in 1990 and that you are still a moron in 2013.
 
2013-01-06 06:29:24 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.


You are so totally different arent you? What would you like the penalty to be for violating any gun control measure you wish to inflict on us? 2 hours in the "get along shirt"?
 
2013-01-06 06:30:15 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


Seriously dude, f*cking blow me. You insipid little twat.
 
2013-01-06 06:31:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

One should be able to trust the MPD on taking unregistered GUNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE but personally I would have made two trips.


He didn't take a "gun to the White House, he had it legally stowed in his car while dropping his wife off for a tour. You're acting like he walked into the WH strapped. Read the article, the gun was locked securely, and according to law. He was guilty of having an empty holster.
 
2013-01-06 06:31:19 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: 5 things to remember when you enjoy firearms.

1.) never goto california
2.) or newyork
3.) or illinois
4.) or DC
5.) if you are doing something possibly illegal do not mention it to an authority.

6.) Chicago
 
2013-01-06 06:32:25 PM  
Chicago is a shiat state all by its self.
 
2013-01-06 06:32:38 PM  
My question is what is a Secret Service agent doing enforcing DC law?
 
2013-01-06 06:32:43 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told The Washington Times, "We feel it was a valid arrest, and the appropriate charges were brought." Moments later, a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general's office, Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley's acquittal, the ruling "doesn't mean the judge is right, and we're wrong."

/actually, you're being wrong with charging him with a crime is EXACTLY what the judgment means.


Because the judge couldn't be wrong?
 
2013-01-06 06:34:03 PM  

jso2897: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

I'm a little confused - I've always heard the same people say that the reason blacks are overrepresented in our penal system is that they commit so many more crimes than other people. Maybe having a gun makes you a "good darkie". Somebody needs to tell the Crips and the Bloods about this sudden change of heart.


You think it's because they commit less? Or is it a grand conspiracy?
 
2013-01-06 06:34:30 PM  

cbcs: Prove Gregory had a real mag.


All the cops need to do is subpoena the NBC producers who worked on the show. They're the ones who would have set up the magazine stunt. "Was it a real magazine?"

They will answer yes, because Gregory is a douchebag and they'll want to see him behind bars.
 
2013-01-06 06:36:35 PM  
How many of you caught the statement by the SS spokesman? The 'just because Brinkley was acquitted doesn't mean the judge was right and we are wrong'.

Yes it does mean that. That is the job of the judge to decide who is right and who is wrong. In this case, I very much agree with the judge.
 
2013-01-06 06:37:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

One should be able to trust the MPD on taking unregistered GUNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE but personally I would have made two trips.


This and this.
 
2013-01-06 06:37:38 PM  
FTA: Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley's acquittal, the ruling "doesn't mean the judge is right, and we're wrong."

YES, if farking does, you idiot fark.

This is the goddamn problem with law enforcement in the US. They think they ARE the law, and judges' opinions contrary to that be damned.

/eat my shiat, Ted Gest
 
2013-01-06 06:38:31 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime


Except if you Google "violent crime rate" you'll find plenty of reports about the decline. You'll also see the twit in the video didn't include 2012, which saw the first increase in violent crime since 1993.

It's always amusing to hear people who get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh say "The media isn't telling you this!" Oh, yeah? Then how did you find out about it?
 
2013-01-06 06:38:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

I'm a little confused - I've always heard the same people say that the reason blacks are overrepresented in our penal system is that they commit so many more crimes than other people. Maybe having a gun makes you a "good darkie". Somebody needs to tell the Crips and the Bloods about this sudden change of heart.

You think it's because they commit less? Or is it a grand conspiracy?


This isn't about what I think. I'm just asking questions.
 
2013-01-06 06:38:49 PM  
Why does the presence of any empty holster kick off anything, much less a traffic stop? Why does a traffic stop justify searching the vehicle?
 
2013-01-06 06:39:11 PM  

Oblio13: We came close to ruining a law-abiding working man's life, and are arguing about causing a TV anchor grief, because of a silly, arbitrary limit on a simple device any car mechanic could make. And people still think our gun laws are too lax?


Based on the prior gun control threads i am convinced that the gun control crowd has no idea what laws actually exist....therefore they believe they are too lax.
 
2013-01-06 06:39:30 PM  

jso2897: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

I'm a little confused - I've always heard the same people say that the reason blacks are overrepresented in our penal system is that they commit so many more crimes than other people. Maybe having a gun makes you a "good darkie". Somebody needs to tell the Crips and the Bloods about this sudden change of heart.


From four years ago:

www.csgv.org

This "good darkie," as you so racistly phrased it, carried a loaded assault rifle openly at a Tea Party convention and not only wasn't lynched, but because a cause celebre when MSNBC used this picture as proof that the teabaggers were all gun-toting maniacs, though they carefully cropped out all exposed skin surfaces out of the picture they ran.

/funny thing about relying on the sworn enemies of a group for information about that group, you often get told a lot of stuff that just isn't true
//then the whole world seems to have gone insane and you can't make any sense of it
///the anxiety attacks are all self-inflicted, really
 
2013-01-06 06:39:51 PM  

Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.


Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.
 
2013-01-06 06:43:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.

Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.


Says the guy who thinks the perp was parked in the lincoln bedroom
 
2013-01-06 06:43:18 PM  

Giltric: Oblio13: We came close to ruining a law-abiding working man's life, and are arguing about causing a TV anchor grief, because of a silly, arbitrary limit on a simple device any car mechanic could make. And people still think our gun laws are too lax?

Based on the prior gun control threads i am convinced that the gun control crowd has no idea what laws actually exist....therefore they believe they are too lax.


For a minority of gun control advocates, that civilians are able to legally own any firearms is proof that existing laws are too "lax".

For a larger minority, that civilians are able to legally own any firearm reliant upon technology developed within the previous two-hundred years is proof that existing laws are too "lax".
 
2013-01-06 06:43:42 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime


Essentially, liberal cesspools (big cities), and their inherent government subsidized criminals, account for the crime. Thanks libs.
 
2013-01-06 06:43:52 PM  

Tatterdemalian: jso2897: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

I'm a little confused - I've always heard the same people say that the reason blacks are overrepresented in our penal system is that they commit so many more crimes than other people. Maybe having a gun makes you a "good darkie". Somebody needs to tell the Crips and the Bloods about this sudden change of heart.

From four years ago:

[www.csgv.org image 262x350]

This "good darkie," as you so racistly phrased it, carried a loaded assault rifle openly at a Tea Party convention and not only wasn't lynched, but because a cause celebre when MSNBC used this picture as proof that the teabaggers were all gun-toting maniacs, though they carefully cropped out all exposed skin surfaces out of the picture they ran.

/funny thing about relying on the sworn enemies of a group for information about that group, you often get told a lot of stuff that just isn't true
//then the whole world seems to have gone insane and you can't make any sense of it
///the anxiety attacks are all self-inflicted, really


Cool. I'll be informing 'Lil Trey and Lo Kill that the Tea Party will be happy to accept their applications forthwith.
 
2013-01-06 06:44:39 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.

Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.


Not so much, but nice try. I'm glad you approve of double standards though. It is either very illegal to have a high capacity magazine or it isn't, correct?
 
2013-01-06 06:44:41 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.


Yes. Yes it is. Stupid law is stupid.
 
2013-01-06 06:44:56 PM  

ReverendJasen: FTA: Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley's acquittal, the ruling "doesn't mean the judge is right, and we're wrong."

YES, if farking does, you idiot fark.

This is the goddamn problem with law enforcement in the US. They think they ARE the law, and judges' opinions contrary to that be damned.

/eat my shiat, Ted Gest


Because everyone knows that if a Judge says that someone didn't shoot someone else, that person's wound heals and the bullet backs out in slow motion and returns into the gun. Ta-da!
 
2013-01-06 06:45:06 PM  

Tatterdemalian:
This "good darkie," as you so racistly phrased it, carried a loaded assault rifle openly...


Nitpick: unless that gun has fully automatic functionality, it is not an assault rifle.

/but hey, at least you didn't call it an AK47
 
2013-01-06 06:45:32 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The desperation here is hilarious.


I agree. At least about the desperation coming from you. A news anchor went on TV and claimed the object in his hand was a 30 round magazine, it resembled a 30 round magazine, and he had even called the police department ahead of time to see how to possess a 30 round magazine.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this was some right wing hack holding a firearm that resembled a machinegun, which he claimed was a machinegun and of which he had talked to the NYC or DC PD about before bringing on his show, we'd be hearing a very different tune from you.
 
2013-01-06 06:46:13 PM  

GAT_00: It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated. Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


Well, I don't think David Gregory has to actually be charged to point out what a hypocrite his type is.
 
2013-01-06 06:46:31 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime


The agencies of the two countries have considerably different standards for what constitutes "violent crime". For instance, the UK stats include "simple assault" (no injuries, no weapons), while the FBI does not. The crimes which the UK counts as violent and the FBI doesn't make up the majority of the UK stats.

If you compare them on an apples-for-apples basis, UK violent crime rates ares indeed much lower than the U.S. You and the guy who made that video are idiots.
 
2013-01-06 06:46:50 PM  

pedrop357: Why does the presence of any empty holster kick off anything, much less a traffic stop? Why does a traffic stop justify searching the vehicle?


Because the law in D.C. only allows for criminals to have weapons. Then the guy told him the shiat was in his car. Pretty simple.
 
2013-01-06 06:47:07 PM  
Well, if there's one type of person we should exempt from the law, it's applicants for law enforcement agencies.
 
2013-01-06 06:47:16 PM  

ReverendJasen: Tatterdemalian:
This "good darkie," as you so racistly phrased it, carried a loaded assault rifle openly...

Nitpick: unless that gun has fully automatic functionality, it is not an assault rifle.

/but hey, at least you didn't call it an AK47


But it is black and scary looking.
 
2013-01-06 06:47:29 PM  

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: vudutek: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

http://www.wtop.com/41/3171388/NBCs-David-Gregory-may-have-violated- DC -gun-laws-during-interview-
"The official said he took a phone call on Friday from someone at NBC who wanted to know about showing ammunition and a gun magazine on the show. "

Loaded or not, that sure sounds like it was a real mag.

Go to court with that and see what happens.

Yeah, speculation is not proof.  Lack of proof appears to be enough for a few people who are quite concerned though.


Because a video of him holding the mag, him stating that it is a high capacity magazine, and the fact that he asked the police if the magazine would be legal to have are all completely irrelevant. Do you think that leaves "reasonable doubt" because it sounds like the only doubt that's left is closer to a 1/1,000,000 chance of him not having broken the law, which isn't exactly reasonable. Look, it's ok that you want 2 sets of rules for people, but your statement here isn't going to affect any court decision, so can you come off the full retard act and admit he broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
2013-01-06 06:48:00 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime


Another utter fail: The twit in the video points out that the population of England and Wales is about 1/6 that of the US. He goes on to point out that the US has 186 metropolitan areas of 250,000 or more, and England/Wales has only 32.

Let's see... what's 32 x 6? Let me grab my calculator...

192.

He doesn't compare the GUN crimes in England to the US, only the violent crimes. He admoits that the murder rate is about 1/4 that of the US, yet insists that their violent crime rate is shockingly high. He never explains whether there's a difference in the definition of "violent crime" between the FBI and the Home Office. He just whines about "the media" (as if it's a monolithic thing) not telling you the very misleading statistics he feels so confident about.

Why am I having a hard time taking him seriously?
 
2013-01-06 06:48:37 PM  

feckingmorons: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

They have always cared about them, they don't just use them for political expediency or as background props in advertisements. They don't drop into strange dialects when speaking to African-Americans like Sec. Clinton, or when speaking to Asian-Americans like Vice President Biden.

They see them as people with the same goals, needs and families as themselves, not as votes to be duped into being cast for them through lies and manipulation.


This. Something the Left will never understand. It reminds me of in LotR, where it never occurred to Sauron that anyone might think to destroy the Ring. As his whole mind was bent on domination, he saw the goals of others as similar. The Left sees minorities as monolithic groups to be manipulated and cajoled into supporting certain politicians or policies. And since conservatives don't do this, they see them as being sneaky or wrong in some way. Conservatives don't constantly shine a spotlight on minorities or pander to them as a group, so they must be racist. It never occurs to a Leftists that there are people who just see minorities as other people. Not pawns to be used, or waifs to be endlessly supported. Just people with the same rights, responsibilities, choices, freedoms, and consequences as anyone else.
 
2013-01-06 06:49:34 PM  

Alleyoop: GAT_00: It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated. Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Well, I don't think David Gregory has to actually be charged to point out what a hypocrite his type is.


Let him be charged....if he fights it maybe it goes all the way to scotus where the law is overturned.......thats the actual fear of people like troll pooper and why he fights so hard to make sure gregory doesnt get charged
 
2013-01-06 06:49:55 PM  
FTA: Mr. Brinkley refused to take a plea bargain and admit guilt, so the matter went to trial Dec. 4. The judge sided with Mr. Brinkley, saying he had met the burden of proof that he was legally transporting. Mr. Brinkley was found not guilty on all firearms-related charges, including for the "high-capacity" magazines, and he was left with a $50 traffic ticket.


So he had his day in court and was found not guilty. Am I the only one who is not seeing the problem here?
 
2013-01-06 06:50:15 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.

Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.


Geez, I hate to burst your condom but video (and pictures) is used to convict people all the time. And, as someone else pointed out, all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag and Gregory is cooked which would make the rest of us who hate liberal hypocrisy laugh.

Farkin idiot.
 
2013-01-06 06:51:20 PM  

BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?


One can disagree with the law however it is a law and should be enforced, and enforced equally. As it stands there is video evidence and basically a video confession that someone possessed an illegal item, had that been a minority on a youtube video would the outcome have been the same as a reporter?
 
2013-01-06 06:52:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime

Essentially, liberal cesspools (big cities), and their inherent government subsidized criminals, account for the crime. Thanks libs.


It's an interesting dichotomy. "Big cities" (other than notable exceptions such as most of NYC, San Diego, Honolulu, El Paso, etc...) have higher crime rates than southern "red" areas. At the same time, those "big cities" prop up the economies of those mostly "red" areas with their federal tax revenues.

But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas have lower crime rates than "red" areas AND provide the tax revenues the "red" areas need to survive.
 
2013-01-06 06:53:30 PM  

Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".


Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".
 
2013-01-06 06:56:58 PM  

Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas


Where are these blue rural areas?
 
2013-01-06 06:57:59 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?
 
2013-01-06 06:58:25 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I'm glad we have ged internet lawyers like you to clear this up for the rest of us.
 
2013-01-06 06:58:44 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I see the Fark Law School recently had a commencement ceremony.
 
2013-01-06 07:02:45 PM  
This discussion has gotten pretty emotional, and I don't know if it's possible to raise the issue - but what exactly IS the position of the law regarding journalists and writers who are involved with criminal activities they report on? I have seen and read many "Expose' " type articles and books about highly illegal activity, where journalists and writers, sometimes "undercover" have either been passively present or even vestigially involved in illegal activities.
"Panic in Needle Park", a Life magazine expose about junkies in New York. "Tulsa", a similar photojournal about red-dirt speedfreaks in Oklahoma. HST's "Hells Angels". And countless others. In all these situations, the writers were direct observers, and even participants in unlawful activity - but i have never heard of any reporter being charged in those circumstances. I wonder if the authorities even HAVE any coherent stance on the issue. If I were caught in the presence of such people, passively witnessing their criminal activities, or participating, I would expect to be arrested - and these types of reports often clearly relate that circumstance.
Any Fark lawdogs here know anything about this? It piques my curiosity.
 
2013-01-06 07:02:45 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?



They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.
 
2013-01-06 07:03:56 PM  

pueblonative: Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I'd like to see that. He would be legally justified in doing so and there wouldn't be evidence to try him, BUT we would all get to call him the hypocrite that he is. I hope he goes that route.

I take the same approach with people claiming nothing was wrong with the Fast and Furious scandal. Why then did Obama claim executive privilege, and why did Holder refuse to testify?
 
2013-01-06 07:05:01 PM  
From an law standpoint, the whole deal is ridiculous, and the law shouldn't even be on the books. From an equal protection standpoint, these cops are hypocrites. To sum up: stupid hypocrites hold positions of power in the Washington D.C. area. Shocking, I know.

In the Atlantic Civil War archives, there is a phrase used here in the writings of a man who led one of the first black regiments during the Civil War.

For the tldr crowd: ...for there is nothing in human history so momentous as the transit of a race from chattel-slavery to armed freedom...

It's the "armed freedom" bit that is interesting, implying that there are indeed tiers of "freedom". Before everyone starts pointing out these men were in the army, yeah, I know. My point is this: armed freedom is freedom with power. Power in anyone else's hands always leaves would-be tyrants clutching at their pearls.
 
2013-01-06 07:05:07 PM  

pueblonative: They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.


Works for me, immunize the producers and charge Gregory
 
2013-01-06 07:05:13 PM  

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

.
You should step off of the plantation from time to time.

[atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com image 300x147]


"I think that some restriction on speech is appropriate." -Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on C-span2, Monday, June 5th, 1995

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
Bill Clinton, 42nd US President MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94

"We still will have the freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of movement, but we may have to have more discipline in doing it..." -President Clinton referring to his Ominibus Counterterrorism Act on "60 Minutes".

"[the United States] can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -- President William Clinton, Boston Globe, 3/2/93, page 3
 
2013-01-06 07:05:37 PM  
Here's the fun part kids, Federal law allowed for transport of those mags (and even firearms) provided they were legal at both ends of the trip.

The sad part is that part of the law gets ignored in many instances. NJ, NY & I think Denver as well have violated it.
 
2013-01-06 07:06:41 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


There are a couple of them in Alabama, but they sure as hell arent producing any tax revenue. Were talking hard scrable depression era esque completely broke ass country folks.
 
2013-01-06 07:07:47 PM  
I thought DC had a ban on guns? Wouldn't it be illegal for him to posess the gun even if it was locked in the trunk?
Did they go after him because the gun was not registered, was he licensed to have one? I would think that alone would be cause to push any charge to the end.
But I do find it odd that I could have say, ten 10 round mags and would be considered to be safer than if I had one 15 round mag
 
2013-01-06 07:08:11 PM  
hasty ambush:

Here's another for your collection

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-27 April 1995 Dianne Feinstein
 
2013-01-06 07:09:29 PM  

pedrop357: pueblonative: They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Works for me, immunize the producers and charge Gregory


That would work, assuming that the producers know where the clip is now and didn't destroy it or something.

But here's the thing that a lot of you are forgetting: the whole point of the article is that the prosecutors tried to convict a guy for that and FAILED before the David Gregory case with shockingly similar circumstances. Yeah they can bluster all they want about the previous case, but they know that with that around their neck second time really will be harder.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:26 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.


Or maybe some of us think that neither should be charged with anything because the law is utterly retarded, and are pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the anti-gun stance when they want to exempt "their" guy from the laws they intend for everyone else.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. If a law becomes a burden for the politically connected class, either repeal it, or suck it up. But please stop the mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.
 
2013-01-06 07:13:45 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The desperation here is hilarious.

I agree. At least about the desperation coming from you. A news anchor went on TV and claimed the object in his hand was a 30 round magazine, it resembled a 30 round magazine, and he had even called the police department ahead of time to see how to possess a 30 round magazine.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this was some right wing hack holding a firearm that resembled a machinegun, which he claimed was a machinegun and of which he had talked to the NYC or DC PD about before bringing on his show, we'd be hearing a very different tune from you.


Camptown Races?

OK, here's Gregory's defense:

Three hours of video of TV news hosts holding up fake guns, drugs, fireworks, space stations, car parts, jewelry, food and electronics for the past fifty years without referring to them as "props" followed by another three hours of video of someone holding up various weapons and accessories and asking the prosecution's expert witnesses to identify them as fake or real.

And here's the part you dim bulbs don't seem to get:

Gregory doesn't have to prove anything.

The prosecution has to prove he committed a crime and they can't do it with just that tape.
 
2013-01-06 07:14:10 PM  

pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.


Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.
 
2013-01-06 07:14:29 PM  

GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


No. It boils down to people being upset about the hypocrisy in the gun debate, and for me nuts of any stripe. This guy was breaking the law and arguing for stronger laws on that subject. I am all for asshats like that, no matter what the subject, getting punished.
 
2013-01-06 07:17:07 PM  
If you are a politician white and rich, you can keep your money gun in the freezer and have a National Guard detachment private security consultant retrieve the cash firearm in case a natural disaster police investigation threatens the sanctity of your freezer.

/that guy was black
 
2013-01-06 07:19:09 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.

Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.


So now you are confused between a 'picture' and a news segment where a reporter showed it had moving parts and talked about how it should be illegal'?
 
2013-01-06 07:19:40 PM  

MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag


How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?
 
2013-01-06 07:19:41 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: hasty ambush:

Here's another for your collection

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-27 April 1995 Dianne Feinstein


Considering that it is impossible (not "almost",impossible not "virtually" impossible) for a non-government connected citizen to get a CCW in San Francisco... this is the most disgusting one.
 
2013-01-06 07:21:04 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.

Or maybe some of us think that neither should be charged with anything because the law is utterly retarded, and are pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the anti-gun stance when they want to exempt "their" guy from the laws they intend for everyone else.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. If a law becomes a burden for the politically connected class, either repeal it, or suck it up. But please stop the mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.


Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.
 
2013-01-06 07:21:51 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?
 
2013-01-06 07:23:16 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


Places that receive farm subsidies.
 
2013-01-06 07:23:56 PM  

Moopy Mac: Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?

Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?


Aesthetically, there isn't much of a different between the majority of CT and somewhere like Miami County, Ohio.
 
2013-01-06 07:24:06 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Subpoena duces tecum.


I had that once...

Used sooooooo much toilet paper!
 
2013-01-06 07:24:49 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.



Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.
 
2013-01-06 07:25:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?


This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.
 
2013-01-06 07:27:43 PM  

Moopy Mac: Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?

Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?


Nope.

Wasn't a smartass question...
 
2013-01-06 07:31:17 PM  

pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.


Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.


So now the prosecutors charge the producers with spoilation of evidence. Intentional hiding of evidence they reasonably knew to be inculpatory to the defendant. I mean, they asked ifbit was legal, got a resounding NO response from DC police and carried on with the illegal act. Any destruction, hiding, etc. of that evidence could be construed as spoilation.
 
2013-01-06 07:31:40 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?

This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.


A deal for what? Immunity from a charge they can't make without your testimony? Where's your video of a producer holding the magazine?

Not to mention, what a great career move! Hey, I'm already working close to the ceiling of network news, think I'll roll over on the talent! That'll get me to 60 Minutes for sure!

Yeah, "prospector", you got that right.
 
2013-01-06 07:32:26 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.


Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.

So now the prosecutors charge the producers with spoilation of evidence. Intentional hiding of evidence they reasonably knew to be inculpatory to the defendant. I mean, they asked ifbit was legal, got a resounding NO response from DC police and carried on with the illegal act. Any destruction, hiding, etc. of that evidence could be construed as spoilation.


Also, it's magazine, not clip. In case you weren't aware, as it appears that you are not.
 
2013-01-06 07:33:08 PM  
Sweet!! Our guns don't even need bullets in them any more to be deadly!!!

And all this time I spent loading 50,000 rounds of various calibers... when the mag is the deadly part.

Washington DC....almost as douchebaggy as The Peeplez Republik of Kalifornia.

Almost, but not quite.
 
2013-01-06 07:33:48 PM  

SDRR: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense

Haha cuz all gun owners are Cletus the slack jawed yokel. Ha ha


Shut the fark up.


So generalizations are stupid?

Eat a bag of dicks

/derp
 
2013-01-06 07:35:42 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense

crime rates in the UK and US are pretty similar, despite that the US has a much more diverse population with more economic disparity


We aren't talking about crime rates
 
2013-01-06 07:39:48 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?

This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.

A deal for what? Immunity from a charge they can't make without your testimony? Where's your video of a producer holding the magazine?

Not to mention, what a great career move! Hey, I'm already working close to the ceiling of network news, think I'll roll over on the talent! That'll get me to 60 Minutes for sure!

Yeah, "prospector", you got that right.


On my phone.

I don't think the guy who bought the magazine is 'close to the ceiling'.

Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.

Even if he says nothing they have a great case.
 
2013-01-06 07:40:13 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.


I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?
 
2013-01-06 07:45:17 PM  
Wow, a gun reference and race card play in the headline. Can we have an IQ test mandatory for being on the link approval panel?
 
2013-01-06 07:46:27 PM  
Anyone notice that this guys is wearing a badge in his picture? If he's not a cop then why the fark is he wearing a badge?

(If he was a cop then the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act would have applied and he never would have been arrested)
 
2013-01-06 07:47:20 PM  
mea culpa on the whole clip vs magazine distinction. Still, if it were that easy to get the producers to put up evidence I'm pretty sure the DC police would have done it before.
 
2013-01-06 07:47:58 PM  

liam76: Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.


God, do you people even glance at any other parts of the Constitution?
 
2013-01-06 07:52:15 PM  
IS DAVEGREGRY A MEME YET?
 
2013-01-06 07:52:28 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?


According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.
 
2013-01-06 07:54:18 PM  

rvabenji: Anyone notice that this guys is wearing a badge in his picture? If he's not a cop then why the fark is he wearing a badge?

(If he was a cop then the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act would have applied and he never would have been arrested)


Uh, he was a candidate for US Marshall? (RTFA)

I'm guessing his arrest didn't derail his process.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:26 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?


Some -- not all, but some -- gun control advocates believe that criminal activity is entirely acceptable when committed in an effort to advance an agenda of gun control. I have read admissions of such from at least two individuals.
 
2013-01-06 08:00:13 PM  
Enough already! Can we just negate and nullify the Bill of Rights and be done with all this?

/Oh, too late, most of them are already severely eroded.
 
2013-01-06 08:01:17 PM  

pueblonative: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?

According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.


The federal protections applicable to Mr. Brinkley would likely not apply to Mr. Gregory.
 
2013-01-06 08:06:18 PM  

Dimensio: pueblonative: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?

According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.

The federal protections applicable to Mr. Brinkley would likely not apply to Mr. Gregory.

FTA: Mr. Brinkley believes the "Meet the Press" anchor is receiving special treatment because of his high-profile job. "I'm an average person," Mr. Brinkley said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times. "There seems to be a law for us and a law for the upper echelon."


So unless I'm missing something here, there doesn't seem to be a federal protection for US Marshall applicants that Mr. Gregory wouldn't have.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:03 PM  
Go be not white somewhere else.

/amirite?
 
2013-01-06 08:12:01 PM  

GAT_00: Mrbogey: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Take that to court.

Take the prop mags to court. What would the court's opinion be if a defendant refuses to produce evidence requested?

Ah yes, the defense is legally required to provide to the prosecution evidence that could be used to convict them.  That's a nice corollary to the 5th Amendment.


It can be used to impeach credibility. David Gregory showed up with a mag and said "this is a real mag". The prosecution can compel the production of the mag to state whether he was lying on the show. Since the statement verifies the validity of the crime it is admissible. The 5th amendment is not a license for you to lie to both the public and the courts. Credibility IS a corollary to the 5th amendment.
 
2013-01-06 08:13:12 PM  

Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...


Why do you think the left is eager to take guns away from people? So they can have them themselves. David is no different than any of the other elitist shiatheads. Anybody remember that fatass Rosie O'Donnell who said people shouldn't have guns and then was found to have surrounded herself with gun toting guards? Every time a lefty opens up his greasy hole and says something, all I hear is the same crap I hear from shiatty parents. "Do as I say, not as I do." Blah blah blah.
 
2013-01-06 08:14:36 PM  
Glad to see the Fark anti-gun douchebags will ignore the law breaker as long as he has the same ideals as their dumbasses do. BTW, his anti-gun ass tried to get the permission from the police. He was denied, yet still brandished the hi-cap mag. He should be thrown in jail. Yet you idiots don't care. What hypocrites you liberal idiots are.

Just remember that for every million guns that Americans own that 34 are used in a murder.
 
2013-01-06 08:20:39 PM  

BGates: Glad to see the Fark anti-gun douchebags will ignore the law breaker as long as he has the same ideals as their dumbasses do. BTW, his anti-gun ass tried to get the permission from the police. He was denied, yet still brandished the hi-cap mag. He should be thrown in jail. Yet you idiots don't care. What hypocrites you liberal idiots are.

Just remember that for every million guns that Americans own that 34 are used in a murder.


Lying and breaking the law is acceptable when advocating the cause of prohibiting civilian ownership of "high-capacity" magazines such as those that can hold fifteen rounds of ammunition. Such devices are of use only for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why law enforcement agencies should retain access to them.
 
2013-01-06 08:25:31 PM  
The second amendment will never be repealed.

No major gun control legislation and no new "assault" weapon or high capacity magazine ban will be passed.

The sooner you come to terms with this reality the better you will feel.

/And the sooner gun, ammo, and magazine prices will come back down to a reasonable level
 
2013-01-06 08:25:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


Not only are you a self-proclaimed ass, but you are also a flaming, ignorant Idiot.
 
2013-01-06 08:27:15 PM  

angryjd: It can be used to impeach credibility. David Gregory showed up with a mag and said "this is a real mag".


You're gonna charge him with lying on TV? In Washington?
 
2013-01-06 08:29:31 PM  

logicalman: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

Not only are you a self-proclaimed ass, but you are also a flaming, ignorant Idiot.


That's not much of a proof.
 
2013-01-06 08:35:07 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told The Washington Times, "We feel it was a valid arrest, and the appropriate charges were brought." Moments later, a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general's office, Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley's acquittal, the ruling "doesn't mean the judge is right, and we're wrong."

/actually, you're being wrong with charging him with a crime is EXACTLY what the judgment means.


Dammit, came here to say that, word for word.
 
2013-01-06 08:36:54 PM  
Is this an article about a man who was wrongly charged or an article biatching that Gregory wasn't?
 
2013-01-06 08:38:04 PM  

Dimensio: Lying and breaking the law is acceptable when advocating the cause of prohibiting civilian ownership of "high-capacity" magazines such as those that can hold fifteen rounds of ammunition. Such devices are of use only for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why law enforcement agencies should retain access to them.


Well, then I state my opinion that lying to police and carrying a firearm for self defense in prohibited places such as Chicago is acceptable when advocating the cause of staying alive while walking through dangerous neighborhoods such as those located in "gun free" zones (chortle). Or is that bordering on circular logic, just like your statement?

And, you actually think the reason the very subjective description of "high capacity" magazines should be given to law enforcement agencies so that "they can kill as may people as possible as quickly as possible"? I'd much rather they kill just the people they need to, not as many as possible... therefore, "standard capacity" magazines should be sufficient for them, too. Goose/gander. Local police are not a force of war.
 
2013-01-06 08:38:15 PM  
David Gregory is a total asshat. That being said neither he nor this guy should be charged with a crime.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:15 PM  
Why is it that it somehow became OK to abdicate personal judgement and responsibility as a...hmm, up here they would be the crown prosecutor, not sure with you guys, maybe district attorney? Anyhow is he pursuing zero tolerance (aka moral cowardice) or just a complete asshat. Oh, for the record I'm all for gun control because it does in fact work when implemented properly.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:16 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


Well, I am sure if it comes to court, the bigwig from the NRA is probably going to get recognized as a gun expert by the court. He was sitting about 4 feet away.

Anyway, they pretty much admitted it was a real mag by attempting to ask permission.

/nothing will happen
//some animals are more equal than others
 
2013-01-06 08:45:05 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: What bothers you more: That the clip is illegal, or that a journalist from the mainstreamliberalmedia had one in his possession?
Conservative cognitive dissonance is always fun to watch.


I'm going to go with "the selective enforcement of a law, which demonstrates that the law is not about keeping people safe, but keeping certain people under control of an authoritarian government"

White, rich, or connected ... no enforcement.

Minority, poor, or just an "average" citizen ... off to jail you go!
 
2013-01-06 08:52:17 PM  
I'm pretty sure transporting a firearm or like device through any state/city/district requires you to follow the laws of that district, including not bringing illegal weapons or magazines through. Just because the law is stupid, doesn't mean it can be ignored. Also, I wouldn't be caught approaching the White House with any part of a weapon, including a holster.

Now, did the Secret Service really have probable cause for search? I don't think so.

As for David Gregory, you have a moron who, in the process of spouting off about strengthening gun laws, (allegedly) violates a DC gun law on national TV. Way to go jackass.
 
2013-01-06 08:54:53 PM  

jafiwam: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

Well, I am sure if it comes to court, the bigwig from the NRA is probably going to get recognized as a gun expert by the court. He was sitting about 4 feet away.

Anyway, they pretty much admitted it was a real mag by attempting to ask permission.

/nothing will happen
//some animals are more equal than others


And the defense will hold up a rack of magazines four feet from him and ask him to identify the fakes and the real ones.

And the only thing they admitted is that they wanted to show a real magazine.  Asking permission is not equivalent admitting guilt.
 
2013-01-06 08:56:26 PM  

Mr. Breeze: I'm pretty sure transporting a firearm or like device through any state/city/district requires you to follow the laws of that district, including not bringing illegal weapons or magazines through.


Federal law defines a transportation storage standard that protects civilians who travel through localities that substantially restrict firearm possession on their way to a less restrictive locality.
 
2013-01-06 08:58:08 PM  

jafiwam: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

Well, I am sure if it comes to court, the bigwig from the NRA is probably going to get recognized as a gun expert by the court. He was sitting about 4 feet away.

Anyway, they pretty much admitted it was a real mag by attempting to ask permission.

/nothing will happen
//some animals are more equal than others


If they asked for permission, and didn't get it, then it would make sense to use a fake mag, no?

If the magazine was not loaded, how could anybody possibly tell if it was real just by looking at it?

www.historicreplicaguns.com

This is unbelievably stupid. The law is supposed to have a purpose, and Gregory's temporary possession of an empty magazine did not violate that purpose (if it wasn't empty, it's probably worth charging him for being stupid).

The same goes for Brinkley, though. No reason he should have been charged. It was a "Grimm" search, though, where they could search his vehicle because he had a warrant out for missing jury duty or some such shiat.
 
2013-01-06 08:58:33 PM  
I'm still amused that the right is willing to eat their own for having the audacity to question our gun laws. Or lack thereof
 
2013-01-06 09:06:19 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime


Ok one major complaint with this video and why statistics are so hard to translate over from country to country. Definition of violent crime varies by country. The guy does a direct comparison between the U.S. and the UK, which is nice and all, but one might wonder "Why does the UK have a way higher violent crime rate?" or you could be this guy and compare irrelevant stats.

As it turns out the UK has a much broader definition of violent crime, in particular in regards to sex offenses.
The U.S. has a much narrower definition.

The end result is that the UK has a much higher violent crime rate because more crimes are classified as violent. TADA.

The argument is whether gun control laws actually would reduce gun violence, which is a far more complicated question. In Mexico for instance laws do not work so well, then again what are the point of laws if you cannot enforce them. Canada has gun control laws and enforce them and have decent results.

There are two issues with gun control laws in the U.S. 1. Developing an effective gun law that at the same time is not prohibitive to the useful uses of a gun.. 2. Enforcing said law.

1. I am ignoring the developing the gun law part of this because, fark that can of worms.
2. Enforcing the law. Any law that is passed is only effective if it is enforced. Lets look at only one aspect of this, implementation. You have created and passed a gun control law the first thing you will have to do is get all current gun owners to comply...good luck. There are +300 million REGISTERED guns in the U.S. I personally have no guns, I enjoy shooting and I know how to use one but personally I do not have one my dad on the other hand has eight unregistered guns. These 8 guns legally do not need to be registered, a significant portion of the population will have similar guns. Lets take a conservative number and say there are +300 million legally unregistered guns in the U.S. That leaves ?? million unregistered guns that are illegal. A good example of what is out there are the rocket launchers and assault rifles (blah blah blah msm ignorance about what an assault rifle is, if they got 2 rocket launchers they got assault rifles) from the L.A. gun turn in. If someone turned those in odds are someone else did not.

Implementation and enforcement are major issues for any laws passed.

The gun control law that SHOULD be passed, but have been consistently weakened anytime they are proposed, are laws when obtaining a gun legally. It is very easy to get a gun and that is a problem, but an even bigger problem that it is so easy to get a gun you do not even need to know how to properly handle a gun to get one. Many of the laws that have been passed to try and correct the problem of how to handle a gun have been watered down to the point where it is little more than getting your signature. I personally do not care if you own a gun, I do care if you own a gun and have no clue wtf you are doing with it.


Guns are far more than point and shoot and the biggest problem our country faces is that it there is a sizable portion of the population that thinks this way. I do not care if you have been handling a gun for your entire life, if you want to buy a gun or have a registered gun, you should be REQUIRED to take two training courses.

1. General gun safety, don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot, lock it away from kids, don't hold it against your head for facebook pictures, even if you think it is unloaded treat it like it is loaded etc... You know the shiat that should not have to be said but apparently does need to be said. (you can even hand out little cards, so you only have to do it once every I don't know 10 years (only needed for purchasing a new gun), would only take one hour probably two though because people are idiots.

2. How to use your new gun, have it take place at a firing range, and have people actually shoot the gun.


If you want to buy a fire arm you should have to learn how to use it. It is not limiting your rights it primarily is protecting YOUR (gun owners) safety because the gun YOU own is more likely to kill or harm you or a family member than anyone else.
 
2013-01-06 09:09:01 PM  

Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".


I hope you are trolling and not really that stupid
 
2013-01-06 09:09:51 PM  

Mr. Breeze: I'm pretty sure transporting a firearm or like device through any state/city/district requires you to follow the laws of that district, including not bringing illegal weapons or magazines through.


Pretty sure = wrong.

A lot of times the law is written so that those *transporting* guns are exempt, which is what appears to be the case here, since the violation was thrown out by the court.
 
2013-01-06 09:21:01 PM  

radiumsoup: Dimensio: Lying and breaking the law is acceptable when advocating the cause of prohibiting civilian ownership of "high-capacity" magazines such as those that can hold fifteen rounds of ammunition. Such devices are of use only for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why law enforcement agencies should retain access to them.

Well, then I state my opinion that lying to police and carrying a firearm for self defense in prohibited places such as Chicago is acceptable when advocating the cause of staying alive while walking through dangerous neighborhoods such as those located in "gun free" zones (chortle). Or is that bordering on circular logic, just like your statement?

And, you actually think the reason the very subjective description of "high capacity" magazines should be given to law enforcement agencies so that "they can kill as may people as possible as quickly as possible"? I'd much rather they kill just the people they need to, not as many as possible... therefore, "standard capacity" magazines should be sufficient for them, too. Goose/gander. Local police are not a force of war.


I believe it was sarcasm, with the gaping logic gap as satire.
 
2013-01-06 09:44:14 PM  

pueblonative: But here's the thing that a lot of you are forgetting: the whole point of the article is that the prosecutors tried to convict a guy for that and FAILED before the David Gregory case with shockingly similar circumstances. Yeah they can bluster all they want about the previous case, but they know that with that around their neck second time really will be harder.


You should read the article for quotes from the prosecutor's office.

Mazzic518: I hope you are trolling and not really that stupid


You're right... the police never issue subpoenas for evidence.
 
2013-01-06 09:54:27 PM  

Mrbogey: pueblonative: But here's the thing that a lot of you are forgetting: the whole point of the article is that the prosecutors tried to convict a guy for that and FAILED before the David Gregory case with shockingly similar circumstances. Yeah they can bluster all they want about the previous case, but they know that with that around their neck second time really will be harder.

You should read the article for quotes from the prosecutor's office.

Mazzic518: I hope you are trolling and not really that stupid

You're right... the police never issue subpoenas for evidence.


Because police don't issue subpoenas retard
 
2013-01-06 10:01:30 PM  

Mrbogey: pueblonative: But here's the thing that a lot of you are forgetting: the whole point of the article is that the prosecutors tried to convict a guy for that and FAILED before the David Gregory case with shockingly similar circumstances. Yeah they can bluster all they want about the previous case, but they know that with that around their neck second time really will be harder.

You should read the article for quotes from the prosecutor's office.

Mazzic518: I hope you are trolling and not really that stupid

You're right... the police never issue subpoenas for evidence.


Who is going to receive this subpoena?
 
2013-01-06 10:02:03 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?


I didn't say Gregory shouldn't be charged. You assume too much.
 
2013-01-06 10:12:04 PM  

Mazzic518: Because police don't issue subpoenas retard


You're gonna nitpick my phrasing? Okay, the court issues it... the police sometimes serve the subpoena... happy?
 
2013-01-06 10:22:34 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


If X were serious about enforcing the law for him, X could easily obtain a warrant to search the newsroom/his house based on the footage of him waving the clip, could probably detain and interrogate Gregory, and would certainly interrogate the other involved nincompoops.

It's not our job to prove Gregory had a real mag. It's not our job to prove Gregory was snorting coke if someone snaps film of him doing that, or that he was looking at cheese pizza if he confesses on TV to having that on his computer. If there's solid evidence that he's probably doing those things, though, and the prosecutor is remotely interested in enforcing the law, he'll follow up on it, and he'll do the proving with the tools at his disposal.

That sort of interest seems to be lacking in this case. Incidentally, you look like a jackass for pretending that this is the issue, since not even Gregory is saying the mag was a fake.
 
2013-01-06 10:25:35 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.


Does it matter? If a person, say, posts a status update on Facebook that says, "Drivin drunk ... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P", that person is screwed. They just provided probable cause. Well, so did Gregory. He said, "Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets." He identified the object in his possession. It's up to the investigator to show that the evidence goes against the accused. He was kind enough to hand that evidence over to them and the entire viewership of the show. In short, he stupidly made the investigator's case for them. Because of his stupidity, it's no longer up to them to show it was real. It's up to him to show it's not.
 
2013-01-06 10:27:01 PM  

Dimensio: BGates: Glad to see the Fark anti-gun douchebags will ignore the law breaker as long as he has the same ideals as their dumbasses do. BTW, his anti-gun ass tried to get the permission from the police. He was denied, yet still brandished the hi-cap mag. He should be thrown in jail. Yet you idiots don't care. What hypocrites you liberal idiots are.

Just remember that for every million guns that Americans own that 34 are used in a murder.


Lying and breaking the law is acceptable when advocating the cause of prohibiting civilian ownership of "high-capacity" magazines such as those that can hold fifteen rounds of ammunition. Such devices are of use only for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why law enforcement agencies should retain access to them.


Uh, pardon me but NO.

It's not.
 
2013-01-06 10:31:45 PM  

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

Does it matter? If a person, say, posts a status update on Facebook that says, "Drivin drunk ... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P", that person is screwed. They just provided probable cause.


Ah, but in that example the prosecutors have to prove which car he hit, and also have to prove that he was drunk as opposed to just blowing smoke up everybody's ass. In as much as I've talked about the subpoena, the prosecutors don't need it anyways so if they want to prosecute I don't think they'd bother. And you're right, it is an affirmative defense which I think is a long shot.

And even if for some reason Gregory was jailed, it wouldn't change the minds of people who want sensible gun regulation one bit.
 
2013-01-06 10:44:00 PM  

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

It's up to him to show it's not.


Not in this country.
 
2013-01-06 10:47:33 PM  

pueblonative: treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: One law for thee but not for me...

Prove Gregory had a real mag.

Does it matter? If a person, say, posts a status update on Facebook that says, "Drivin drunk ... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P", that person is screwed. They just provided probable cause.

Ah, but in that example the prosecutors have to prove which car he hit, and also have to prove that he was drunk as opposed to just blowing smoke up everybody's ass. In as much as I've talked about the subpoena, the prosecutors don't need it anyways so if they want to prosecute I don't think they'd bother. And you're right, it is an affirmative defense which I think is a long shot.

And even if for some reason Gregory was jailed, it wouldn't change the minds of people who want sensible gun regulation one bit.


It would also not alter the opinions of advocates of unreasonable firearm regulations, like advocates of banning "assault weapons".
 
2013-01-06 10:47:50 PM  

pueblonative: Ah, but in that example the prosecutors have to prove which car he hit, and also have to prove that he was drunk as opposed to just blowing smoke up everybody's ass. In as much as I've talked about the subpoena, the prosecutors don't need it anyways so if they want to prosecute I don't think they'd bother. And you're right, it is an affirmative defense which I think is a long shot.


Sure, there are differences. The FB dumbass only provided probable cause. Gregory provided probable cause, a videotaped confession, video evidence of the object in his possession, and his personal identification of that object, its role, and characteristics that make it illegal.

That said, I don't favor prosecuting him. I favor abolishing a hopelessly stupid law.
 
2013-01-06 10:51:19 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Not in this country.


Yes, in this country, since he was kind enough to hand all the evidence over. They have to make the case. He was nice enough to do that for them. He willingly and stupidly gave up the protection of presumed innocence. He walked away from it. It wasn't taken from him.
 
2013-01-06 10:53:13 PM  
"Standard Capacity" 30 round AR-15 magazine
www.brownells.com

"High-capacity" 100 round AR-15 magazine.
www.mississippiautoarms.com

"Standard Capacity" 100 round Calico magazine (also comes in 50 rounds from the manufacturer)
world.guns.ru

Can someone tell me what a 'high capacity' magazine is? It seems to me that is is a magazine that holds more rounds than originaly designed by the manufacturer.
Lets look at car for a minute. A 1994 Geo Metro Holds 10 (magic number!) gallons of gas.A 1994 Ford F-250 holds about 40 gallons. So does the F-250 have a high-capacity fuel tank? Well compared to the Geo, then sure. But it was designed to take a 40 gallon tank. So what if we limited it to a 10 gallon tank? It would sure cut down on the length of illegal police chases and possibly save a life. So the 99.9999% of the other people who use the truck for sporting or transportation purposes would have to refuel more frequently, but isn't it worth a small inconvience if it saves just one life?

A 1911 was designed to hold 7-8 rounds. A Glock 17, 17 rounds. A Sig Sauer 226, 12 rounds. An AR-15, 20-30 rounds. So where does the magic number of 10 come from? What kind of slaughter can you do with 11 rounds that you cannot do with 10? And will be have 'low-capacity' magazine credits? If I have two 7 .45 caliber magazines, will I be allowed to have one 15 9mm magazine?

Who decided that 10 rounds is the perfect fit for EVERY gun? Do these people think it will make a difference? That a person will say "Well, I can't legally buy a 30 round mag for my illegally obtained rifle, so it's just not worth the trouble to go shoot up that playground over there"?

And one last question for senator Feinstein (whom I like to imagine reads Fark when she's not busy getting wet over the thought of banning 'assault weapons'). If you did get this ban in effect, and no one was allowed to carry more than 10 round in their magazine....will that include the one you have a carry permit for? Or, much like ObamaCare, will senators be exempt from that as well? I'm sure your body guards won't be limited to 10 rounds, because that would just be stupid, right?
 
2013-01-06 10:56:14 PM  

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Not in this country.

Yes, in this country, since he was kind enough to hand all the evidence over. They have to make the case. He was nice enough to do that for them. He willingly and stupidly gave up the protection of presumed innocence. He walked away from it. It wasn't taken from him.


Your alma mater?

www.pitt.edu
 
2013-01-07 12:07:37 AM  
"All animals are created equal / Except that some are more equal than others"
 
2013-01-07 12:14:39 AM  
Shove it.
 
2013-01-07 01:10:27 AM  

pedrop357: Why does the presence of any empty holster kick off anything, much less a traffic stop? Why does a traffic stop justify searching the vehicle?


I think it was a combination of three things:

1) He was at a White House tour
2) He was at a White House tour acting suspicious by asking a secret service agent question about White House security.
3) He was at a White House tour acting strangely and had an outstanding arrest warrant
4) He was at a White House tour acting strangely, had an outstanding arrest warrant, and had decided to wear a holster that day.

Also, according to the article, he called the Washington Police Department before the incident asking more strange security-related questions, for example if he could bring a gun to the White House, and they told him yes, but only as long as it was locked in his trunk and he didn't get out of his car. So, he got out of his car.

I'm guessing the guy is crazier than a sack of potato bugs.
 
2013-01-07 01:18:09 AM  
What article did you read?
 
2013-01-07 05:53:40 AM  
could have been this douchebag
 
2013-01-07 07:05:38 AM  
Needs a hero tag,

FTA:


Mr. Brinkley refused to take a plea bargain and admit guilt, so the matter went to trial Dec. 4. The judge sided with Mr. Brinkley, saying he had met the burden of proof that he was legally transporting. Mr. Brinkley was found not guilty on all firearms-related charges, including for the "high-capacity" magazines, and he was left with a $50 traffic ticket.

Hey, citizen! You're under arrest for this, that and the other thing. How about you just confess to some bullshiat charge we have no evidence of and call it a day?
 
2013-01-07 07:19:21 AM  

GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


The reason for that is to point out the unfairness and absurdity of that particular law, especially when you consider that something like it is being proposed as a nation-wide federal law.
 
2013-01-07 07:19:23 AM  

MythDragon: "Standard Capacity" 30 round AR-15 magazine
[www.brownells.com image 400x400]

"High-capacity" 100 round AR-15 magazine.
[www.mississippiautoarms.com image 330x310]

"Standard Capacity" 100 round Calico magazine (also comes in 50 rounds from the manufacturer)
[world.guns.ru image 597x168]

Can someone tell me what a 'high capacity' magazine is? It seems to me that is is a magazine that holds more rounds than originaly designed by the manufacturer.
Lets look at car for a minute. A 1994 Geo Metro Holds 10 (magic number!) gallons of gas.A 1994 Ford F-250 holds about 40 gallons. So does the F-250 have a high-capacity fuel tank? Well compared to the Geo, then sure. But it was designed to take a 40 gallon tank. So what if we limited it to a 10 gallon tank? It would sure cut down on the length of illegal police chases and possibly save a life. So the 99.9999% of the other people who use the truck for sporting or transportation purposes would have to refuel more frequently, but isn't it worth a small inconvience if it saves just one life?

A 1911 was designed to hold 7-8 rounds. A Glock 17, 17 rounds. A Sig Sauer 226, 12 rounds. An AR-15, 20-30 rounds. So where does the magic number of 10 come from? What kind of slaughter can you do with 11 rounds that you cannot do with 10? And will be have 'low-capacity' magazine credits? If I have two 7 .45 caliber magazines, will I be allowed to have one 15 9mm magazine?

Who decided that 10 rounds is the perfect fit for EVERY gun? Do these people think it will make a difference? That a person will say "Well, I can't legally buy a 30 round mag for my illegally obtained rifle, so it's just not worth the trouble to go shoot up that playground over there"?

And one last question for senator Feinstein (whom I like to imagine reads Fark when she's not busy getting wet over the thought of banning 'assault weapons'). If you did get this ban in effect, and no one was allowed to carry more than 10 round in their magazine....will that include the ...


Actually, when you're dealing with a deranged person, the act of changing magazines can be relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/penn-state-shooting-is-fatal-to- s tudent-woman-is-arressted.html
 
2013-01-07 07:39:41 AM  

Animatronik: Actually, when you're dealing with a deranged person, the act of changing magazines can be relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/penn-state-shooting-is-fatal-to- s tudent-woman-is-arressted.html


FTFA:

Officials said she fired at least five shots from her rifle, a Mauser with a telescopic sight,

Mausers have *FIXED* 5 magazines (ie., they are not removable). You can't change the magazine without disassembling the gun.

That said, she *COULD* have reloaded quickly using stripper clips if she didn't have that scope on the rifle. Stripper clips are clips that hold multiple bullets (usually 5 or 10) by holding the base of the bullets. You insert the clip into a slot at the top of the action, and you press down with your thumb, and you instantly loaded a full 5 or 10 round magazine. One most scope installations on Mauser rifles especially "sporterized" guns used for hunting, though, the scope covers the top of the action so you can't use a stripper clip. Military scope mounts for them (mostly sniper use) are generally offset so you can still use stripper clips.

Even some rifles with larger capacity removable magazines commonly used stripper clips: The British SMLE has a removable 10 round magazine, but they were commonly loaded with 5 round stripper clips (you'd need 2 to fill an empty magazine).

Anyway, you're arguing apples and oranges here: The gun in the story you quoted didn't have a removable magazine.
 
2013-01-07 07:41:41 AM  
I hasten to add that it's likely that if she had a common hunting scope mounting on that Mauser, she would have had to load the magazine one bullet at a time, a laborious process.
 
2013-01-07 08:00:29 AM  
All I got out of this thread before my eyes rolled back in my head and foam started pouring from the corner of my mouth was:

1. If David Gregory had robbed a bank with a banana he'd go to prison
2. Certain people think David Gregory should be charged with a crime they think shouldn't exist based on evidence they don't have
3. Gun nuts are, as always, utterly imbecilic

I think we should strip every gun control law from the books both federal and state and replace them with one:

"In order to legally own any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition you must have a working IQ of at least 85"

No grandfather clause.

If you could instantly confiscate the guns that became illegal I'll bet accidents and crimes related to firearms would be cut in half the next day since no gun nut, NRA member or NRA official would be allowed within 50 feet of a gun ever again.

/ but seriously though, gun nut logic is pretty painfully broken
 
2013-01-07 08:00:33 AM  

The Larch: pedrop357: Why does the presence of any empty holster kick off anything, much less a traffic stop? Why does a traffic stop justify searching the vehicle?

I think it was a combination of three things:

1) He was at a White House tour
2) He was at a White House tour acting suspicious by asking a secret service agent question about White House security.
3) He was at a White House tour acting strangely and had an outstanding arrest warrant
4) He was at a White House tour acting strangely, had an outstanding arrest warrant, and had decided to wear a holster that day.

Also, according to the article, he called the Washington Police Department before the incident asking more strange security-related questions, for example if he could bring a gun to the White House, and they told him yes, but only as long as it was locked in his trunk and he didn't get out of his car. So, he got out of his car.

I'm guessing the guy is crazier than a sack of potato bugs.


You're lying.

He didn't ask if he could bring a gun into the White House. He called DC police to ask about transporting *UNLOADED* magazines that were legal at his both the beginning and end of his journey.

That is specifically protected by federal law.

Why? Because before the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, people were prosecuted under state laws for carrying a weapon that was legal at the start and end points of their journey, but possibly illegal at some city or state they had to travel through. A big example of this is New York State: It's illegal to possess a handgun in NYS without a NYS-issued pistol permit, and you can't get to New England from anywhere else in the country without driving through NYS. People were being thrown into jail for having a handgun that was legal in the state they lived in (say, Pennsylvania), and legal in the state they were heading to (say, New Hampshire), but they'd get pulled over by NY police and a search would turn up that handgun. Instant felony arrest in NY, and upon conviction, a lifetime bar from gun ownership. Kind of a pisser if you are a competitive shooter and you were going to a regional competition, and now you can never own a gun.

The '86 FOPA fixed that by preempting state law, saying that if the gun is locked in a case and locked in the trunk (ie., inaccessible), and if you only make necessary stops (gas and bathroom breaks seem to be OK), then you can't be charged under state law.

That doesn't stop places like DC from doing that, like they did here. New Jersey and New York City are *NOTORIOUS* for doing it, charging people even though it's clearly a case that falls under FOPA.
 
2013-01-07 08:19:39 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: All I got out of this thread before my eyes rolled back in my head and foam started pouring from the corner of my mouth was:

1. If David Gregory had robbed a bank with a banana he'd go to prison
2. Certain people think David Gregory should be charged with a crime they think shouldn't exist based on evidence they don't have
3. Gun nuts are, as always, utterly imbecilic

... anti-gun owner bigotry snipped ...

We have prima facie evidence that David Gregory committed a crime, to wit, possessing a 30 round magazine in Washington DC, which only allows the possession of removable magazines holding fewer than 11 rounds.

In the last year, according to TFA, there have been 105 people arrested on the very same charge, so it's not a provision that isn't enforced.

Those of us who think Gregory should be arrested do so to highlight the stupidity of the law. Personally, I think the law is stupid, and quite likely unconstitutional, because something like 65% of handguns sold have a standard magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. That would put magazines holding more than 10 rounds in the "in common use for lawful purposes" category, which the Supreme Court has held is protected.
 
2013-01-07 08:26:54 AM  

dittybopper: Animatronik: Actually, when you're dealing with a deranged person, the act of changing magazines can be relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/18/us/penn-state-shooting-is-fatal-to- s tudent-woman-is-arressted.html

FTFA:

Officials said she fired at least five shots from her rifle, a Mauser with a telescopic sight,

Mausers have *FIXED* 5 magazines (ie., they are not removable). You can't change the magazine without disassembling the gun.

That said, she *COULD* have reloaded quickly using stripper clips if she didn't have that scope on the rifle. Stripper clips are clips that hold multiple bullets (usually 5 or 10) by holding the base of the bullets. You insert the clip into a slot at the top of the action, and you press down with your thumb, and you instantly loaded a full 5 or 10 round magazine. One most scope installations on Mauser rifles especially "sporterized" guns used for hunting, though, the scope covers the top of the action so you can't use a stripper clip. Military scope mounts for them (mostly sniper use) are generally offset so you can still use stripper clips.

Even some rifles with larger capacity removable magazines commonly used stripper clips: The British SMLE has a removable 10 round magazine, but they were commonly loaded with 5 round stripper clips (you'd need 2 to fill an empty magazine).

Anyway, you're arguing apples and oranges here: The gun in the story you quoted didn't have a removable magazine.


Versions of that rifle with detachable mags exist and she had just reloaded using either a clip or a mag. Mostly likely a mag with her scoped rifle. I can't find out which she had since the media confuses the two. I don't, because I own guns with both.

In any case the point is that whether its a clip or mag, it slows the shooter down.

Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?
 
2013-01-07 08:31:16 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.

God, do you people even glance at any other parts of the Constitution?


WTF does that have to do with the constitution?

Is there soemthing in the constitution that protects his credibility? The guy is a reporter. If he comes out and says he was lying about it being a real magazine it hurts his credibility.

In fact the constitution protects his right to clam up, but that doesn't invalidate other prosecutor evidence. If I was sitting on a jury and they showed a video of a guy with something illegal, he was talking about it as if it were real, he demonstrated how the moving parts worked, and presented no evidence that it was fake (IE testimony) that would be beyond reasonable doubt to me.
 
2013-01-07 08:45:17 AM  

Animatronik: Versions of that rifle with detachable mags exist and she had just reloaded using either a clip or a mag. Mostly likely a mag with her scoped rifle. I can't find out which she had since the media confuses the two. I don't, because I own guns with both.

In any case the point is that whether its a clip or mag, it slows the shooter down.

Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?


I wasn't arguing that stripper clips are harder to use. In fact, they are just as fast and convenient as removable magazines for guns that hold below some certain number of rounds. Certainly, SKS rifles with 10 round fixed magazines and 10 round stripper clips can be fired and reloaded as fast as any semi-auto rifle with 10 round removable magazines.

I was pointing out that you were comparing apples and oranges.

Most Mausers in the United States are ex-military guns, and almost all of those that I am aware of have fixed magazines.

It's also a *BOLT ACTION* rifle, which is significantly different from the types of guns at issue here, although there are some who want to ban those also.
 
2013-01-07 08:55:38 AM  

Animatronik: Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?


Arguing that it's harder to manufacture and hand load your gunpowder before each shot is an equally good case, and both cases are beyond ridiculous.

Decades ago, we didn't have the frequency of shooting rampages that we do today, and the difference isn't because we made some magical advance in gun design since that time. The guns we have today are essentially the same guns we had many decades ago. There is no reasonable argument pointing to the notion that guns are the problem.
 
2013-01-07 09:02:54 AM  

AssAsInAssassin: GF named my left testicle thundercles: compare UK and US violent crime

Except if you Google "violent crime rate" you'll find plenty of reports about the decline. You'll also see the twit in the video didn't include 2012, which saw the first increase in violent crime since 1993.

It's always amusing to hear people who get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh say "The mainstream media isn't telling you this!" Oh, yeah? Then how did you find out about it?

Fixed it for ya.
 
2013-01-07 09:20:22 AM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.

God, do you people even glance at any other parts of the Constitution?

WTF does that have to do with the constitution?

Is there soemthing in the constitution that protects his credibility? The guy is a reporter. If he comes out and says he was lying about it being a real magazine it hurts his credibility.

In fact the constitution protects his right to clam up, but that doesn't invalidate other prosecutor evidence. If I was sitting on a jury and they showed a video of a guy with something illegal, he was talking about it as if it were real, he demonstrated how the moving parts worked, and presented no evidence that it was fake (IE testimony) that would be beyond reasonable doubt to me.


Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: OK, here's Gregory's defense:

Three hours of video of TV news hosts holding up fake guns, drugs, fireworks, space stations, car parts, jewelry, food and electronics for the past fifty years without referring to them as "props" followed by another three hours of video of someone holding up various weapons and accessories and asking the prosecution's expert witnesses to identify them as fake or real.


"I should mention, for our slower viewers, that this is not, in fact, a real lunar lander. First, that is terribly expensive and one-of-a-kind equipment that we could never get access to and, second, our astronauts are much too large to fit in this model that we use for demonstration purposes. I realize this destroys my credibility as a journalist. I should also point out that I do not live in the box in your living room. And that's the way it is..."

www.capmac.org
 
2013-01-07 09:36:31 AM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan

DC has a fine history of armed gun control advocates.
 
2013-01-07 09:40:10 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.


Harry Potter = not real
The news = 99.9% real
For fark's sake, please stop derping. The man stated that it was a high capacity magazine, and just inquired if he would be exempt from the law because he was usinging it for demonstrative purposes. You've really gone full retard on this one.
 
2013-01-07 10:16:43 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.

Harry Potter = not real
The news = 99.9% real
For fark's sake, please stop derping. The man stated that it was a high capacity magazine, and just inquired if he would be exempt from the law because he was usinging it for demonstrative purposes. You've really gone full retard on this one.


Didn't take much.
 
2013-01-07 10:56:33 AM  

dittybopper: Mausers have *FIXED* 5 magazines (ie., they are not removable). You can't change the magazine without disassembling the gun.


Mauser is the name of a company that made many different models of guns. It's not the name of a particular model.
 
2013-01-07 11:07:46 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Animatronik: Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?

Arguing that it's harder to manufacture and hand load your gunpowder before each shot is an equally good case, and both cases are beyond ridiculous.

Decades ago, we didn't have the frequency of shooting rampages that we do today, and the difference isn't because we made some magical advance in gun design since that time. The guns we have today are essentially the same guns we had many decades ago. There is no reasonable argument pointing to the notion that guns are the problem.


What most people don't realize is that semiautomatic guns have been around for over 100 years now, and in common use. Even the AR-15 is approaching codger-hood: First sold to civilians in the US in 1963, it's now been in circulation for 50 years with essentially zero material difference between one made back then, and one made today.

Talking about banning semiauto rifles or handguns after an event like this is like talking about banning scoped bolt-actions after Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald: They are just too common.

You might have gotten away with a mild, essentially toothless ban back in 1994, but even something like that (which was more symbolic than anything) is unlikely to pass today. Too many people would be effected now. The only gun owners who wouldn't are "Gun Culture 1.0", the hard-core Fudds. Pretty much every one else (including many of the Fudds, also, btw), own a gun that has a standard capacity of over 10 rounds, and the magazines to go with it.
 
2013-01-07 11:29:12 AM  

The Larch: dittybopper: Mausers have *FIXED* 5 magazines (ie., they are not removable). You can't change the magazine without disassembling the gun.

Mauser is the name of a company that made many different models of guns. It's not the name of a particular model.


Are you saying it's not a bolt action? I mean, we aren't talking about a Bolo Mauser, or something like that are we?

The overwhelming majority of Mausers in the US are controlled-feed, fixed magazine bolt actions, usually military actions like the 98, 96, or 95. Also, there is a 93 version that is somewhat common (I used to have one in 7.62mm NATO). Civilian hunting rifles are commonly built upon Mauser actions, and while removable magazine versions exist, they are nowhere near as common as the fixed magazine Mauser actions,
 
2013-01-07 11:45:12 AM  

dittybopper: He didn't ask if he could bring a gun into the White House. He called DC police to ask about transporting *UNLOADED* magazines that were legal at his both the beginning and end of his journey.


And they told him that he could only do so if the gun was in a locked case in his car, and he didn't get out of his car.

So, instead of staying in his car like the police told him he should do, he got out of the car. On top of that, he decided to wear an empty holster on his belt at the staging area for a White House tour. On top of that, he made a point to ask a secret service agent some very bizarre questions about the security procedures on the tour, and ask if they could make an exception to those procedures for his wife.

The guy sounds like a nut.
 
2013-01-07 11:50:20 AM  

dittybopper: The Larch: dittybopper: Mausers have *FIXED* 5 magazines (ie., they are not removable). You can't change the magazine without disassembling the gun.

Mauser is the name of a company that made many different models of guns. It's not the name of a particular model.

Are you saying it's not a bolt action? I mean, we aren't talking about a Bolo Mauser, or something like that are we?


Is there something about a bolt that you think makes it impossible for a gun to have a magazine?

At any rate, you were absolutely correct in your initial assessment. Not all mass shootings are stopped when people change magazines. Often, mass shootings are stopped when people reload their guns in other ways, too. In the case of the NY Times article in question, they said that she was using a clip to reload her Mauser.

I'm assuming that you're not trying to make the point that high capacity magazines are OK because a crazy woman in 1996 had her shooting spree brought to an end when she couldn't reload her murder weapon quickly enough.
 
2013-01-07 11:58:06 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: / but seriously though, gun nut logic is pretty painfully broken


unlike your infallible logic?
 
2013-01-07 11:59:38 AM  

texref: Mr. Breeze: I'm pretty sure transporting a firearm or like device through any state/city/district requires you to follow the laws of that district, including not bringing illegal weapons or magazines through.

Pretty sure = wrong.

A lot of times the law is written so that those *transporting* guns are exempt, which is what appears to be the case here, since the violation was thrown out by the court.


Dimensio:

Federal law defines a transportation storage standard that protects civilians who travel through localities that substantially restrict firearm possession on their way to a less restrictive locality.


I suppose I could see that. For example when mailing an item such as a firearm, it could pass through any jurisdiction, while en route to its destination, where might be illegal.
 
2013-01-07 12:03:34 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.

God, do you people even glance at any other parts of the Constitution?
WTF does that have to do with the constitution?

Is there soemthing in the constitution that protects his credibility? The guy is a reporter. If he comes out and says he was lying about it being a real magazine it hurts his credibility.

In fact the constitution protects his right to clam up, but that doesn't invalidate other prosecutor evidence. If I was sitting on a jury and they showed a video of a guy with something illegal, he was talking about it as if it were real, he demonstrated how the moving parts worked, and presented no evidence that it was fake (IE testimony) that would be beyond reasonable doubt to me.

Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.


So by switching topics you are acknowledging your constitutional complaint was stupid?

Now you are switching you argument to I think "everything" I see on TV is real?

In that case are you too stupid to know the difference between "everything" and a news show airing video of a guy with something illegal, talking about it as if it were real, and demonstrating how the moving parts worked? Or are do you realize how dumb your argument is and you want to just gloss over those differences?
 
2013-01-07 12:04:08 PM  

Animatronik: In any case the point is that whether its a clip or mag, it slows the shooter down.

Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?


I wish them the best of luck banning magazines and magazine fed firearms.

In the meantime, magazine capacity is irrelevant to day-to-day killings and is a trivial roadblock to mass killers. All of them have had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted. The Sandy Hook shooter had 14 minutes to do what he wanted and shot the victims multiple times. Limit his magazines and he brings more (like the VT shooter), brings and uses additional guns (Columbine, VT, Aurora), or simply conserves his ammo by 'only' shooting the victims twice.
 
2013-01-07 12:12:44 PM  

pedrop357: Animatronik: In any case the point is that whether its a clip or mag, it slows the shooter down.

Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?

I wish them the best of luck banning magazines and magazine fed firearms.

In the meantime, magazine capacity is irrelevant to day-to-day killings and is a trivial roadblock to mass killers. All of them have had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted. The Sandy Hook shooter had 14 minutes to do what he wanted and shot the victims multiple times. Limit his magazines and he brings more (like the VT shooter), brings and uses additional guns (Columbine, VT, Aurora), or simply conserves his ammo by 'only' shooting the victims twice.


It's an interesting point that hasn't been brought up: The Sandy Hook had to shoot each of his victims multiple times to kill them, because so-called "assault weapons" are generally less powerful than common hunting weapons.

A similar shooting back in 1989 which resulted in the CA AWB had a deranged person shoot school children with an AK-style rifle. Only 5 died out of the 35 he managed to shoot, because he only shot them one time each. He also missed more than he hit: He fired 105 rounds and only managed to hit 40 times at close range.
 
2013-01-07 12:27:35 PM  

pedrop357: In the meantime, magazine capacity is irrelevant to day-to-day killings and is a trivial roadblock to mass killers.


Actually, hard cold reality says exactly the opposite. There are certainly murderers who successfully reload their murder weapons and continue murdering people with their murder weapons. But again and again, we have incidents of murderers who pause in their murdering because their murder weapons are out of ammunition, and bystanders take them down while they're trying to reload their murder weapons.

So yes, murder weapons with larger capacity magazines certainly do lead to more murders.
 
2013-01-07 12:30:09 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Your alma mater?


Sorry, don't know the reference, but given your history it's probably another evasion of points you just can't answer. May I suggest that you'll gain more respect for honesty if you simply admit that you have no reply? You can even say you'd like to consider the matter, and get some points for being thoughtful.
 
2013-01-07 12:34:17 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.

Harry Potter = not real
The news = 99.9% real
For fark's sake, please stop derping. The man stated that it was a high capacity magazine, and just inquired if he would be exempt from the law because he was usinging it for demonstrative purposes. You've really gone full retard on this one.


So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

And failing to do so constitutes some kind of lie or scandal?

Cuz that's really funny.
 
2013-01-07 12:36:11 PM  

liam76: demonstrating how the moving parts


He demonstrated moving parts?
 
2013-01-07 12:37:32 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?


If one wishes to avoid announcing on television that one is committing a crime, yes.
 
2013-01-07 12:44:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

And failing to do so constitutes some kind of lie or scandal?

Cuz that's really funny.


You're suggesting he brought out a fake magazine in order to make a point about real magazines?

This is like a news anchor advocating against machine gun possession by showing a clip from a movie where an actor shoots a machine gun for 2 or 3 minutes without reloading and presents this as a real example of what people do. Well, if the machine gun is being shot in NYC, the NYPD might inquire about this machine gun possessed in city limits and fired indoors. Either it's real and a variety of crimes were committed, or it was a prop gun and the news anchor was using fiction to promote laws outlawing real things.

What's next? A proposal to ban particle weapons with the anchor holding a replica phaser and perhaps a video clip from Star Trek of someone misusing one with great damage? Either it's a real energy weapon and maybe someone might have something to say about his possession of it, or it's fake and he's a deceptive piece of shiat.
 
2013-01-07 12:45:56 PM  

dittybopper: Animatronik: Versions of that rifle with detachable mags exist and she had just reloaded using either a clip or a mag. Mostly likely a mag with her scoped rifle. I can't find out which she had since the media confuses the two. I don't, because I own guns with both.

In any case the point is that whether its a clip or mag, it slows the shooter down.

Arguing that clips are much harder to use than detachable mags is a good way to make a case for banning detachable mags entirely. Is that what you want?

I wasn't arguing that stripper clips are harder to use. In fact, they are just as fast and convenient as removable magazines for guns that hold below some certain number of rounds. Certainly, SKS rifles with 10 round fixed magazines and 10 round stripper clips can be fired and reloaded as fast as any semi-auto rifle with 10 round removable magazines.

I was pointing out that you were comparing apples and oranges.

Most Mausers in the United States are ex-military guns, and almost all of those that I am aware of have fixed magazines.

It's also a *BOLT ACTION* rifle, which is significantly different from the types of guns at issue here, although there are some who want to ban those also.


I am fully aware that this is a bolt action rifle. I own many guns, pretty much every kind there is. This type has been modded to have a detachable mag, unusual, but it happens. Probably the media described the gun wrong, its the only explanation that makes sense.

Are saying that a bolt action rifle with a detachable mag is somehow irrelevant?

As a gun owner, I don't think you can argue that forcing mass shooters to change mags more often has no benefit. You have to argue that its not a big enough benefit to warrant restricting gun owners' rights.

I don't own any large caliber rifles with detachable mags because I don't believe civilians should own them.
 
2013-01-07 12:49:04 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

And failing to do so constitutes some kind of lie or scandal?

Cuz that's really funny.

You're suggesting he brought out a fake magazine in order to make a point about real magazines?


treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

If one wishes to avoid announcing on television that one is committing a crime, yes.


You guys may know a sh*tload about guns but you don't know dick about television.
 
2013-01-07 12:52:46 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You guys may know a sh*tload about guns but you don't know dick about television.


I do know that it's a medium of communication used for many purposes and that it's a stupid place to confess to committing a crime. Which he did. However, if that's the only response you have while steadfastly avoiding a substantive response to the real points, I'd say you've pretty well lost. Have fun.
 
2013-01-07 12:57:19 PM  

The Larch: pedrop357: In the meantime, magazine capacity is irrelevant to day-to-day killings and is a trivial roadblock to mass killers.

Actually, hard cold reality says exactly the opposite. There are certainly murderers who successfully reload their murder weapons and continue murdering people with their murder weapons. But again and again, we have incidents of murderers who pause in their murdering because their murder weapons are out of ammunition, and bystanders take them down while they're trying to reload their murder weapons.

So yes, murder weapons with larger capacity magazines certainly do lead to more murders.


You have "incidents" of that happening but they are a tiny minority of gun crimes.

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

If one wishes to avoid announcing on television that one is committing a crime, yes.


Obviously you don't understand the constitution.
 
2013-01-07 12:58:12 PM  

liam76: The Larch: pedrop357: In the meantime, magazine capacity is irrelevant to day-to-day killings and is a trivial roadblock to mass killers.

Actually, hard cold reality says exactly the opposite. There are certainly murderers who successfully reload their murder weapons and continue murdering people with their murder weapons. But again and again, we have incidents of murderers who pause in their murdering because their murder weapons are out of ammunition, and bystanders take them down while they're trying to reload their murder weapons.

So yes, murder weapons with larger capacity magazines certainly do lead to more murders.

You have "incidents" of that happening but they are a tiny minority of gun crimes.

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

If one wishes to avoid announcing on television that one is committing a crime, yes.

Obviously you don't understand the constitution.


"Moving parts" ?
 
2013-01-07 12:58:35 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now you're sending a man to jail for a year because some doofus thinks everything he sees on TV is real.

Harry Potter = not real
The news = 99.9% real
For fark's sake, please stop derping. The man stated that it was a high capacity magazine, and just inquired if he would be exempt from the law because he was using it for demonstrative purposes. You've really gone full retard on this one.

So, YOU think a news anchor using a prop or replica of a magazine is in all cases obligated or motivated to say, "Now, this is a REPLICA of a thirty round magazine..." ?

And failing to do so constitutes some kind of lie or scandal?

Cuz that's really funny.


No, I think that nobody would bother to ask the police if a replica of an illegal magazine is legal to have.

See what you did there? You read the point I actually made, then substituted a ridiculous point that I did not make, and only responded to the point that you fabricated. It's almost as if you'd prefer to debate an idea of your own design that resembles my argument only in the fact that it contains a few of the same elements. That's kind of like someone who's especially weak creating a figure out of straw, then pummeling it to give extremely stupid people the impression that he has just beaten an actual man.
 
2013-01-07 01:02:17 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Moving parts"


No, you are moving goal posts.
 
2013-01-07 01:09:33 PM  

Animatronik: Probably the media described the gun wrong, its the only explanation that makes sense.


It is the most likely scenario.

Hell, look at the current reporting on how Lanza wore earplugs: They seem to be at a loss to explain why he would do that, because they don't know that shooting a rifle indoors without hearing protection is farking *PAINFUL*.
 
2013-01-07 01:10:36 PM  

Animatronik:
As a gun owner, I don't think you can argue that forcing mass shooters to change mags more often has no benefit. You have to argue that its not a big enough benefit to warrant restricting gun owners' rights.

I don't own any large caliber rifles with detachable mags because I don't believe civilians should own them


If someone performing a mass shooting was standing close enough to their victims that they could be taken down by would be victims during a magazine change, in all likelihood, those people were probably already in the process of taking them down regardless of the fact that a magazine needed to be changed. Somehow, I'm doubtful that you're a gun owner, either that, or you have guns and almost never actually use them.
 
2013-01-07 01:10:40 PM  

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

.
You should step off of the plantation from time to time.

[atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com image 300x147]


Are your arguments always inapplicable? The right to liberty was being constrained by governments in the form of incarceration for quite some time prior to MLK Jr.
 
2013-01-07 01:15:50 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You guys may know a sh*tload about guns but you don't know dick about television.


Yes, apparently it's OK to break laws if you're on TV advocating for a change in the law. That, or it's somehow becoming of a credible person to use a prop to make a point about the legality of real things.
 
2013-01-07 01:19:41 PM  

Animatronik: As a gun owner, I don't think you can argue that forcing mass shooters to change mags more often has no benefit. You have to argue that its not a big enough benefit to warrant restricting gun owners' rights.


It probably wouldn't have mattered in the latest shooting: According to the latest reporting, the shooter often changed magazines when they were only half empty, cutting the effective number of rounds in each from 30 down to 15.

Also, it's doubtful it would help because a mass shooter can use the simple expedient of using two guns: A main one, and a second one available for use during the "reloads". It's actually a common thing among mass shooters. Also, using very large capacity magazines is often a *HINDRANCE*: They are known to jam (which is why the military generally avoids magazines that hold more than 20 or 30 rounds), and that characteristic likely saved a bunch of people at the Aurora CO theater shooting. The AR-15 jammed after about 30 rounds probably because the shooter was using a 100 round drum.
 
2013-01-07 01:35:07 PM  

liam76: Obviously you don't understand the constitution.


Try to keep up.

Two issues.

First issue: what Gregory actually did.

From the tape, which is all any Farker has to go by, we get no evidence he committed a crime despite the belief of some Farkers that the use of unattributed props is verboten in TV news.

Second issue: prosecution.

The "evidence" of the tape being easily discredited, I've yet to hear any Farker explain how any witness can attest to a crime being committed without incriminating themselves.
 
2013-01-07 01:38:18 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Moving parts"

No, you are moving goal posts.


liam76: If I was sitting on a jury and they showed a video of a guy with something illegal, he was talking about it as if it were real, he demonstrated how the moving parts worked,


Whar demonstration of moving parts?
 
2013-01-07 01:41:20 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You guys may know a sh*tload about guns but you don't know dick about television.

Yes, apparently it's OK to break laws if you're on TV advocating for a change in the law. That, or it's somehow becoming of a credible person to use a prop to make a point about the legality of real things.


"THAT'S IT!!!"

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-07 01:50:17 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You guys may know a sh*tload about guns but you don't know dick about television.

Yes, apparently it's OK to break laws if you're on TV advocating for a change in the law. That, or it's somehow becoming of a credible person to use a prop to make a point about the legality of real things.

"THAT'S IT!!!"

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 528x341]


So he had to use a fake magazines in order to talk about legality of certain real magazines because those magazines are illegal where he's at. I'm in NV doing a show about marijuana being legal. I bring out a big bag and present it as real marijuana that people can get in CO or WA. Maybe I talk about smell or something else. When questioned, I say it was fake because it's illegal in NV in which case my point about it being legal is somewhat muddy.

One makes me wonder why he didn't just go a little bit over the border and make his point with real stuff. "See folks, I can't even possess this in Washington DC, but here in Virginia, mere miles away [blah blah blah]"
 
2013-01-07 01:53:51 PM  

pedrop357: So he had to use a fake magazines in order to talk about legality of certain real magazines because those magazines are illegal where he's at


Is this FINALLY sinking in?
 
2013-01-07 02:03:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: First issue: what Gregory actually did.

From the tape, which is all any Farker has to go by, we get no evidence he committed a crime despite the belief of some Farkers that the use of unattributed props is verboten in TV news.


As multiple people have piointed out, it is evidence. By itself it isn't 100% rock solid evidence, but unless someone is willing to testify that they were in fact fake, and could provide soem evidence tot hat effect you can say, beyond a reasonable doubt he had real magazines.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Second issue: prosecution.

The "evidence" of the tape being easily discredited, I've yet to hear any Farker explain how any witness can attest to a crime being committed without incriminating themselves


It can only be "easily" discredited if he wants to lose professional credibility.

Aside from immunity (as has been mentioned many times to get peopel to testify) they can still subpoena the expenses of the show to see what was paid for.
 
2013-01-07 02:09:00 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Is this FINALLY sinking in?


So what was his point again?
 
2013-01-07 02:13:41 PM  
Folks you wouldn't believe how easy it is for me to buy a fully armed fighter jet.

[cut to video of me flying fighter jet and shooting stuff with it]

Air Force:WTF? Where did you get that armed jet the looks one of ours?
Federal Governmentt:Were you shooting missiles at cities?

Me and/or my producers:I called the air force and talked to them about picking up that jet and testing out is capabiilties

brain damaged defenders of me:That wasn't a real jet, prove it was realm that was a prop

People with functional brains:SO WTF was the point of that? To prove that a person CAN or CAN'T just pick up an armed jet and blow stuff up with it? If it was legal, why the need for a prop? If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?
 
2013-01-07 02:13:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whar demonstration of moving parts?


I will get right on that when you answer my previous questions.
 
2013-01-07 02:17:28 PM  

pedrop357: Air Force:WTF? Where did you get that armed jet the that looks like one of ours?
Federal Governmentt:Were you shooting missiles at cities?

Me and/or my producers:I called the air force and talked to them about picking up that jet and testing out is its capabililties

brain damaged defenders of me:That wasn't a real jet, prove it was realm,that was a prop

People with functional brains:SO WTF was the point of that? To prove that a person CAN or CAN'T just pick up an armed jet and blow stuff up with it? If it was legal, why the need for a prop? If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?



Yeah, I spell like shiat sometimes.
 
2013-01-07 02:41:40 PM  

liam76: By itself it isn't 100% rock solid evidence, but unless someone is willing to testify that they were in fact fake, and could provide soem evidence tot hat effect you can say, beyond a reasonable doubt he had real magazines.


Jurors would be over six years old, so, no.

liam76: It can only be "easily" discredited if he wants to lose professional credibility.


Maybe, amongst six year olds. Otherwise, again, no.

liam76: Aside from immunity (as has been mentioned many times to get peopel to testify) they can still subpoena the expenses of the show to see what was paid for.


I'm going to torpedo my career in the news business to help you prosecute a meaningless, useless and likely failing case? Instead of invoking my perfectly legal Constitutional rights? Why?

The expenses of the show will only tell you what they legally BOUGHT, which won't tell you anything about what they put on camera.

Try again.
 
2013-01-07 02:47:32 PM  

pedrop357: If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?


Makes better television than showing or holding a picture of a magazine.

As is apparent from the super-freakout of some particularly ignorant Farkers.
 
2013-01-07 02:48:12 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whar demonstration of moving parts?

I will get right on that when you answer my previous questions.


Still waiting.
 
2013-01-07 02:51:12 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?

Makes better television than showing or holding a picture of a magazine.

As is apparent from the super-freakout of some particularly ignorant Farkers.


What was his point? Should he still be taken seriously?
 
2013-01-07 02:54:03 PM  

pedrop357: If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?


The point of using a prop is always the same, and serves pretty much the same purpose as demonstrating the thing you're actually talking about.

The point is to visually illustrate something you're describing in words to a listener. It is quite common for people to develop a better understanding of something when they are able to see a visual representation of the thing that is being talked about.

To argue that someone will never use a prop when demonstrating a legally obtained item is absolutely absurd and I don't understand while you are hung up on that line of reasoning. Consider ANY legal item that is difficult to obtain because of cost or scarcity. Using a prop still helps convey the message visually. Perhaps the logistical reasons for showing a prop of a gold bar when talking about gold bars is an example more your speed.
 
2013-01-07 02:56:20 PM  

pedrop357: If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?


Well, generally, jets don't need props. Unless it's a turboprop.
 
2013-01-07 02:56:29 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: By itself it isn't 100% rock solid evidence, but unless someone is willing to testify that they were in fact fake, and could provide soem evidence tot hat effect you can say, beyond a reasonable doubt he had real magazines.

Jurors would be over six years old, so, no.


So video evidence, him acting as if it were real, asking if the could bring real ones on, and refusal to say they were fake mean nothing to you? It is still "reasonable" to you that he was faking all of that?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: It can only be "easily" discredited if he wants to lose professional credibility.

Maybe, amongst six year olds. Otherwise, again, no


You think a reporter who acted as if a prop was real doesn't lose credibility when they later say it was fake?

Do you not know what "credibility" means?


Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The expenses of the show will only tell you what they legally BOUGHT, which won't tell you anything about what they put on camera.


Still not clear on how evidence works are you?


Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I'm going to torpedo my career in the news business to help you prosecute a meaningless, useless and likely failing case? Instead of invoking my perfectly legal Constitutional rights? Why?


Depends on who bought it, and who brought it to the station. I woudln't lie to protect my boss if I was an intern. If the case was really progressing and he didn't take the blame he would go from misinformed to scumbag in my book. And once again testimony that it was real is not needed. right now evidence points to it being real, unless they can come up with something that says otherwise I can say, beyond a reasonable doubt it was real.
 
2013-01-07 03:01:22 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whar demonstration of moving parts?

I will get right on that when you answer my previous questions.

Still waiting.


On what? You still didn't answer my questions.
 
2013-01-07 03:12:27 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: If you needed a prop, what was the point of all this again?

Makes better television than showing or holding a picture of a magazine.

As is apparent from the super-freakout of some particularly ignorant Farkers.

What was his point? Should he still be taken seriously?


Had he said, "We bought this magazine in an alley here in DC." and presented it on camera as central to a news story when it was, in fact, a prop, you would have a reason to question his credibility.

Simply using it as a visual aid, like a graphic or holding up a photo? This is common practice usually more for logistical reasons than legal.
 
2013-01-07 03:17:21 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Whar demonstration of moving parts?

I will get right on that when you answer my previous questions.

Still waiting.

On what? You still didn't answer my questions.


The 1st protects him from self-incrimination and there's no law against using props or "lying"(as it's known to hysterical gun-fanciers) on television.
 
2013-01-07 03:18:01 PM  
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-07 03:20:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The 1st protects him from self-incrimination and there's no law against using props or "lying"(as it's known to hysterical gun-fanciers) on television.


So you mean when I said he could clam up it didn't contradict anything in the constitution?

So once again why did you bring it up?
 
2013-01-07 03:35:18 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The 1st protects him from self-incrimination and there's no law against using props or "lying"(as it's known to hysterical gun-fanciers) on television.

So you mean when I said he could clam up it didn't contradict anything in the constitution?

So once again why did you bring it up?


Bring what up?
 
2013-01-07 04:18:30 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: All I got out of this thread before my eyes rolled back in my head and foam started pouring from the corner of my mouth was:

1. If David Gregory had robbed a bank with a banana he'd go to prison
2. Certain people think David Gregory should be charged with a crime they think shouldn't exist based on evidence they don't have
3. Gun nuts are, as always, utterly imbecilic

I think we should strip every gun control law from the books both federal and state and replace them with one:

"In order to legally own any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition you must have a working IQ of at least 85"

No grandfather clause.

If you could instantly confiscate the guns that became illegal I'll bet accidents and crimes related to firearms would be cut in half the next day since no gun nut, NRA member or NRA official would be allowed within 50 feet of a gun ever again.

/ but seriously though, gun nut logic is pretty painfully broken


At first your "IQ of 85 to own a gun" seemed like a really good idea. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised it's not that good.

Like the movie Idiocracy (which is a Goddamn documentury as far as I am concerned) stupid people are outbreeding smart people. And like Judgement Day in Terminator, we can only delay it, not stop it. But what delays an over abundance of stupid? Well, two thing. Dangerous items like firearms, gasoline, and dynamite, and the phrase "Hey, ya'll, watch this!".

See it's communities of idiots with guns who help to self-cull the herd so to speak. Obviously criminals shouldnt be allowed to have firearms, because they shoot innocent people. But idiots mostly just shoot other idiots. If you allow your drunk ass friend Billy-Ray to shoot a beer can off your head, you should both be handed a gun, because this is a self-correcting problem.
 
2013-01-07 04:27:31 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The 1st protects him from self-incrimination and there's no law against using props or "lying"(as it's known to hysterical gun-fanciers) on television.

So you mean when I said he could clam up it didn't contradict anything in the constitution?

So once again why did you bring it up?


Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing. He/she has absolutely nothing left. It's been a long time since I've witnessed such abject failure on Fark. Let it go, man.
 
2013-01-07 04:28:54 PM  

MythDragon: See it's communities of idiots with guns who help to self-cull the herd so to speak. Obviously criminals shouldnt be allowed to have firearms, because they shoot innocent people. But idiots mostly just shoot other idiots. If you allow your drunk ass friend Billy-Ray to shoot a beer can off your head, you should both be handed a gun, because this is a self-correcting problem.


What color is the sky in your world?

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-07 04:37:41 PM  

treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.


That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?
 
2013-01-07 04:42:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.

That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?


NOBODY ASKS THE POLICE IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A PROP, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.
 
2013-01-07 04:48:22 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.

That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?

NOBODY ASKS THE POLICE IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A PROP, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.


"Hey, you guys mind if we use a real magazine on the show Sunday?"
"We'd rather you didn't."
"Okay, I guess we'll go with the prop, then. Thanks."
 
2013-01-07 04:51:43 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.

That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?

NOBODY ASKS THE POLICE IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A PROP, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.


"Hey, did you call the police about using a real magazine on the show Sunday?"
"Why bother if we're going to use it anyway?"
"Good point."
 
2013-01-07 04:54:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?



So I guess the next question is, who made the prop?

These are all questions that would be aimed at foxnews if one of their anchors went on TV and appeared to possess a brand new machine gun.
 
2013-01-07 04:55:52 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.

That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?

NOBODY ASKS THE POLICE IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A PROP, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.

"Hey, you guys mind if we use a real magazine on the show Sunday?"
"We'd rather you didn't."
"Okay, I guess we'll go with the prop, then. Thanks."


I do find it rather entertaining how much energy you are putting into defending him. Seriously! If it was an asshole from Fox News, I'd love to see your position on what happened.
 
2013-01-07 04:57:09 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?


So I guess the next question is, who made the prop?


Why would anyone give a sh*t about that?
 
2013-01-07 04:57:22 PM  

Pangea: The point of using a prop is always the same, and serves pretty much the same purpose as demonstrating the thing you're actually talking about.

The point is to visually illustrate something you're describing in words to a listener. It is quite common for people to develop a better understanding of something when they are able to see a visual representation of the thing that is being talked about.

To argue that someone will never use a prop when demonstrating a legally obtained item is absolutely absurd and I don't understand while you are hung up on that line of reasoning. Consider ANY legal item that is difficult to obtain because of cost or scarcity. Using a prop still helps convey the message visually. Perhaps the logistical reasons for showing a prop of a gold bar when talking about gold bars is an example more your speed.


Why bother with a prop for an easily obtainable $19 object? Who made the prop?

If I'm talking about gold bars in general, then yes a prop will suffice. If I'm in California and arguing for 'assault weapons' to be illegal, it's kind of silly if I have to use a prop because the real thing IS illegal.

What was his point in all of this? To show that something that was illegal in DC was legal somewhere else?
 
2013-01-07 04:58:41 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Why would anyone give a sh*t about that?


I'd like to know who makes props like that, and why? What is the point of making an inoperable replica of $19 object?

Doesn't the fact that he has to use a prop show undermine any argument he might be making about legality?
 
2013-01-07 05:04:38 PM  

Farkage: I do find it rather entertaining how much energy you are putting into defending him.


I can speak English and type so it's not really that much effort.
 
2013-01-07 05:06:15 PM  

pedrop357: What is the point of making an inoperable replica of $19 object?


For use on news programs?

pedrop357: Doesn't the fact that he has to use a prop show undermine any argument he might be making about legality?


Explain.
 
2013-01-07 05:08:50 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: I do find it rather entertaining how much energy you are putting into defending him.

I can speak English and type so it's not really that much effort.


I find it equally amusing that you ignored the second part of my comment. You know..this part "If it was an asshole from Fox News, I'd love to see your position on what happened"
 
2013-01-07 05:08:58 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: For use on news programs?


Because the $19 object is too hard to find and afford, so we have to have a prop made instead?

Explain.

If I'm trying to talk about the legality or widespread availability of something, but have to use a prop in order to stay within the law, doesn't that mean it's not as legal as I might be claiming?
 
2013-01-07 05:10:40 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: treesloth: Seriously, look at what nina is reduced to arguing.

That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?

NOBODY ASKS THE POLICE IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A PROP, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.

"Hey, you guys mind if we use a real magazine on the show Sunday?"
"We'd rather you didn't."
"Okay, I guess we'll go with the prop, then. Thanks."


If they had a prop then why would they care to get a real one? Anyone who's not an expert wouldn't know the difference, and experts don't need a visual aid. Can you go a single post without failing?
 
2013-01-07 05:12:59 PM  

pedrop357: If I'm in California and arguing for 'assault weapons' to be illegal, it's kind of silly if I have to use a prop because the real thing IS illegal.


Oh, I see. You're under the impression MTP is a local DC show. In fact, it's seen on NBC affiliates across the country and rerun several times on msnbc.

Washington, DC is the capitol of the whole United States. That help?
 
2013-01-07 05:13:01 PM  
Whoa hey, what's with all the questions about violating the law about new machine gun possession.

I know that I showed a gun that looks like a machine gun and referred to it as a machine gun, but that doesn't mean it's a machine gun. It's just a prop, but I didn't mention that I had to use a prop to avoid breaking local law because to do that might mean I undermine any argument about it being legal and/or easily obtained.

Hope that satisfies the government and doesn't hurt my credibility in any way.
 
2013-01-07 05:15:14 PM  

Farkage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: I do find it rather entertaining how much energy you are putting into defending him.

I can speak English and type so it's not really that much effort.

I find it equally amusing that you ignored the second part of my comment. You know..this part "If it was an asshole from Fox News, I'd love to see your position on what happened"


Yeah, I usually ignore the BSAB bullsh*t.
 
2013-01-07 05:16:03 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Oh, I see. You're under the impression MTP is a local DC show. In fact, it's seen on NBC affiliates across the country and rerun several times on msnbc.

Washington, DC is the capitol of the whole United States. That help?


Nope, no misunderstanding. Just trying to show a parallel. He was in DC doing a show that is run nationwide and apparently violated DC law by possessing a magazine over 10 rounds.

If I was filming a show in California and brought out an 'assault weapon' "prop" to show what one looked like and was remarking (whining) about easily obtainable and legal it is, well I'm full of shiat. Even the Queen of symbolism and show, Dianne Feinstein shows the real thing to make her point. If it's legal, I don't need a prop.
 
2013-01-07 05:17:01 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That props are regularly used on news programs?
Crazy, right?


lol, exactly.
 
2013-01-07 05:18:59 PM  

pedrop357: Whoa hey, what's with all the questions about violating the law about new machine gun possession.

I know that I showed a gun that looks like a machine gun and referred to it as a machine gun, but that doesn't mean it's a machine gun. It's just a prop, but I didn't mention that I had to use a prop to avoid breaking local law because to do that might mean I undermine any argument about it being legal and/or easily obtained.

Hope that satisfies the government and doesn't hurt my credibility in any way.


If I saw Billo in a TV studio with a machine gun I would assume it was a prop.
Not even FOX producers are that stupid.
 
2013-01-07 05:20:34 PM  

pedrop357: If it's legal, I don't need a prop.


But it wasn't so he did.
 
2013-01-07 05:22:13 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: But it wasn't so he did.


Still fabricating your own realities, I see? You're the gift that keeps on giving.
 
2013-01-07 05:22:18 PM  

pedrop357: If I was filming a show in California and brought out an 'assault weapon' "prop" to show what one looked like and was remarking (whining) about easily obtainable and legal it is, well I'm full of shiat.


No ifs about it.
 
2013-01-07 05:41:14 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yeah, I usually ignore the BSAB bullsh*t.


BSAB?
 
2013-01-07 05:41:18 PM  

treesloth: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: But it wasn't so he did.

Still fabricating your own realities, I see?


Then how are you still here?
 
2013-01-07 05:48:33 PM  

Farkage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yeah, I usually ignore the BSAB bullsh*t.

BSAB?


Just show me somebody on FN holding a prop and see how fast I don't get upset about it.
 
2013-01-07 05:50:38 PM  

dittybopper: Animatronik: As a gun owner, I don't think you can argue that forcing mass shooters to change mags more often has no benefit. You have to argue that its not a big enough benefit to warrant restricting gun owners' rights.

It probably wouldn't have mattered in the latest shooting: According to the latest reporting, the shooter often changed magazines when they were only half empty, cutting the effective number of rounds in each from 30 down to 15.

Also, it's doubtful it would help because a mass shooter can use the simple expedient of using two guns: A main one, and a second one available for use during the "reloads". It's actually a common thing among mass shooters. Also, using very large capacity magazines is often a *HINDRANCE*: They are known to jam (which is why the military generally avoids magazines that hold more than 20 or 30 rounds), and that characteristic likely saved a bunch of people at the Aurora CO theater shooting. The AR-15 jammed after about 30 rounds probably because the shooter was using a 100 round drum.


There is clearly a benefit to limiting mags to 10 rounds. It's not a huge benefit, because if the shooter is not completely deranged, he/she will have practiced changing mags. But a lot of them are and don't. So I don't buy the argument that there's no potential benefit.

As far as Lanza goes, the MOTHER is to blame in my opinion.
The MOTHER provided access to firearms to a person who was so crazy she was trying to have him committed. Since she was the first victim, there's not a lot of finger-pointing.

If you knowingly provide a mentally ill person with a gun, you deserve to go to jail, no matter how innocent your intentions. Of course we don't know if she tried to restrict his access - she may not be fully responsible. It looks bad though.
 
2013-01-07 05:57:29 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yeah, I usually ignore the BSAB bullsh*t.

BSAB?

Just show me somebody on FN holding a prop and see how fast I don't get upset about it.


I was honestly curious. That is, if they are actually holding a prop.
 
2013-01-07 05:57:56 PM  

Animatronik: There is clearly a benefit to limiting mags to 10 rounds. It's not a huge benefit, because if the shooter is not completely deranged, he/she will have practiced changing mags. But a lot of them are and don't. So I don't buy the argument that there's no potential benefit.


it's not a benefit. They never had to be practiced as they had all the time they wanted.

The VT shooter had a bag of 10 and 15 round mags and was able to swap all he wanted.
The CT shooter had 14 minutes to move around and shoot. He swapped at least 4 times that we know of. Why would swapping 6 times and conserving a little ammo make any difference?

The Aurora shooter just changed guns when he cheap mag jammed.
 
2013-01-07 06:00:21 PM  

Farkage: I was honestly curious. That is, if they are actually holding a prop.


I wonder what company makes those props.
 
2013-01-07 06:16:48 PM  

pedrop357: Farkage: I was honestly curious. That is, if they are actually holding a prop.

I wonder what company makes those props.


Not going to lie..I lol'd!
 
2013-01-07 06:33:59 PM  

pedrop357: Animatronik: There is clearly a benefit to limiting mags to 10 rounds. It's not a huge benefit, because if the shooter is not completely deranged, he/she will have practiced changing mags. But a lot of them are and don't. So I don't buy the argument that there's no potential benefit.

it's not a benefit. They never had to be practiced as they had all the time they wanted.

The VT shooter had a bag of 10 and 15 round mags and was able to swap all he wanted.
The CT shooter had 14 minutes to move around and shoot. He swapped at least 4 times that we know of. Why would swapping 6 times and conserving a little ammo make any difference?

The Aurora shooter just changed guns when he cheap mag jammed.


To the pistol with the forty round magazine.
 
2013-01-07 06:41:52 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: To the pistol with the forty round magazine.


citation needed
 
2013-01-07 06:46:44 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: To the pistol with the forty round magazine.

citation needed


Link
 
2013-01-07 06:49:37 PM  

pedrop357: The Aurora shooter just changed guns when he cheap mag jammed.


And how many rounds did he get out of that cheap mag?
 
2013-01-07 06:52:36 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld:
What color is the sky in your world?

[i49.tinypic.com image 850x606]


Right now it's black with little pretty white specks. Sometimes it's blue, sometimes reddish, some times it looks dull yellow. Depends on atmospheric conditions I suppose, same as yours.

Maybe you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying ALL people with guns are idiots. I approve of people's right's to own fire arms. Hell I have 30 of them. Several of them are 'military style assault type weapons' with 'high capacity clip magazines'. I've had a carry permit for the last 4 years. I was responding to this:

I think we should strip every gun control law from the books both federal and state and replace them with one:
"In order to legally own any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition you must have a working IQ of at least 85"


And while initially that seems like a good idea, I was just pointing out that giving an idiot a gun usually ends up with one less idiot in the world. So that's why I support gun rights for responsible owners AND idiots.

I am starting to think Senator Fienstien is actually pro gun. Very much. She has a carry permit and armed guards right? I am starting to think she must be getting kickbacks from gun manufacturers as well. What happened last time she passed her gun ban. Gun prices of 'pre-ban' stock shot way up. Now as she is pushing this next ban through, AR-15s and mag prices have gone up 20% or so. I'd be willing to bet she's making some major cash on this, in one of the world's greatest trolls.
 
2013-01-07 06:57:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And how many rounds did he get out of that cheap mag?


Point being he switched to another gun. Had he simply chosen 30 round or 10 round magazines, no jam, just a quickie swap out. He wasn't stopped when he swapped or jammed; he stopped when he wanted to and waited by his car. It's delusional to think that the outcome would have change at all if he had been stuck with 10 round magazines.
 
2013-01-07 07:02:49 PM  

pedrop357: just a quickie swap out.


Well then, a two round limit should make everybody happy. Gun grabbers would feel better and gun owners won't even notice the difference.

See? GENEROUS COMPROMISE.
 
2013-01-07 07:09:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: See? GENEROUS COMPROMISE.



Phony compromise. Acknowledge that magazine capacity doesn't stop mass killers and move on to something that might work.
The mass killer in the Dunblane massacre used two 9mm browning semi-autos and a .357 revolver.

So instead of an AR, I buy a few speedloaders and two .357s and accomplish the same thing.
 
2013-01-07 07:17:40 PM  

pedrop357: The mass killer in the Dunblane massacre used two 9mm browning semi-autos


Magazine capacity?
 
2013-01-07 07:20:58 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: The mass killer in the Dunblane massacre used two 9mm browning semi-autos

Magazine capacity?


no idea. turns out he had four guns, two semi-auto pistols, and two .357s. Not sure magazine capacity matters when the person brings 4 guns. No semi-auto rifle necessary.
 
2013-01-07 07:23:15 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: The mass killer in the Dunblane massacre used two 9mm browning semi-autos

Magazine capacity?

no idea. turns out he had four guns, two semi-auto pistols, and two .357s. Not sure magazine capacity matters when the person brings 4 guns. No semi-auto rifle necessary.


20.
 
2013-01-07 07:23:39 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Magazine capacity?


Wikipedia says that 13 is a common size for the Browning Hi-Power 9mm
 
2013-01-08 11:15:08 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Animatronik: There is clearly a benefit to limiting mags to 10 rounds. It's not a huge benefit, because if the shooter is not completely deranged, he/she will have practiced changing mags. But a lot of them are and don't. So I don't buy the argument that there's no potential benefit.

it's not a benefit. They never had to be practiced as they had all the time they wanted.

The VT shooter had a bag of 10 and 15 round mags and was able to swap all he wanted.
The CT shooter had 14 minutes to move around and shoot. He swapped at least 4 times that we know of. Why would swapping 6 times and conserving a little ammo make any difference?

The Aurora shooter just changed guns when he cheap mag jammed.

To the pistol with the forty round magazine.


Forty CALIBER. Not forty round. Even then, the extended magazines for the Glock .40 only hold around 22 rounds.
 
2013-01-08 12:51:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Then how are you still here?


Pure morbid curiosity. Sure, it's not nice to watch someone completely take leave of reality, but damn if you don't put on a good show while you do it!
 
Displayed 310 of 310 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report