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 310
    More: Obvious, gun laws, miller, Ed Donovan, MPD, Dodge Charger, Pennsylvania Avenue, U.S. Marshals Service  
•       •       •

11950 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



310 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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