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

11955 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:04 PM (2 years 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 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?
 
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 »
Advertisement
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