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.

(News9 Oklahoma)   DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with breaking the law. Finally, a rich affluent white person can get justice in America   (news9.com) divider line 409
    More: Followup, Wayne LaPierre, David Keene, Oklahoma City, school massacre, Admonition, d.c. police, NBC, attorney generals  
•       •       •

7292 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-11 10:13:28 PM  
Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?
 
2013-01-11 10:19:51 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?


I think they've successfully taken back the word.
 
2013-01-12 12:18:21 AM  
Rich and affluent? That never happens.
 
2013-01-12 12:21:24 AM  
Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.
 
2013-01-12 12:42:48 AM  
legalinsurrection.com
 
2013-01-12 12:53:50 AM  
That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?
 
2013-01-12 01:19:57 AM  

It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?


This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.
 
2013-01-12 01:22:10 AM  
Why the definite article, Subs?
 
2013-01-12 01:23:02 AM  

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.
 
2013-01-12 01:23:26 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


More like...

www.annaguirre.com
 
2013-01-12 01:23:28 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


Yes, but then you send the message that any rich, affluent person can wave a magazine around in order to make a vague political statement. Is that the kind of Sunday morning political talk show we want our precious children to sleep through?
 
2013-01-12 01:24:52 AM  

Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?


Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.
 
2013-01-12 01:25:19 AM  

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.
 
2013-01-12 01:27:01 AM  
Awesome headline, subby.
 
2013-01-12 01:27:07 AM  
I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....
 
2013-01-12 01:27:58 AM  
Anyone who give more than two shiats and a fark about this should be euthanized.
 
2013-01-12 01:28:17 AM  
Beat him to the white meat
 
2013-01-12 01:29:30 AM  

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


That is an amazingly expansive reading of the first.

But then, the current supreme court is well known for occasionally huffing the paint before writing up a ruling so they might actually do that.
 
2013-01-12 01:29:36 AM  

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.
 
2013-01-12 01:31:26 AM  
The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.
 
2013-01-12 01:31:40 AM  

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


yes

THIS
 
2013-01-12 01:32:01 AM  
Glad to see everyone agrees that the gun laws in DC are retarded.
 
2013-01-12 01:32:16 AM  
I'm just impressed the article actually called it a magazine and not a clip.
 
2013-01-12 01:33:19 AM  

Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.


Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.
 
2013-01-12 01:33:46 AM  

Shadowe: The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.


Law enforcement agents are typically exempted from stupid and irrational firearm prohibitions.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:37 AM  

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


He could make a good second amendment case.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:39 AM  
I didn't pay attention to this the first time.. he was seen with an extended clip? That's it?
 
2013-01-12 01:34:46 AM  
It is high time that whitey caught a break.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:38 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.

Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.


Museums are typically afforded specific exemptions not applicable in law to private citizens, even to journalists.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:39 AM  
Dimensio and Holocaust Agnostic

I was referring to the free press provision, not the free speech provision. Without at least some freedom to operate outside the bounds of the law the press would be unable to report on any criminal activity. Journalists would be forced to testify about drug deals, prostitution, or mob activity witnessed while researching a story. This is less egregious than any of those instances, as no one in this case sought to break the law or do harm.

Without a similarly expansive reading of the First Amendment journalists would be guilty of at least obstructing justice almost every time they interviewed criminals.
 
2013-01-12 01:36:16 AM  

Shadowe: The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.


This is what I wondered
 
2013-01-12 01:36:35 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.


Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.
 
2013-01-12 01:37:57 AM  
Arresting him would make him a martyr. That is the motivation Republicans have for seeing it happen.
 
2013-01-12 01:38:19 AM  

Lenny and Carl: Dimensio and Holocaust Agnostic

I was referring to the free press provision, not the free speech provision. Without at least some freedom to operate outside the bounds of the law the press would be unable to report on any criminal activity. Journalists would be forced to testify about drug deals, prostitution, or mob activity witnessed while researching a story. This is less egregious than any of those instances, as no one in this case sought to break the law or do harm.

Without a similarly expansive reading of the First Amendment journalists would be guilty of at least obstructing justice almost every time they interviewed criminals.


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution typically allows journalists to refuse to disclose some sources to law enforcement. However, I am aware of no legal precedent stating that prohibitions established upon mere possession of banned items itself is exempted to journalists who are attempting to present a journalistic report.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:17 AM  

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.


Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone in DC who posses this type of magazine is breaking the law. There was no intent written into the law and yet DC has horrible crime stats.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.


What about a veteran?

D.C. arrests vet for unregistered ammunition
In September 2011, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler was arrested at the VFW in the District because he happened to have a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition in his bag.
 
2013-01-12 01:41:32 AM  

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution typically allows journalists to refuse to disclose some sources to law enforcement. However, I am aware of no legal precedent stating that prohibitions established upon mere possession of banned items itself is exempted to journalists who are attempting to present a journalistic report.


Sure you do. You know of journalists who have driven their cars with their sources riding with them. If I were driving my car with a dealer riding shotgun my car can be impounded and sold at auction because I'm responsible for the drugs inside of it. Until a journalist is charged with possession under those same statutes then Gregory has a case.
 
2013-01-12 01:41:57 AM  
If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.
 
2013-01-12 01:42:56 AM  
Rich and affluent? Doubtless he is also well-heeled.

/Effluent?
 
2013-01-12 01:43:38 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS


No, for the same reason that Gregory couldn't hold up pictures of child porn during an expose about child pornographers. The law is specifically targeted against possession. And guess what? The fact that publicly-broadcast video exists of him holding the magazine is rather solid evidence backing a possession charge.
 
2013-01-12 01:44:17 AM  

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


lol

You know... when you dig your holes, you don't HAVE to jump into them headfirst. It's funny when you do, but it isn't required.
 
2013-01-12 01:44:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


You, My friend do not live in central New Jersey. They'll pull you over for an out of date inspection and call a K-9 to smell your vehicle.
 
2013-01-12 01:48:20 AM  
JasonOfOrillia: Why the definite article, Subs?

"The
David Gregory?"

"No, just a David Gregory. Didn't you hear I come in six-packs?"
 
2013-01-12 01:49:28 AM  

Bonzo_1116:
And display is a long way from use.


In what sense is 'use' relevant? I was under the impression that the bans were because a high proliferation of large magazines was so undesirable no one should be permitted to own them for any reason. The guy bought the magazine, putting money into the hands of dealers who presumably used at least some portion of the money towards making more of the things and marginally increased demand and therefore profit margins increasing the incentive to make more. And he also carried the thing around instead of, say, immediately destroying it, creating the chance that he could have it stolen from him or that he could suffer a psychotic break while it was in his possession and use it to massacre the film crew. He is exactly as destructive to the common good as others subjected to this law.

Why then should he be exempt?
 
2013-01-12 01:49:33 AM  
For all the people jumping on the bandwagon that this decision was made for the stated reason that "criminal charges wouldn't serve the public's best interests", you need to seriously read up on DC's gun laws and how they are applied to persons not in the media. People are prosecuted for possessing a handful of rounds of ammunition, or a magazine as shown in the television segment. These are the sole charges and and aren't, as was stated by someone else in this thread, tacked on other charges to "cover the bases". The plain fact is if you or I had waved that mag around on television, we'd be facing charges, but because of who did it and the agenda behind it, it gets a free pass. The people lauding this decision should be ashamed.
 
2013-01-12 01:49:48 AM  

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


That's funny, because as a gay pothead, I'm seriously considering purchasing a gun sometime soon. Maybe we are the future.
 
2013-01-12 01:49:49 AM  

twistofsin:

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays?


Never been to an Appalachian queer bar, have you?
 
2013-01-12 01:51:53 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


Because everyone else damn well knows better.
 
2013-01-12 01:52:28 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


An army vet just got acquitted after a months long legal fight because he seas caught with one. It was the only charge. The kicker is the same prosecutors that excused Gregory said that the vet deserved the book thrown at him despite the acquittal.
 
2013-01-12 01:52:43 AM  

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


You have my and all my dead relatives votes good sir.
 
2013-01-12 01:53:08 AM  
The DA has to make a decision.

This was meant as an example and wasn't being used with a gun.
The accused would have lots of money for lawyers.
The accused has a get out of jail free card from a related law enforcement agency.

If you were the DA would you go for this mark?

/Yes, I called an accused person a 'mark'.
 
2013-01-12 02:01:15 AM  

Enemabag Jones: The DA has to make a decision.

This was meant as an example and wasn't being used with a gun.
The accused would have lots of money for lawyers.
The accused has a get out of jail free card from a related law enforcement agency.

If you were the DA would you go for this mark?

/Yes, I called an accused person a 'mark'.


Still, He broke the "LAW."


/I guess I would go through traffic lights if I had the opportunity.
 
2013-01-12 02:02:12 AM  
Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.
 
2013-01-12 02:05:32 AM  
Subby is a butthurt troll?
 
2013-01-12 02:06:35 AM  
What a waste of time, ink, paper, and electrons.
 
2013-01-12 02:07:24 AM  

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


I think that an image on television has several witnesses. Producer,director,sound.
 
2013-01-12 02:11:24 AM  

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


Looks more like chocolate to me.
 
2013-01-12 02:12:03 AM  

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


Wait... so you mean a party that truly believes in liberty and equality? They'd have my vote in a second.
 
2013-01-12 02:12:30 AM  
"We got a pack of idiots screaming for blood."
"How about we apologize and promise not to do it again."
"That'll work."
 
2013-01-12 02:12:36 AM  

armoredbulldozer: What a waste of time, ink, paper, and electrons.


Electrons are a renewable resource, I think.
 
2013-01-12 02:14:00 AM  

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?
 
2013-01-12 02:14:41 AM  

Bucky Katt: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

Looks more like chocolate to me.


I think if I showed up on the DC Metro with a chocolate clip tomorrow, I'd get arrested. For some causation.
 
2013-01-12 02:18:08 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.


I've yet to hear a slur against white people which actually offended me and in fact a few of them make me chuckle. However, the term "breeder" makes me uncomfortable and I've yet to determine why.
 
2013-01-12 02:21:51 AM  

Loaded Six String: Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.

I've yet to hear a slur against white people which actually offended me and in fact a few of them make me chuckle. However, the term "breeder" makes me uncomfortable and I've yet to determine why.


I agree, I've been a Redneck my entire life and I learned Cracker after I moved into the Northeast. I/m good with Redneck and I understand Cracker, but Breeder and Heathan have me annoyed.
 
2013-01-12 02:23:34 AM  

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


Throw in an emphasis on personal responsibilty and not being a dick to other people and you've got a bastion of liberty. I salute you.
 
2013-01-12 02:25:23 AM  

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


Alright, but I'd better not hear anything about people being busted for smoking pot in videos on Youtube :(
 
2013-01-12 02:28:38 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Loaded Six String: Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.

I've yet to hear a slur against white people which actually offended me and in fact a few of them make me chuckle. However, the term "breeder" makes me uncomfortable and I've yet to determine why.

I agree, I've been a Redneck my entire life and I learned Cracker after I moved into the Northeast. I/m good with Redneck and I understand Cracker, but Breeder and Heathan have me annoyed.


Ah heathen. Haven't been called that yet. Really though, bigotry is stupid no matter the terms used. Wish everyone felt that way.
 
2013-01-12 02:28:50 AM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?


Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.
 
2013-01-12 02:29:10 AM  

Mrbogey: Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.

An army vet just got acquitted after a months long legal fight because he seas caught with one. It was the only charge. The kicker is the same prosecutors that excused Gregory said that the vet deserved the book thrown at him despite the acquittal.


You just made a good case for why Gregory wasn't prosecuted. If the same prosecuters took an identical case to court after just losing one, they would have little chance of success and would be wasting tax payers money.
 
2013-01-12 02:34:25 AM  
D.C. police say NBC asked for permission to use the clip during a segment and was advised that it would be illegal, though NBC has said it received conflicting guidance from other law enforcement sources.

No excuse. Since it's a CITY law, then when the CITY police say it's illegal, other law enforcement agencies' opinions are just farts in the wind.

I just find it amazingly that in their need to trumpet the cause of stronger gun restrictions that they would KNOWINGLY violate gun laws. What a bunch of pricks. It's just another example of why I don't want the anti-gun people to be cheering for new laws. One reason is that they are calling for enforcement of stuff that they are proudly ignorant of, the second is that they feel that they can violate the same laws that they want made stronger whenever they want. I guess this proves that laws against high capacity magazines are useless anyway. If someone waving it around on international TV won't get busted, who will?

Screaming "First Amendment" is a total cop-out, too, but at least they're not taking the Derp Express that farkers here are taking and demanding that people prove it was a real magazine in the first place. It's the dumbest defense anyone could have come up with for this, and I bet that if it hasn't been rolled out yet(forgot to check), it will be before this thread is 24 hours old.
 
2013-01-12 02:35:00 AM  

GAT_00: Lsherm: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?

Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.


gat_00 in charge of reading comprehension.
 
2013-01-12 02:35:23 AM  

GAT_00: Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.


Wow, way how to not read anything you just responded to, but go you I guess...
 
2013-01-12 02:37:18 AM  

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


"Circumstantial"? He stated what it was on television, AND they called and told the cops that they were going to do it. If I called the cops and said that I was going to kill my wife, and then went on television and stated that I had killed her, if she turned up dead, they'd have enough to convict me of, unless the prosecution was made up of morons.
 
2013-01-12 02:38:54 AM  

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.


The law was written for any possession of the magazine, I think it fits like a glove.

I agree about the idiotic "How do we KNOW it was real?" talking point, though. It's the dumbest defense yet, and they keep rolling it out like it will mellow and improve with age. It's derp, not wine.
 
2013-01-12 02:40:03 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Lsherm: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

Coupled with video of him announcing what it was, eyewitness reports from production staff and other guests on the show, his prior request to the federal government and the DC government about whether or not he could bring the magazine on the show, the receipt from his production staff to purchase the magazine - none of that is "circumstantial" except in your liberal masturbatory fantasy of TV-land legal justice where people you agree with always get off because they are working for your greater good.

You're slipping into Alex Jones territory.  That's not a good place to be.  It's where the vortex of trolling and stupid come together in a black hole of ridiculous.

And unlike you, I'm not cheerleading so I don't have to contort myself into such asinine arguments.  He shouldn't have been prosecuted because it was a poorly written law to begin with, and it clearly wasn't meant to target journalists making a point on the news.  It would be just as ridiculous if a DC college professor was arrested using an empty high capacity magazine to make a point in class.

I know this, because liberals wrote that law, and it was stupid how they wrote it.  You have to pretend he didn't break the law because if you admit it, you have to admit it was a stupid law in the first place.  And you can't have your team take a hit, can you?

Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.

gat_00 in charge of reading comprehension.


Cuyose: GAT_00: Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.

Wow, way how to not read anything you just responded to, but go you I guess...


I think we all agree, the LAW is not well written, whether misguided or just obtruse. We could have written better. And even created something enforceable on all fronts.
 
2013-01-12 02:41:56 AM  
It ok, Lsherm had a very valid point, but other than comprehending what he wrote, GAT just blurbed whatever he was programmed to yap about that fit his ideal. Pretty accustom to that around these parts.
 
2013-01-12 02:45:51 AM  

Victoly: JasonOfOrillia: Why the definite article, Subs?

"The David Gregory?"

"No, just a David Gregory. Didn't you hear I come in six-packs?"


Remind me not to drink your six-packs.
 
2013-01-12 02:46:27 AM  

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


The First Amendment dies the day after the Second.
 
2013-01-12 02:48:16 AM  

Mikey1969: The law was written for any possession of the magazine, I think it fits like a glove.


It does, but I was going for the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.  Failure to recognize the difference leads to zero-tolerance policies in schools, another plague on American society.

I know what they intended with the law, and it wasn't prosecuting David Gregory for holding an empty magazine on a news show.  That illustrates that it wasn't a very well-written law to begin with.
 
2013-01-12 02:49:15 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.



The slur "Cracker" originated as short-slang for "Whip-Cracker" ... i.e., a slave-owner.

/TMYK
 
2013-01-12 02:50:42 AM  

GAT_00: Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.


GAT_ALEX_JONES
 
2013-01-12 02:51:21 AM  

SympathyForTheDevil: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

The First Amendment dies the day after the Second.


Doubtful.

In fact, it seems to have substantially fewer defenders and suffer more intense attacks. I expect it to go before. (if we aren't considering it effectively dead already anyway)
 
2013-01-12 02:51:54 AM  

Lsherm: Mikey1969: The law was written for any possession of the magazine, I think it fits like a glove.

It does, but I was going for the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.  Failure to recognize the difference leads to zero-tolerance policies in schools, another plague on American society.

I know what they intended with the law, and it wasn't prosecuting David Gregory for holding an empty magazine on a news show.  That illustrates that it wasn't a very well-written law to begin with.


And the only way we stop writing horribly written laws is if people start getting prosecuted that fall on the wrong side of those laws that "aren't in the spirit of the law". You can legislate that kind of stuff if you just stop and think about things for a minute, rather than just shooting from the hip on emotions and coming up with laws.
 
2013-01-12 02:52:07 AM  

SympathyForTheDevil: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

The First Amendment dies the day after the Second.


Why? If you claim the second protects the first, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.
 
2013-01-12 02:52:37 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


I thought the "interest of the people" (or at least the people calling for more gun restrictions) was that we need tougher gun laws that are strictly enforced. When someone can flagrantly break the law and not even get a slap on the wrist, it says to me that more laws aren't the answer... Sounds to me like we need to start consistently prosecuting the laws already in place before making new ones.
 
2013-01-12 02:56:14 AM  

noazark: Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.


The slur "Cracker" originated as short-slang for "Whip-Cracker" ... i.e., a slave-owner.

/TMYK


I thought it was more insulting because the whipcracker was the overseer..not the owner. White trash, out in the fields interacting with the "help", instead of the moneyed git inside the plantation house.
 
2013-01-12 02:56:37 AM  

Alphax: I didn't pay attention to this the first time.. he was seen with an extended clip? That's it?


Which is illegal to possess in any way. He also called DC police and was told that bit was illegal, no exceptions. Not really the way to be calling for more gun laws while knowingly flaunting existing ones. He has no defense, since he called and was told no.
 
2013-01-12 02:59:18 AM  
All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.
 
2013-01-12 03:00:42 AM  

Lsherm: Mikey1969: The law was written for any possession of the magazine, I think it fits like a glove.

It does, but I was going for the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.  Failure to recognize the difference leads to zero-tolerance policies in schools, another plague on American society.

I know what they intended with the law, and it wasn't prosecuting David Gregory for holding an empty magazine on a news show.  That illustrates that it wasn't a very well-written law to begin with.


I think the distinction shouldn't apply when you call the police, they tell you 'No', with no exceptions, and then you do it anyway...

I agree that it's a stupid law, and poorly written. Hell, when people call ahead and are in 100% compliance with the law, they still get arrested. That's a sign of a shiatty law right there.
 
2013-01-12 03:01:01 AM  

Bonzo_1116: I thought it was more insulting because the whipcracker was the overseer..not the owner. White trash, out in the fields interacting with the "help", instead of the moneyed git inside the plantation house.



Your description is more correct; I worded mine poorly. -_-

Either way, the term has nothing to do with crispy breadfoods ... and is intended as a rather nasty (but disguised) insult.
 
2013-01-12 03:09:14 AM  
either that headline is a copy 'n' paste from a youtube comment, or I missed a joke somewhere
 
2013-01-12 03:10:50 AM  
petersrdg1011.edublogs.org
 
2013-01-12 03:13:15 AM  
Good. The gun-humpers were screaming for blood and common sense prevailed.
 
2013-01-12 03:15:16 AM  

ThisIsntMe: GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.

I think that an image on television has several witnesses. Producer,director,sound.


Plus the police that they asked if they could use it on the show.

If he had any balls at all, he would be on his show begging them to charge him, because he would be proud to be held accountable for violating the kind of law he was calling for. It would be a principled stand. Instead, he shows that he has no balls, and just pretends like it didn't happen, even though he wants everyone else to be prosecuted for it.
 
2013-01-12 03:21:41 AM  

gweilo8888: All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.


Except that he DIDNT say it was a replica, he didn't say it got thrown out, and they DID call the police beforehand, and we're told that it wasn't legal in any way. What part of that makes you think it was a prop magazine?
 
2013-01-12 03:23:31 AM  

noazark: Bonzo_1116: Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?

Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.


The slur "Cracker" originated as short-slang for "Whip-Cracker" ... i.e., a slave-owner.

/TMYK


Brilliant! Now I know, I grew up in Alabama, my parents,grandparents and great grandparents never owned anybody else. Nor did they whip anybody(except their children). As a matter of fact my Grandparents grandparents had negros who were manumitted prior to the War of Northern Oppression that worked side by side with them picking peanuts in Dothan Alabama.But I am glad to know where that "Cracker" term comes from.
 
2013-01-12 03:27:27 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: . (if we aren't considering it effectively dead already anyway)


The simple fact that you're not in jail right now proves that the first amendment isn't "effectively dead"

Hell, the simple fact that Gregory isn't in jail right now is likewise proof.

Also, how DO other countries have freedom of speech without gun ownership? I mean, how does Spain and Germany, France, Britain and all those other countries that have a free and private press get by without a second amendment-type provision?
 
2013-01-12 03:27:50 AM  
Jesus christ, are you gun fellators never ashamed? The law is meant to keep these kinds of magazines away from criminals, a news personality is demonstrating them on his show to the nation and you are hoping some DC prosecutor is retarded enough to think David Gregory might use it in a shooting? Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public? are you really that retarded?
 
2013-01-12 03:30:55 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Holocaust Agnostic: . (if we aren't considering it effectively dead already anyway)

The simple fact that you're not in jail right now proves that the first amendment isn't "effectively dead"

Hell, the simple fact that Gregory isn't in jail right now is likewise proof.

Also, how DO other countries have freedom of speech without gun ownership? I mean, how does Spain and Germany, France, Britain and all those other countries that have a free and private press get by without a second amendment-type provision?


Did you actually ask that after the debacle in England last year?
 
2013-01-12 03:32:37 AM  
Oh, and Britain isn't a Country, it's a geographic designation.
 
2013-01-12 03:33:25 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.


It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.
 
2013-01-12 03:37:12 AM  
In December of 2012, David Gregory: deliberately violated D.C. gun law for financial and political gain.

In September of 2011, Adam Meckler: inadvertently violated D.C. Gun law.

David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.

Adam Meckler possessed a few 9mm cartridges, without the proper D.C. permit.

David Gregory has not been charged, arrested, or taken to jail.

Adam Meckler was arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail, eventually was released and plead a plea bargain that included a fine, probation, and being registered on the D.C. gun offender list.

David Gregory has been lauded by his peers, defended on numerous media sites, and been invited for an exclusive interview with President Obama.

Adam Meckler took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

David Gregory does not appear to have taken such an oath.

Adam Meckler is a combat veteran.

David Gregory is a member of the ruling elite. His children go to school with President Obama's children, where they enjoy the security of armed guards.


1 law for you, something else for them.This isn't isolated. Diane Feinstein carries guns. Had a carry license for years. When that came to light, she dropped the license, but became a deputized US Marshal (doesn't need the license now), yet fights to ban all firearms from everyone else. One law for you.
 
2013-01-12 03:37:14 AM  

gweilo8888: but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.


He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?
 
2013-01-12 03:37:31 AM  

untaken_name: ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.

It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.


Cool, thought y'alled just call me a schlemiel.
 
2013-01-12 03:40:26 AM  

truthseeker2083: That's funny, because as a gay pothead, I'm seriously considering purchasing a gun sometime soon. Maybe we are the future.


As a gay pothead gun owner - I'm surprised you don't already own one.
 
2013-01-12 03:40:46 AM  

enochianwolf: Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public?


What is different about a news personality that makes him or her less likely to commit violent crimes than any other citizen? Has no television personality ever committed a violent crime? Is that your claim?
 
2013-01-12 03:40:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe: untaken_name: ThisIsntMe: Heathan have me annoyed.

It's heathen, and it just means you aren't an Abrahamic Israelite. It's only idiots who use it as a slur.

Cool, thought y'alled just call me a schlemiel.


Nah, you're a W.A.S.P. just like Jesus!

/Or perhaps a Goy?
//As I said, certain slurs just amuse me.
///Are these actually used as slurs anymore?
 
2013-01-12 03:41:13 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".


It's not as simple as this word is okay and that word is offensive. It depends on the context. I think the salient question in any situation is not whether the listener was offended but whether the speaker intended offence.

Some of my black friends call each other n*gger all the time, in informal conversation. And some of my white friends embrace the label of redneck. But context and intent of the speaker are everything. For example, even if you refer to your friends as n*gger, but you get in a fender bender with a stranger and they step out of the car and angrily call you n*gger - one is offensive in intent, the other is not. This is obvious, and probably close to inarguable.

Simply put, if you use a word offensively, then it is offensive by definition. Even if you didn't manage to offend anyone. That seems pretty clear. If you consciously intend to offend your grandmother by saying "shiat" to her, then it is, by definition, offensive language. Even if you normally say "shiat" all the time with your friends who aren't offended. Likewise if you consciously intend to upset someone by saying "whitey" then it is, by definition, offensive language.

And yes I agree, some people are far more easily offended than others.
 
2013-01-12 03:42:27 AM  

Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns


She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.
 
2013-01-12 03:43:42 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bonzo_1116: Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

It's not as simple as this word is okay and that word is offensive. It depends on the context. I think the salient question in any situation is not whether the listener was offended but whether the speaker intended offence.

Some of my black friends call each other n*gger all the time, in informal conversation. And some of my white friends embrace the label of redneck. But context and intent of the speaker are everything. For example, even if you refer to your friends as n*gger, but you get in a fender bender with a stranger and they step out of the car and angrily call you n*gger - one is offensive in intent, the other is not. This is obvious, and probably close to inarguable.

Simply put, if you use a word offensively, then it is offensive by definition. Even if you didn't manage to offend anyone. That seems pretty clear. If you consciously intend to offend your grandmother by saying "shiat" to her, then it is, by definition, offensive language. Even if you normally say "shiat" all the time with your friends who aren't offended. Likewise if you consciously intend to upset someone by saying "whitey" then it is, by definition, offensive language.

And yes I agree, some people are far more easily offended than others.


Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then? And what happens in the case of someone who is offended by people getting offended?
 
2013-01-12 03:44:27 AM  

untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?


Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?
 
2013-01-12 03:44:36 AM  

enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.


Not under the law as written, there isn't.
 
2013-01-12 03:44:43 AM  
So he gets threatened for pointing out that there are millions of Americans violating the 2nd Amendment by buying arms while not being part of a well-regulated militia? How nice.
 
2013-01-12 03:45:33 AM  

gingerjet: untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?

Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?


I understand that the DA chose not to move forward, but that is a completely different thing than the DA not having enough to proceed with the case, which is what the person I was responding to asserted.
 
2013-01-12 03:45:34 AM  

enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.


Can I get on the Metro today with one and show people what it looks like for three minutes?
I'm not gonna try. But can I?
 
2013-01-12 03:47:21 AM  
Those of you who are blowing off this Gregory deal, can you all please articulate how he is so special compared to this man?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/4/if-youre-not-david-gre g ory/
 
2013-01-12 03:47:33 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.


Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.
 
2013-01-12 03:49:16 AM  

untaken_name: Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then?


"Wrong" is more of a philosophical question. Is it wrong to offend a rapist by calling him "assh*le scum"? It is definitely intended to cause offense, but perhaps not "wrong". My answer was merely what was offensive. Going on the offensive isn't necessarily wrong if someone has already gone on the offensive against you or others first.
 
2013-01-12 03:49:23 AM  

ThisIsntMe: enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.

Can I get on the Metro today with one and show people what it looks like for three minutes?
I'm not gonna try. But can I?



News show with hundreds of thousands of viewers across the country =/= you scaring a few people on a subway
 
2013-01-12 03:51:01 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in d. eciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


This is a cogent argument. The Judiciary is tasked with that ability. The executive branch seldom sees shades of grey.
 
2013-01-12 03:51:35 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:07 AM  

cameroncrazy1984:
The simple fact that you're not in jail right now proves that the first amendment isn't "effectively dead"

Or that the powers that be have mastered the insidious art of ignoring shiat that doesn't matter.


Also, how DO other countries have freedom of speech without gun ownership? I mean, how does Spain and Germany, France, Britain and all those other countries that have a free and private press get by without a second amendment-type provision?


They don't really. At least not in the same sense that the US does.* But then, as i said, i don't buy into a causal link here anyway.

*also, the press in these on-paper less private and less free press institutions seem to do a lot better than the US's junk. I mean, the BBC has its problems but it ain't Fox.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:30 AM  

twistofsin: Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


Ha, that would be a great party, it would be a libertarian party without the Randians! That would get 1/3 of the vote if it was real (obviously making that number up, I have no idea).
 
2013-01-12 03:53:16 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: untaken_name: Is "offensive" equivalent to "wrong", then?

"Wrong" is more of a philosophical question. Is it wrong to offend a rapist by calling him "assh*le scum"? It is definitely intended to cause offense, but perhaps not "wrong". My answer was merely what was offensive. Going on the offensive isn't necessarily wrong if someone has already gone on the offensive against you or others first.


I've always heard that the best defense is a good offense. Also, shock and awe - defend yourself before you're attacked, it's the American way. I don't really have a point here. But I had too much coffee so I feel compelled to post.
 
2013-01-12 03:53:40 AM  

Mikey1969: gweilo8888: All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.

Except that he DIDNT say it was a replica, he didn't say it got thrown out, and they DID call the police beforehand, and we're told that it wasn't legal in any way. What part of that makes you think it was a prop magazine?


Nothing at all makes me think that, but before you can arrest and try somebody, you need to have sufficient real proof to do so.

Was it real? Almost certainly so. Does a phone call and a video clip constitute proof that it was real? Not even slightly.

"Well, we phoned you to ask if it was OK, you said no, so we got a replica. Of course we didn't say it was a replica on air because the viewers don't need to know that. And we didn't keep it afterwards, because the segment was done. We had no need for it. No, we don't have an invoice showing proof, because we made it ourselves. Yes, we do have an art department. Why do you ask?"

And then Bill in the art department gets a nice holiday bonus, for playing along and protecting the "talent".
 
2013-01-12 03:54:56 AM  
Poorly written Law or ordinance is poorly written. That's all I'm saying. sorry to spread the timeline.
 
2013-01-12 03:55:59 AM  

untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?


Because people can say anything they want on air; it doesn't have to be true, and it's not under oath.

I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.
 
2013-01-12 03:59:20 AM  

gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.


What about libel?
 
2013-01-12 04:00:49 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.

Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.


You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why? because they are simply reporting on what the magazine is to their viewers, they aren't carrying it around in their pickup on the streets of D.C. "Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm", not sure what this means? How is showing the magazine in public to your viewers the same as carrying it around in your vehicle with you on the street?
 
2013-01-12 04:01:37 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.

What about libel?


It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.
 
2013-01-12 04:01:54 AM  

ThisIsntMe: [legalinsurrection.com image 620x359]


No you wouldn't, those aren't illegal here.
 
2013-01-12 04:03:40 AM  
I just want to point out that those of on the gun nut side of the Gun Control Wars of 2013 clearly have some truly crazy assholes on our side. Alex Jones (long known crazy asshole) and James Yeager (recently off the seriously deep end crazy asshole). We are pretty embarrassed by their antics.

The anti-gun types though, are being led by people (and defending!) some of the most blatant hypocrisy that has ever existed in this nation, insofar as the very mouth pieces who lead your movement actually break the very firearm laws they seem to champion. Gregory here committed an offense that plenty of good citizens have been severely prosecuted for, often times having violated the law by complete accident and with zero intent. Gregory (and his staff) full up knew the law, and were even told by the police that their planned activities were illegal. They committed the crime anyhow.

DiFi is happy to dance on the graves of the dead to push her agenda to strip Americans of their firearm rights. She's said it herself; her overarching goal is to remove all firearms from private ownership. At the same time, she has had one of the rare as hen's teeth San Francisco CCW permits. Now, there is evidence that she has a de facto national CCW permit through this Honorary US Marshall fiasco. All this, while she is afforded the privilege of taxpayer funded security that would make a 3rd world junta dictator jealous (provided by the US Capital Police).

So please continue the one liners about our crazy uncles in the closet. We are far more embarrassed for having them on our side than you can possibly imagine. At least though, we aren't turning a blind eye to outright elitist, and likely quite illegal, hypocrisy.
 
2013-01-12 04:05:03 AM  

Alphakronik: ThisIsntMe: [legalinsurrection.com image 620x359]

No you wouldn't, those aren't illegal here.


Nor where I am,    Yet.
 
2013-01-12 04:05:39 AM  

dr-shotgun: Those of you who are blowing off this Gregory deal, can you all please articulate how he is so special compared to this man?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/4/if-youre-not-david-gre g ory/


Context.  One guy was on a tv show.  The other guy driving near the White House.  The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.
 
2013-01-12 04:06:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.


I thought that if you went on air or whatever media and made up something about a non public figure that would discredit them, it would be considered libel. I obviously am not a lawyer, so correct me where I'm wrong.
 
2013-01-12 04:07:03 AM  

enochianwolf: Jesus christ, are you gun fellators never ashamed? The law is meant to keep these kinds of magazines away from criminals, a news personality is demonstrating them on his show to the nation and you are hoping some DC prosecutor is retarded enough to think David Gregory might use it in a shooting? Is the world that black-and-white to you that you can't see how a regular person owning this magazine is different from a news personality showcasing it to the public? are you really that retarded?


Well, first, the law prohibits ANYONE from even holding one of these. Not just criminals.

Second, consistency would be nice. Other people have called ahead, been told by the police exactly what conditions they would have to follow if they even needed to transport a high capacity magazine, have complied with this, have been arrested while in total compliance, and have not only been charged, but have been taken all of the way to court before a judge threw the case out.

Third, we are continually told how laws like this will help keeps magazines like this off of the streets, yet when someone flaunts that very law on international TV, nothing is done. Yeah, 'more laws' are obviously the answer, aren't they?

Fourth, many people dislike the hypocrisy of the "You have to comply with the law, but I don't." crowd. For obvious reasons.

Fifth, there should be no difference between a "regular person" owning something and a "news personality showcasing it to the public". "News personalities" don't get a special set of rules to follow that lets them off the hook for breaking the law, and the whole "first amendment" argument is a bullshiat claim in this situation as well.
 
2013-01-12 04:09:29 AM  
Progressive hypocrisy is shining bright in this thread. You Dems really need to purge those things from your ranks.
 
2013-01-12 04:10:31 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: It would be a parody, a parody of confessing, like someone who actually did give your Mom Herpes.

I thought that if you went on air or whatever media and made up something about a non public figure that would discredit them, it would be considered libel. I obviously am not a lawyer, so correct me where I'm wrong.


Nah, or Conan couldn't make fun of that moron with the fake hair.Or Leno or Craig Son-Of_Ferg couldn't make fun of whoever he wants. The Costitution allows you to pretend to be (Tina Fey I'm lookin' at ya') anybody.And you can claim parody pretty liberally.
 
2013-01-12 04:11:30 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.

What about libel?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s

Relevant. ;-)
 
2013-01-12 04:11:48 AM  
You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why? because they are simply reporting on what the magazine is to their viewers, they aren't carrying it around in their pickup on the streets of D.C. "Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm", not sure what this means? How is showing the magazine in public to your viewers the same as carrying it around in your vehicle with you on the street?

If Meet the Press wanted to "show the viewers" what a NATO standard, 30 round, 5.56mm aluminum magazine with a green follower and a phosphate finish was, they very well could have sent a small field crew 20 minutes outside of DC to Virginia. Hell, they even could have gone to the range and shot some scary video of the mass murder magazine being loaded with baby killer bullets. A really nice slow shot of it being erotically inserted into the luscious magazine well of a beastly black Colt 6920. Than they could have shown some gun nut getting his rocks off as the carbine unleashed just buckets of white hot 62 grain instant death down the line of a dingy indoor range, where they would savagely attack an FBI standard Q target, ripping it to shreds with their murderous power designed expressly to exsanguanate as many hapless, cowering, unarmed civilians in the room as is humanly possible.

Of course, the rifle could have easily turned on the crew. Or the range officer operating it could have been so overwhelmed with the erotic thumping of the Colt's new Rodgers collapsable stock (now standard equipment) that the blood lust would have taken over at that very moment and he could have accidentally executed the film crew.

But it woulda made a better visual AND not have broken any laws.
 
2013-01-12 04:12:07 AM  

gweilo8888: Mikey1969: gweilo8888: All he had to do was say it was a replica, and had been tossed away after the segment was over. I despise guns, and I despise rich people getting unfair, priveliged legal treatment, but I don't really see where they had sufficient proof here to do of anything.

Except that he DIDNT say it was a replica, he didn't say it got thrown out, and they DID call the police beforehand, and we're told that it wasn't legal in any way. What part of that makes you think it was a prop magazine?

Nothing at all makes me think that, but before you can arrest and try somebody, you need to have sufficient real proof to do so.

Was it real? Almost certainly so. Does a phone call and a video clip constitute proof that it was real? Not even slightly.

"Well, we phoned you to ask if it was OK, you said no, so we got a replica. Of course we didn't say it was a replica on air because the viewers don't need to know that. And we didn't keep it afterwards, because the segment was done. We had no need for it. No, we don't have an invoice showing proof, because we made it ourselves. Yes, we do have an art department. Why do you ask?"

And then Bill in the art department gets a nice holiday bonus, for playing along and protecting the "talent".


The "art department" consists of some guys with Photoshop skills and segment editors, they don't have a prop house on site, sorry. It's a cable news show, not a special effects studio in Hollywood.
 
2013-01-12 04:13:16 AM  
If David Gregory had been caught with this magazine in his vehicle, driving around DC, I wouldn't be defending him. The fact that all he did was show it to people on his show is the difference, the principle of having a free press that is able to report on things without consequence. Calling for Gregory to be prosecuted for airing a segment about a gun magazine doesn't seem very American, especially since if he was showing the magazine in favor of loosening gun laws, you wouldn't hear half of the criticism from the pro-gun side, they only want him to be arrested because he's for tightening the gun laws. As for hypocrisy, again, if he had it on his person driving around the street, i'd be ok with him getting arrested, the fact that he possessed it on his show, in my mind, should automatically give him a free pass as that is called journalism.
 
2013-01-12 04:13:25 AM  
Context. One guy was on a tv show. The other guy driving near the White House. The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm glad to know that this is how we run parts of our country now.
 
2013-01-12 04:14:17 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Nah, or Conan couldn't make fun of that moron with the fake hair.Or Leno or Craig Son-Of_Ferg couldn't make fun of whoever he wants. The Costitution allows you to pretend to be (Tina Fey I'm lookin' at ya') anybody.And you can claim parody pretty liberally.


I know but wouldn't all those people be public figures? I'm thinking of it like what if you went on the radio and made up a bunch of stuff about some random schmuck you knew and made him look really bad? I believe the OP was related to that kind of situation.
 
2013-01-12 04:14:33 AM  
Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth, 
Fifth,


Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.
 
2013-01-12 04:15:26 AM  
/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.

Hey, what about the 3rd?

You never hear ANYONE really giving a vigorous defense of the third...
 
2013-01-12 04:15:38 AM  

gweilo8888: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s


Well so far this is already teaching me a good deal, thanks.
 
2013-01-12 04:16:05 AM  

dr-shotgun: Context. One guy was on a tv show. The other guy driving near the White House. The law is idiotic and Brinkley unfairly prosecuted but the streets around the capital is essentially run like a police state.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm glad to know that this is how we run parts of our country now.


Technically it's a protectorate.
 
2013-01-12 04:16:44 AM  

The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.


I wish we cared about them all. Our 4th is the one really on the ropes.
 
2013-01-12 04:18:10 AM  

Mikey1969: The "art department" consists of some guys with Photoshop skills and segment editors, they don't have a prop house on site, sorry. It's a cable news show, not a special effects studio in Hollywood.


You're telling me that NBC News, a division of NBC, itself owned by NBCUniversal and one of the six largest media conglomerates in the country, doesn't have access to an art department somewhere in one of its divisions that could "supply" a prop? (Remember, they don't even need to supply it; they just need to have somebody ready to say they did if the question's asked.)
 
2013-01-12 04:18:15 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


Yeah, would those be the same people who have charged people who LEGALLY transport their items, after calling the DC police and finding out exactly what they have to do to be in compliance?

Yeah, that's someone "using their brains" all right...

Even US Marshall applicants get busted by these non-robots
 
2013-01-12 04:18:40 AM  
Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.
 
2013-01-12 04:19:32 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s

Well so far this is already teaching me a good deal, thanks.


Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)
 
2013-01-12 04:23:17 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.

Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.


I'm interested in what they did with this "highly dangerous" magazine when they were done with it. Who brought it in, and was that person a local from inside the city? Is it back on the streets? I mean.if this thing was so dangerous, did they do the only moral thing and destroy it immediately after the segment was done taping?

Of course not, they gave it back to the owner, which means someone illegally transported it across town again, and got off scott free again...
 
2013-01-12 04:23:32 AM  

gweilo8888: Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)


LOL this is pretty damn funny. Not totally sure what the premise of the show quite yet, but I'm digging it. I might not watch/listen to much British humour, I enjoy it most of the times I do.
 
2013-01-12 04:24:20 AM  
Or could it be that reporters often, or just about always, get a a pass when using something that may be illegal as a apart of their story. It's not like this is something new, Geraldo made a career out of it.
 
2013-01-12 04:24:34 AM  
Since it isn't a state it provides it's own laws, signed off by? The US Congress. So I'm guessing somebody gave him a pass.
 
2013-01-12 04:25:56 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS


And the second it gives teeth to all the others
 
2013-01-12 04:26:12 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.


They are American citizens, correct?
 
2013-01-12 04:27:04 AM  

ongbok: Or could it be that reporters often, or just about always, get a a pass when using something that may be illegal as a apart of their story. It's not like this is something new, Geraldo made a career out of it.


Geraldo made a career out of doing things in jurisdictions where he broke the law?

/Citation needed
 
2013-01-12 04:27:20 AM  

The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.


There's nothing "first amendment" about violating the law. He had plenty of options to show his "dangerous" magazine that didn't involve violating the law. Interpreting this as a first amendment issue just shows how little understanding people have of what free speech is. Using your logic, he could have walked into a mall with a 30 round magazine filed with blanks and an AR-15, loaded that puppy up, and opened fire on the mall. Nobody would be actually injured, and he would just be "demonstrating" using his first amendment rights.

IN other words, the first amendment is not as broad as people seem to think it is.
 
2013-01-12 04:28:25 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.

They are American citizens, correct?


yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.
 
2013-01-12 04:30:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.


DC is ultimately administered by Congress, and thus is more strongly bound to the Constitution than the states.  Its only a non-direct interpretation of the 14th amendment that binds States to the majority of the rights granted by the Constitution.

/Not arguing the legitimacy of the equal protection clause, just trying to frame some history for the poor fellow.
 
2013-01-12 04:31:02 AM  

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


Gat has a special ability to take the most obvious of facts and turn them into something entirely different.  This special ability is more common known as "farking retarded".
 
2013-01-12 04:31:59 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?



Also known as, "Having the right connections".
 
2013-01-12 04:32:44 AM  

untaken_name: I've always heard that the best defense is a good offense


The Dalai Lama, considered by many to be the living epitome of peace, said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
 
2013-01-12 04:32:45 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.

DC is ultimately administered by Congress, and thus is more strongly bound to the Constitution than the states.  Its only a non-direct interpretation of the 14th amendment that binds States to the majority of the rights granted by the Constitution.

/Not arguing the legitimacy of the equal protection clause, just trying to frame some history for the poor fellow.


And here I agree, as I said. All laws and ordinances are approved by the congress before falling to lower levels of the executive branch. So Congress approved the law or ordinance in question. That's all I was saying.
 
2013-01-12 04:36:39 AM  

ThisIsntMe: yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.


In a sense, yeah. I wonder what happens when someone moves to DC. Do they get demoted or something when it comes to rights?
 
2013-01-12 04:37:08 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)

LOL this is pretty damn funny. Not totally sure what the premise of the show quite yet, but I'm digging it. I might not watch/listen to much British humour, I enjoy it most of the times I do.


It's worth watching from the start, I just linked to the relevant bit. And it's a superb show, but if you're outside the UK and don't have relatives there to share it with you, not easy to find through legal means.

QI = "Quite Interesting". Premise is basically just that, they talk about quite interesting things vaguely related to a specific topic area, debunk urban legends in the process, and Alan Davies plays the foil to all the jokes each week while the other three are random (but often, repeat) guests.
 
2013-01-12 04:37:13 AM  
Do I have to be rich and affluent to be called "The Elmo Jones?"
I'm not white. Does that matter?
 
2013-01-12 04:38:19 AM  

Mikey1969: The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.

There's nothing "first amendment" about violating the law. He had plenty of options to show his "dangerous" magazine that didn't involve violating the law. Interpreting this as a first amendment issue just shows how little understanding people have of what free speech is. Using your logic, he could have walked into a mall with a 30 round magazine filed with blanks and an AR-15, loaded that puppy up, and opened fire on the mall. Nobody would be actually injured, and he would just be "demonstrating" using his first amendment rights.

IN other words, the first amendment is not as broad as people seem to think it is.


He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District.  By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.
 
2013-01-12 04:38:57 AM  
That being said , The District of Columbia is a Federal City and actually does not fall within the scope of the constitutional  ammendments. James Madison  made sure of that in Federalist No. 34 in 1788.
 
2013-01-12 04:39:59 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.

In a sense, yeah. I wonder what happens when someone moves to DC. Do they get demoted or something when it comes to rights?


No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.
 
2013-01-12 04:41:09 AM  
Emanuel
 
2013-01-12 04:42:32 AM  

ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.


Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.
 
2013-01-12 04:42:58 AM  

ThisIsntMe: That being said , The District of Columbia is a Federal City and actually does not fall within the scope of the constitutional  ammendments. James Madison  made sure of that in Federalist No. 34 in 1788.


1. The Federalist Papers are not the law.

2. DC is administered by Congress**, most amendments directly restrict what Congress can and can't do, and thus apply more directly to DC than they do to the states.

**their self-elected government is empowered by an act of Congress
 
2013-01-12 04:43:43 AM  
Regardless. There was an ill-written  ordinance passed. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this. But, an ill-informed advisor told a talking head  to do the wrong thing.

That's all.
 
2013-01-12 04:45:18 AM  

The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District. By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.


You're missing the entire point.  They are selectively enforcing this law.  I think it's a bullshiat limitation, but another guy was given hell even though he tried to do everything right (he had everything in properly locked cases, etc).  Gregory is getting a pass because his politics happen to correspond with the city's political stance.  If he'd been showing the magazine on the show to be defiant instead of to denounce it, you bet they'd be going after him.
 
2013-01-12 04:49:08 AM  

OgreMagi: The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District. By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.

You're missing the entire point.  They are selectively enforcing this law.  I think it's a bullshiat limitation, but another guy was given hell even though he tried to do everything right (he had everything in properly locked cases, etc).  Gregory is getting a pass because his politics happen to correspond with the city's political stance.  If he'd been showing the magazine on the show to be defiant instead of to denounce it, you bet they'd be going after him.


Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.
 
2013-01-12 04:49:20 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.

Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.


I have not clue what he's saying, but DC does, in fact have citizens.  And also, is in fact, under the purview of the Constitution.  Anyone who switches their residency to DC become a citizen of the District and can vote for President, a vote-less congress(wo)man, and the local government (mayor/council, etc...)  They do not retain their previous state's citizenship, and can no longer vote in their previous state's election.
 
2013-01-12 04:53:23 AM  
ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.
 
2013-01-12 04:53:24 AM  

The Loaf: TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.

Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.

I have not clue what he's saying, but DC does, in fact have citizens.  And also, is in fact, under the purview of the Constitution.  Anyone who switches their residency to DC become a citizen of the District and can vote for President, a vote-less congress(wo)man, and the local government (mayor/council, etc...)  They do not retain their previous state's citizenship, and can no longer vote in their previous state's election.


Funny, that's not how Rahm Emanuel saw it before running for mayor of Chicago.
 
2013-01-12 04:54:11 AM  
Y'all may know something about guns or even the Constitution but you don't know jack about television or the courts.

I expect to see a truckload of hilarious youtube videos by Monday.
 
2013-01-12 04:55:30 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.


Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.
 
2013-01-12 04:55:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Funny, that's not how Rahm Emanuel saw it before running for mayor of Chicago.


Rahm didn't establish residency in the District, and was arguing that since he was in the District on official business he didn't need to.
 
2013-01-12 04:57:59 AM  
Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?
 
2013-01-12 04:58:00 AM  

gingerjet: untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?

Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?


"Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.
 
2013-01-12 05:00:05 AM  
DC isn't a State , it is a Federal City. They have laws. The DC DA said pass on prosecuting the law. Big deal. Happens all the time.
No big deal.
 
2013-01-12 05:00:15 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.


Luckily for him, the Constitution applies to the District, despite what Publius may or may not have said.
 
2013-01-12 05:02:06 AM  

HeWhoHasNoName: "Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.


Really? Are you saying that DA's and judges should not be allowed to throw out cases that they consider not worth it? In the interest of justice.
 
2013-01-12 05:04:18 AM  

enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


1.) Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

2.) She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.


1.) Someone brought a 30 round magazine into a city where it is illegal to have one. Not a prop. A city which persecutes/prosecutes citizens for the smallest of infractions. There is a difference between the two, in that one is pro-Obama media and the other, a simple soldier who made a mistake. A mistake that shouldn't have even been illegal to begin with.

2.) So she deserves protection, while the rest of America can just pound dirt. Because she's royalty to you. And yes, she would like to ban ALL firearms possession, she has made that clear in speeches in the past and it is recorded. Aiming @ "high powered rifle/Assault Weapon" is low hanging fruit. Its a slippery slope that'll eventually lead to EVERYTHING being outlawed.
 
2013-01-12 05:05:32 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.

Luckily for him, the Constitution applies to the District, despite what Publius may or may not have said.


Here nor there.

Very nice debate.

You are a ...challenge.
 
2013-01-12 05:07:37 AM  
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the usual cadre of politicians, pundits and commentators are hitting the airwaves and condemning believers of the "guns don't kill" rationale. This exercise in demonization is being followed with pleas to strip Americans of their guns and place a ban on vaguely-defined "assault" weapons.

What's been lacking in the flurry of proposals that inevitably followed a catastrophe like Sandy Hook has been a deeper look at the kind of environment impressionable minds are coming of age in. Far too often, politically-minded observers fall back on reactionary emotion for the solution to problems without actually engaging in critical thinking as to the root of what they are trying to solve.

As Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer put it, we tend to focus too much "attention on the consequences of our behavior" instead of the "casual factors, as the thinking that produces dysfunctional results."

We then end up looking to government to solve problems which it has a hand in creating. Many pro-gun control advocates are quick to mention that there is little gun violence in countries with "reasonable" gun laws in place. Yet as economist Thomas Sowell points out, countries with stricter gun control laws such as Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have higher murder rates than the U.S. When you compare Switzerland to Germany, where the former has higher rates of gun ownership than the latter, Switzerland has a lower murder rate.

The difficulty with using the empirical method to explain human phenomena is that it ignores the complexity of mankind. Data can be cherry-picked to prove any conclusion. Logic and reason are the best tools to make sense of a tragedy such as a school shooting. And the fact remains that government bans never prevent said goods from reaching the public. More often than not, good people abide by the prohibition while the more criminally inclined ignore the law.

The truth is we will never really know what compelled a young man to take the life of his mother, her coworkers and the children of Sandy Hook Elementary. There are discernable factors that may have played a significant role, however.

Our country's empathetic response to the ongoing wars that result in the deaths of innocent women and children has certainly resulted in the dehumanizing of fatal violence. The press's ignoring, and outright covering up, of the human victims (often called "collateral damage") of the War on Terror has had an immeasurable impact on how today's society views the loss of life.

When the Washington Post ran a photo of 2-year-old Ali Hussein being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad after an American air strike in 2008, some wrote to the paper and complained that the picture would undermine the war effort. The fact that the child was stripped of a life that was fully ahead of him was lost on most Americans.


There also is the increased use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals that have been shown to induce suicidal and violent tendencies. These drugs were used by the shooter in Connecticut, the shooter in Aurora, Col., and one of the Columbine High School assailants.

The politically-connected pharmaceutical industry, in cahoots with the equally connected medical industry, cashes in by peddling these government-approved narcotics. While correlation doesn't automatically mean causation, none of these points have been highlighted by a media establishment that would rather make quick judgments instead of taking the time to examine what has become the new "normal" American life.

Those who decry "the guns don't kill people" line aren't acknowledging reality. Guns are inanimate objects. They lack free will and consciousness. To say that a gun kills a person is to say that couches, shoes and washing machines can kill people.

In short, guns don't act - people do. The same goes for television shows, movies and video games with violent content. They are objects that are valued by the minds of the public. Why so many in our society are drawn to violence is worth asking because the Sandy Hook shooting was but another extension of this fascination.

My father often shares with me an anecdote about a classmate who brought a rifle to his high school speech class to demonstrate how to properly clean a firearm. This was in the blue-collar city of Emmaus, and nobody felt unsafe in the presence of a student brandishing a functioning weapon. The question is; what has changed in the decades since the late 1960s? It certainly can't be access to guns since they were just as widely available back then, if not more.

Eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote that "the nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity" and that the simplicity often displayed in hasty political action is "grossly ignorant." It's disappointing, but not unexpected, to witness another intellectual mob calling for prohibition of the one tool that holds tyranny at bay.

Common sense says that disarming law-abiding citizens will make them more susceptible to harm. But in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Sandy Hook, rational thought is tossed aside in favor of short run solutions.

What must be considered is why some individuals are so drawn to violence, what effect has the increased prescription rate of antidepressants had, and why casualties in war have become so dehumanized. There is an uncomfortable but common denominator in all these factors.

I would hope anti-gun zealots notice it before they ramp up their War on Firearms.

http://mises.ca/posts/blog/guns-like-washing-machines-dont-act-people - do/
 
2013-01-12 05:10:22 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?


Well, it depends....   If I move on my own free will, they want me to change it pretty quickly.  However, if I were there in the service of the Federal government, say maybe in the military, then they give me leeway and I can stay were a citizen of where I was for as long as I want, despite where I am.

This is how all your senators and congresspersons can live in DC, Maryland and/or Virginia for nine months a year and still be eligible for reelection.   This also extends members of the executive branch as well, though, with exception to President and VP, they are not up for reelection.
 
2013-01-12 05:14:04 AM  

Dadoody: In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

TL:DNR

And your point as it relates to a grown man waving what may or may not have been a multiple round magazine on cable television is?

 
2013-01-12 05:17:15 AM  
Ok, its 5:15 in the morning, and I've sobered up enough to go to sleep. Good night.
 
2013-01-12 05:20:24 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?

Well, it depends....   If I move on my own free will, they want me to change it pretty quickly.  However, if I were there in the service of the Federal government, say maybe in the military, then they give me leeway and I can stay were a citizen of where I was for as long as I want, despite where I am.

This is how all your senators and congresspersons can live in DC, Maryland and/or Virginia for nine months a year and still be eligible for reelection.   This also extends members of the executive branch as well, though, with exception to President and VP, they are not up for reelection.


Sorry, Grew up outside of Ft. Rucker in Alabama and my boy flies out of Eglin AFB above Ft. Walton FL. AL and FL require you to show residence and get tags in 30 days. And I should check, but I think Congresspersons and Senators are actually supposed to reside within their constituency. Or at least pretend to.
 
2013-01-12 05:21:02 AM  
G'Night Loaf
 
2013-01-12 05:32:17 AM  

The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District.


He had plenty of option. Network news shows have the capability to broadcast from pretty much anywhere in the world. They even have batteries for their cameras.

The Loaf: By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.


Who's Heller? That's not anybody involved in this story, the one about the person who illegally possessed a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo in DC. The "logic" here is that despite what you seem to think, just because he is a journalist, he doesn't get to break the law and cry "first amendment". The rest of us don't get to, and journalists don't have a special set of laws that they get to abide by.
 
2013-01-12 05:32:28 AM  
They should put him in jail with Tucker Max.
 
2013-01-12 05:33:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe:
And your point as it relates to a grown man waving what may or may not have been a multiple round magazine on cable television is?


David Gregory, host of NBC's Meet the Press committed a felony right on live national television. He held up a gun's ammunition magazine to confront and demand that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre agree that banning the item would somehow reduce or eliminate violence in America. The problem is that in Washington, D.C. that magazine is illegal to possess.

The District has banned all magazines that hold more than ten cartridges. (A cartridge is what many would refer to as a bullet - bullets are however just part of a cartridge which also includes the casing and gunpowder.)

Ordinary people get prosecuted for violating the peculiar D.C. laws surrounding gun parts and ammunition all the time. Don't take my word for it, take Ted Gest's. Mr. Gest is the spokesman for the D.C. Attorney General and he described such prosecutions as "common"

Emily Miller of the Washington Times has made a project of documenting many of these cases. One story tells of Army Specialist Adam Meckler who was living at the Army's Fort Belvoir in Virginia. On an errand to the Veteran's Affairs office in D.C., he carried his backpack with him that day. What he didn't realize was that the pack had a few cartridges in it. No gun, no knife, no magazine, but simply a few cartridges. While passing through building security the ammo was found and Meckler was arrested and prosecuted.

Gregory's case is worse, however. Specialist Adam Meckler did not know he had the ammo on him at the time, and did not know it was illegal even if he did. David Gregory knew what he was doing was illegal.

"District of Columbia police say they warned NBC that having a high-capacity gun magazine in the city was against the law before reporter David Gregory brandished what he said was a 30-round magazine on "Meet the Press."

D.C. police spokeswoman Gwen Crump said police discussed the use of the clip with NBC before the program was taped.

"NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high-capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high-capacity magazine is not permissible, and their request was denied," according to a statement released by Crump. "The matter is currently being investigated."

After brazenly committing the gun felony in direct violation of the law, much ink has been spilled arguing for Gregory's prosecution or letting him go. Shouldn't we oppose all ridiculous laws and their prosecution? Is it consistent with sound judgement to argue a law is unconstitutional, counterproductive and ridiculous - and that it should not be enforced, only to advocate its enforcement against a hypocrite who argues for laws he breaks with impunity?

It tempting to give David Gregory exactly what he wants - vigorous prosecution of gun laws that have nothing to do with violence or safety in any way. Mr. Gregory wants to make victims or felons out of those who choose to protect themselves with modern firearms. Isn't it only fair that we accommodate his request? After all, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

If not - how about we accord the rest of the citizenry the same discretion and not try to ruin the lives of those who mean and do no harm to anyone with rational laws and discriminating prosecutions.
 
2013-01-12 05:38:54 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.


Sorry, didn't realize that you were arguing the pro-Second Amendment side of this. Not that your version of this argument works better than anyone else's. He wasn't displaying the magazine in his own house, he was at the news desk of an international news network. One that could have easily had him do his segment from any number of locations where he wouldn't be violating the law, and they would have footed the bill. He wasn't arguing that by virtue of the second amendment, he should get to own the magazine, so your angle on this doesn't really hold water, but congrats on the Second Amendment support.
 
2013-01-12 05:40:01 AM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS

And the second it gives teeth to all the others


Technically the 2nd amendment only assures an atmosphere free from oppression and threats to the peace.
Its that relative peace which then allows for debates, elections, and wheels of due process to work uninterrupted.

What we have here is a case of laws for some people but not for others.
This guy came with a banned part (a ban put in place by the elected leadership of the people) and flaunted his possession of it on television to make a point about how people shouldn't have these parts.
...Other people than himself, of course.

He could argue that the law is unconstitutional or poorly worded, but his defense is that he's special so its not a big deal.
The arbitrary application of law is, in fact, quite a big deal among us not-so-special people.
 
2013-01-12 05:42:10 AM  

TheJoe03: HeWhoHasNoName: "Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.

Really? Are you saying that DA's and judges should not be allowed to throw out cases that they consider not worth it? In the interest of justice.


Sure, but they should apply that "discretion" evenly, rather than arrest and charge people who are in 100% compliance with the law, which this guy wasn't. See? People are pissed because law abiding citizens are getting arrested and charged when they are complying, but actual law breaking asshats like this are getting off with nothing. Same prosecutors, too.
 
2013-01-12 05:47:33 AM  

Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?


I think it's OK.
 
2013-01-12 05:49:18 AM  

Mikey1969: People are pissed because law abiding citizens are getting arrested and charged when they are complying, but actual law breaking asshats like this are getting off with nothing. Same prosecutors, too.


Oh, well I totally agree but that does not mean I think David Gregory should have been popped for this. Learning a good deal about how the city of DC really operates.
 
2013-01-12 05:51:42 AM  

enochianwolf: Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.


Yeah, the difference is when the lawbreaker gets off, and the one who complies gets busted. That's the difference. It doesn't matter which one owned a gun and which one "held it up for 3 minutes in a news segment", it matters that the one who broke the law got nothing and the one who was following the law got charged, wnet to court and had to plea it down. That'definitely the American Way™.

Not the only time a law abiding citizen has gotten screwed by these same "brilliant" prosecutors, either.
 
2013-01-12 06:12:54 AM  

TheJoe03: Learning a good deal about how the city of DC really operates.


Those people get so royally screwed... Asshats like Utah Senators get to decide on their laws. They don't get to vote for the people who write their laws, that is such crap.

I'm assuming that it was originally set up that way to make it more or less politically neutral territory, but they shouldn't have let people live there, just make it a government city where federal business goes on, but nothing residential, have the people live in real states where they get real representation. Probably could have worked if they had started with the plan from the very beginning.
 
2013-01-12 06:26:00 AM  
Anybody else appreciate the irony of a guy with a synonym for gun as part of his handle being very anti-gun?

/maybe the 00 stands for "double zero tolerance"
 
2013-01-12 06:46:52 AM  

Mikey1969: enochianwolf: Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Yeah, the difference is when the lawbreaker gets off, and the one who complies gets busted. That's the difference. It doesn't matter which one owned a gun and which one "held it up for 3 minutes in a news segment", it matters that the one who broke the law got nothing and the one who was following the law got charged, wnet to court and had to plea it down. That'definitely the American Way™.

Not the only time a law abiding citizen has gotten screwed by these same "brilliant" prosecutors, either.


the inability to see the difference between what Gregory did and what any citizen travelling in DC getting arrested for having these is why I hope those of you wishing for Gregory's prosecution are not employed in the legal system at any level.. you guys are a clown show.

Showing a high capacity magazine to your national audience on a cable show ===/=== driving around with said magazine in your trunk
 
2013-01-12 06:47:12 AM  
I'd like one of these, please:
i1220.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-12 07:02:43 AM  

Mikey1969: D.C. police say NBC asked for permission to use the clip during a segment and was advised that it would be illegal, though NBC has said it received conflicting guidance from other law enforcement sources.

No excuse. Since it's a CITY law, then when the CITY police say it's illegal, other law enforcement agencies' opinions are just farts in the wind.


Well, that would be true for STATE laws if DC was a state, and CITY laws if DC was a city within a state (assuming the state allowed the city legislative and policing powers to create and enforce that law).

But, it's not. DC is a federal city, under the exclusive control of the U.S. Congress (Article 1, Section 8). Since 1973, Congress has somewhat sought to allow semi-self governance to take place, by abrogating some of their exclusive powers to local elected officials. Congress still reviews the laws passed by the council before they become law. Once they are approved by Congress, they become part of the DC Code. The DC Code is unique in that the laws are technically approved by Congress and policing and prosecuting power rests with the federal government.

The Superior Court of DC is the local trial court, but it is technically a federal court, and the President nominates the judges (with Senate confirmation). Also, only misdemeanor crimes are prosecuted by DCs AG, while felonies are prosecuted by the US Attorney's office. Moreover, while state and federal prosecutions must be dealt with in separate trials, federal charges and DC Code charges can be tried together.

On the law enforcement side, federal agencies have co-equal policing power with the DC Metropolitan Police force, though misdemeanor infractions of the DC Code would typically be investigated by the Metro Police.

Still, if the ATF gave permission for the airing, it is no more or less relevant than if the DC Metro police had done so. The issue here, and one that is common in DC, is with so many overlapping agencies, the possibility exists that permission from one doesn't provide immunity from another. That said, the DC AG (who would be responsible for prosecuting a misdemeanor such as this) would almost certainly not go against the US Justice Department, given their unique co-prosecutorial relationship.

// tl;dr - DC is a mess in how it is set up. Trying to take this to trial would be a massive headache.


Dadoody:
David Gregory, host of NBC's Meet the Press committed a felony right on live national television


Since your post repeatedly called a misdemeanor violation of DC Code a felony, its hard to take its point too seriously.

Again, it comes down to DC being a "federal city" and not self-governing, nor having the primary policing powers that states do. When you are in a city with a literal alphabet soup of co-equal law enforcement agencies, it's best not to try to prosecute a crime reportedly okay'd by a Justice Department branch (the ATF).
 
2013-01-12 07:04:19 AM  

enochianwolf: Showing a high capacity magazine to your national audience on a cable show ===/=== driving around with said magazine in your trunk


One of these incidents demonstrated to millions of people how ineffective the law can be.
The other was almost entirely unknown to the general public until very recently.

The question is which of these crimes was worth prosecuting more.
The one that everyone saw, or the one we didn't know about.
 
2013-01-12 07:10:28 AM  
DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with breaking the law. Finally, a rich affluent white person can get justice in America

Dudes, you forgot to mention that the Dude is handsome. Yes, that is a good combo: Handsome & Liberal.

Holla at mah boy, Clooney!
 
2013-01-12 07:13:03 AM  

GAT_00: Glad that you're admitting you want to use a law that you claim has no basis in legality because it's a handy way to throw a political enemy in prison. Come on, just admit it. That's what you're trying to do.


It's either a good law and should be applied uniformly, or it's a bad law and should be repealed. Which is it?
 
2013-01-12 07:14:08 AM  

Dialectic: Dudes, you forgot to mention that the Dude is handsome. Yes, that is a good combo: Handsome & Liberal.


Don't forget "white".
 
2013-01-12 07:14:56 AM  

GoldSpider: Dialectic: Dudes, you forgot to mention that the Dude is handsome. Yes, that is a good combo: Handsome & Liberal.

Don't forget "white".


Aww farkit, I haven't had my coffee yet.
 
2013-01-12 07:27:42 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Why the definite article, Subs?


Must have been thinking this: Link
 
2013-01-12 07:28:53 AM  

enochianwolf: Mikey1969: enochianwolf: Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Yeah, the difference is when the lawbreaker gets off, and the one who complies gets busted. That's the difference. It doesn't matter which one owned a gun and which one "held it up for 3 minutes in a news segment", it matters that the one who broke the law got nothing and the one who was following the law got charged, wnet to court and had to plea it down. That'definitely the American Way™.

Not the only time a law abiding citizen has gotten screwed by these same "brilliant" prosecutors, either.

the inability to see the difference between what Gregory did and what any citizen travelling in DC getting arrested for having these is why I hope those of you wishing for Gregory's prosecution are not employed in the legal system at any level.. you guys are a clown show.

Showing a high capacity magazine to your national audience on a cable show ===/=== driving around with said magazine in your trunk


It's not the same. Under the law it is exactly the same though. There is no provision allowing the legal possession of the magazine only for a short amount of time or for a specific purpose. If an ordinary citizen went down to the National Mall right now with a 30 round magazine, held it up for 30 seconds with the intention of showing people how deadly it is, then smashed it with a sledge hammer thus destroying it, they would still be charged. It doesn't matter if they are in possession of or even own a firearm that it will fit into. Possession of the magazine is a crime.
 
2013-01-12 07:41:32 AM  
And it took one of their own, a shrieking crackpot liberal, to show them all how useless gun control actually is.
 
2013-01-12 07:44:10 AM  

gweilo8888: I could go on air right now and confess to giving your mom herpes, and killing at birth the twin brother you never knew you had. That wouldn't make any of it true, let alone cause to arrest me.


It would certainly be enough for me to easily win a civil case against you based on it, though. If you don't think the mere utterance of a phrase is enough to bring down legal consequences, why not call the Secret Service up and threaten the President's life? Then when they show up, explain that you were just joking and you shouldn't face any consequences because it wasn't true.
 
2013-01-12 07:46:30 AM  

enochianwolf: You know, if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news personality did the same thing, I wouldn't want to see them be prosecuted for it either. You know why?


I would. You know why? Because laws don't get re-written until challenged, and if no one with pull ever is charged with violating them, they never get challenged. Then people who can't afford to challenge them are convicted because of the poor wording, and people like you don't care. This is why you are a terrible human being.
 
2013-01-12 07:49:20 AM  

Dimensio: What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.


no you stupid coont, the point is that weapons laws are meant to prosecute people with weapons, not to be a convenient tool to suppress journalism and political discourse.
 
2013-01-12 07:58:31 AM  

Lehk: Dimensio: What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.

no you stupid coont, the point is that weapons laws are meant to prosecute people with weapons, not to be a convenient tool to suppress journalism and political discourse.


So why is the law worded such that simple possession of a magazine without an accompanying weapon is a crime? It appears that the intent of the lawmakers was to completely outlaw possession of such magazines, not to limit it. Where is the exception to the law you are invoking written?
 
2013-01-12 08:02:39 AM  

Lehk: Dimensio: What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.

no you stupid coont, the point is that weapons laws are meant to prosecute people with weapons, not to be a convenient tool to suppress journalism and political discourse.


Except this particular law was written to prosecute people possessing large capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-12 08:26:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Holocaust Agnostic: . (if we aren't considering it effectively dead already anyway)

The simple fact that you're not in jail right now proves that the first amendment isn't "effectively dead"

Hell, the simple fact that Gregory isn't in jail right now is likewise proof.

Also, how DO other countries have freedom of speech without gun ownership? I mean, how does Spain and Germany, France, Britain and all those other countries that have a free and private press get by without a second amendment-type provision?


Spain... the country that was still a fascist dictatorship well into most Farkers' lifetimes...
 
2013-01-12 08:28:30 AM  
The only thing that gets me about this is that NBC even asked DC Metro Police if they could do what they did...and DC Metro said NO.  Which to me basically says NBC knew what they were doing was illegal; did it anyway.

It might not have been politically or legislatively advantageous to prosecute Gregory for *breaking* the law.  But had this been Joe Smith of Dale City, VA; I highly doubt this situation would have gone quite the same way.

Smh...
 
2013-01-12 08:37:45 AM  
Still, think how boring Fark would be without zero-tolerance zealots and consequences. Sure, it makes things easy to decide, but it seems like half the greenlights depend on implementations of this sort of thinking.
 
2013-01-12 08:40:45 AM  

Lehk: Dimensio: What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.

no you stupid coont, the point is that weapons laws are meant to prosecute people with weapons, not to be a convenient tool to suppress journalism and political discourse.


Why would someone NEED a high capacity magazine to do that?
 
2013-01-12 08:46:46 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


In no case would the prosecution of anybody just for possessing a large capacity magazine ever serve the interest of the people.
 
2013-01-12 08:51:24 AM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: The only thing that gets me about this is that NBC even asked DC Metro Police if they could do what they did...and DC Metro said NO.  Which to me basically says NBC knew what they were doing was illegal; did it anyway.

It might not have been politically or legislatively advantageous to prosecute Gregory for *breaking* the law.  But had this been Joe Smith of Dale City, VA; I highly doubt this situation would have gone quite the same way.

Smh...


Actually, I think in "Dale City", VA it would not have been illegal.Bad Law is bad law. But knowingly violating bad law is, uhmm bad.
I think that the thought process is that if you outlaw magazines of this nature then guns using this type of magazine become single shot rifles. While that does hold water, I think that carrying around a magazine with no rifle should be legal.Now ,when you meet up with your friend who have the gun, it becomes a problem. I am conflicted at that point.Semi-Automatic and Automatic are two separate terms for me.I grew up in South Alabama. A semi wasn't a big deal. Squirrels, rabbits,dove were hard to hit first and every time.But I can see why people in an urban area would neither need nor want these rifles.
 
2013-01-12 08:57:02 AM  
GAT_00:

Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken. But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.




GAT is back, let the mocking begin.
 
2013-01-12 08:57:16 AM  
DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with

The Prepositions have launched a military coup against the Definite Particles!
 
2013-01-12 08:58:29 AM  

Buffalo77: GAT is back, let the mocking begin.


Well?
 
2013-01-12 09:00:06 AM  

Buffalo77: GAT_00:

Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken. But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

GAT is back, let the mocking begin.


Still trying to figure out what is circumstantial about a group of journalists and camerpersons and producers and directors and at least one censor watching someone with what might or might not have been a magazine clip.
 
2013-01-12 09:03:37 AM  
What the DC AG's statement tells me is that if you hold a "legalize weed" protest in DC and have everybody light up during it, that should be legal.
 
2013-01-12 09:05:08 AM  

Spade: What the DC AG's statement tells me is that if you hold a "legalize weed" protest in DC and have everybody light up during it, that should be legal.


I don't think I would test that theory.
 
2013-01-12 09:20:00 AM  

Spade: What the DC AG's statement tells me is that if you hold a "legalize weed" protest in DC and have everybody light up during it, that should be legal.


Obviously not.
But if you light up on camera to demonstrate the evil of the devils weed, that's OK.
 
2013-01-12 09:23:34 AM  
Nope, still don't care, this story was silly to begin with.
 
2013-01-12 09:42:20 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


While I agree on some level with you. because all of use are in some way guilty of breaking some law somewhere. Jaywalking, speeding, improper disposal of batteries... etc. tat we would all be in jail at some time if everything was prosecuted. This does show a bit of selective enforcement on the part of the police and I feel that they should have prosecuted here. This is not some thing that the individual may not have known about a particular obscure law but an actual very public thumbing of the nose at the law, a dare to to speak. Well if I keep going by the same cop going faster and faster so see when he will stop me for speeding, guess what?
 
2013-01-12 09:48:39 AM  
I guess what strikes me is how all the 2nd Amendment nutters in the thread so obviously despise the First Amendment. I was told the ACLU was hypocritical--not because it favored gun control because it doesn't--but because it doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the 1st. But now 2nd Amendment nutters aren't just failing to defend the 1st--they're actively arguing to prosecute someone for exercising high value political speech via the press.
 
2013-01-12 09:50:12 AM  

Spade: What the DC AG's statement tells me is that if you hold a "legalize weed" protest in DC and have everybody light up during it, that should be legal.


Okay. You first.
 
2013-01-12 09:50:33 AM  

mrlewish: dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.

While I agree on some level with you. because all of use are in some way guilty of breaking some law somewhere. Jaywalking, speeding, improper disposal of batteries... etc. tat we would all be in jail at some time if everything was prosecuted. This does show a bit of selective enforcement on the part of the police and I feel that they should have prosecuted here. This is not some thing that the individual may not have known about a particular obscure law but an actual very public thumbing of the nose at the law, a dare to to speak. Well if I keep going by the same cop going faster and faster so see when he will stop me for speeding, guess what?


He will sight you for speeding.   But will you sight him for speeding? No.
Bad law is bad law. Executive branch can choose when and where to charge. I agree this was a waste of time.
 
2013-01-12 09:51:12 AM  
And the prosecutor who gave Gregogory a pass, Irvin Nathan, was a longtime personal friend of Gregory's wife.

Justice!
 
2013-01-12 09:52:32 AM  

Baz744: I guess what strikes me is how all the 2nd Amendment nutters in the thread so obviously despise the First Amendment. I was told the ACLU was hypocritical--not because it favored gun control because it doesn't--but because it doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the 1st. But now 2nd Amendment nutters aren't just failing to defend the 1st--they're actively arguing to prosecute someone for exercising high value political speech via the press.


As has been pointed out, District of Columbia is not a State.Throw those amendments aside.It is a Federal City.
 
2013-01-12 09:53:52 AM  

Mikey1969: Who's Heller? That's not anybody involved in this story, the one about the person who illegally possessed a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo in DC. The "logic" here is that despite what you seem to think, just because he is a journalist, he doesn't get to break the law and cry "first amendment". The rest of us don't get to, and journalists don't have a special set of laws that they get to abide by.


But I was told laws banning high capacity magazines tyrannically savagely trample the rights of lawful gun owners. I guess possessing high capacity magazines is only constitutionally protected when it's not a member of the press using it for high value 1st Amendment demonstrative purposes?
 
2013-01-12 09:56:00 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Baz744: I guess what strikes me is how all the 2nd Amendment nutters in the thread so obviously despise the First Amendment. I was told the ACLU was hypocritical--not because it favored gun control because it doesn't--but because it doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the 1st. But now 2nd Amendment nutters aren't just failing to defend the 1st--they're actively arguing to prosecute someone for exercising high value political speech via the press.

As has been pointed out, District of Columbia is not a State.Throw those amendments aside.It is a Federal City.


Uh... the bill of rights applies to the federal government.
 
2013-01-12 10:04:10 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Baz744: I guess what strikes me is how all the 2nd Amendment nutters in the thread so obviously despise the First Amendment. I was told the ACLU was hypocritical--not because it favored gun control because it doesn't--but because it doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the 1st. But now 2nd Amendment nutters aren't just failing to defend the 1st--they're actively arguing to prosecute someone for exercising high value political speech via the press.

As has been pointed out, District of Columbia is not a State.Throw those amendments aside.It is a Federal City.


Why does that mean that the Federal Constitution does not apply to citizens residing within the District?
 
2013-01-12 10:05:45 AM  

gerrymander: ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS

No, for the same reason that Gregory couldn't hold up pictures of child porn during an expose about child pornographers. The law is specifically targeted against possession. And guess what? The fact that publicly-broadcast video exists of him holding the magazine is rather solid evidence backing a possession charge.


The law exists in order to try to mitigate the effects of gun violence. The journalist was in violation. His case was adjudicted and the finding was that while there was clearly a case of the law being violated, there was also, clearly no harm intended, but rather it was in an informational context. THAT is why law isn't (or at least should not be) just a rule book. Humans have to make the final analysis.
 
2013-01-12 10:10:19 AM  
Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
i46.tinypic.com

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-12 10:10:47 AM  

ThisIsntMe: He will sight you for speeding.   But will you sight him for speeding? No.


Sighting is harmless.  It's the citing that hurts.
 
2013-01-12 10:11:51 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
[i46.tinypic.com image 399x306]

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
[i49.tinypic.com image 645x362]


You do realize that, unlike the guys in the second photo - who appear to be wandering a residential street with military-grade weapons - David Gregory doesn't actually have a weapon?
 
2013-01-12 10:14:56 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
[i46.tinypic.com image 399x306]

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
[i49.tinypic.com image 645x362]


"I pretend my ignorance represents justified skepticism" is a political statement now?  Didn't that fail a few times already?
 
2013-01-12 10:16:49 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: He will sight you for speeding.   But will you sight him for speeding? No.

Sighting is harmless.  It's the citing that hurts.


Well done and my bad.
 
2013-01-12 10:16:50 AM  

qorkfiend: You do realize that, unlike the guys in the second photo - who appear to be wandering a residential street with military-grade weapons - David Gregory doesn't actually have a weapon?


And he probably said the word 'clip' which immediately vindicates any actions by contrarian assholes with rifles.
 
2013-01-12 10:17:53 AM  

Mike_1962: The law exists in order to try to mitigate the effects of gun violence. The journalist was in violation. His case was adjudicted and the finding was that while there was clearly a case of the law being violated, there was also, clearly no harm intended, but rather it was in an informational context. THAT is why law isn't (or at least should not be) just a rule book. Humans have to make the final analysis.


If tomorrow Wayne LaPierre goes on the show with the same magazine, your point holds true, correct?
 
2013-01-12 10:18:12 AM  

qorkfiend: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
[i46.tinypic.com image 399x306]

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
[i49.tinypic.com image 645x362]

You do realize that, unlike the guys in the second photo - who appear to be wandering a residential street with military-grade weapons - David Gregory doesn't actually have a weapon?


You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?
 
2013-01-12 10:18:52 AM  

qorkfiend: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
[i46.tinypic.com image 399x306]

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
[i49.tinypic.com image 645x362]

You do realize that, unlike the guys in the second photo - who appear to be wandering a residential street with military-grade weapons - David Gregory doesn't actually have a weapon?


I realize that in one picture a law is being broken, and in the other people engaged in legal activity, and that your bias gives you incentive to judge the situations exactly backwards.

Ps, those aren't military grade weapons.
 
2013-01-12 10:21:51 AM  
OK, We'll do it again.

Those two were law abiding citizens.
Gregory was told by the local Police that he was going to break the law.

Which of those would you like to argue?
 
2013-01-12 10:24:33 AM  

ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?


What's the bottom picture of?
 
2013-01-12 10:25:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: War of Northern Oppression


Hm.
 
2013-01-12 10:25:19 AM  
"Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.


What that really means: if we charged him we'd get locked in a first amendment lawsuit that wouldn't resolve for years and we'd probably lose anyway.

What "responsible gun owners" hear: LIBS DOAN FOLLER LARS! COMIN TAKE MAH GERNS AND MAH JERBS

/ that's "laws", by the way, not the sociopathic money-grabbing asshole from Metallica
 
2013-01-12 10:26:20 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?


Two guys with concealed permits carrying rifles.

What is your bottom picture?
 
2013-01-12 10:26:56 AM  

James F. Campbell: ThisIsntMe: War of Northern Oppression

Hm.


relax, we're over it
 
2013-01-12 10:27:41 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?


2 people complying with open carry laws in their state. *spoiler alert* they didn't shoot anyone.
 
2013-01-12 10:28:34 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

2 people complying with open carry laws in their state. *spoiler alert* they didn't shoot anyone.


OK. What is your top picture of?
 
2013-01-12 10:31:37 AM  

ThisIsntMe: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

Two guys with concealed permits carrying rifles.

What is your bottom picture?


What guys, what state, what weapons, etc?

/and why would either of them need a concealed carry permit to walk down the street with rifles on their backs?
 
2013-01-12 10:32:05 AM  

ThisIsntMe: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

2 people complying with open carry laws in their state. *spoiler alert* they didn't shoot anyone.

OK. What is your top picture of?


A guy breaking a law on national tv, as he advocates that it be spread across the nation.
 
2013-01-12 10:34:55 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ThisIsntMe: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

2 people complying with open carry laws in their state. *spoiler alert* they didn't shoot anyone.

OK. What is your top picture of?

A guy breaking a law on national tv, as he advocates that it be spread across the nation.


I simply see a misguided individual doing an unfortunate thing. I do not see from this any advocation.
 
2013-01-12 10:36:44 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

Two guys with concealed permits carrying rifles.

What is your bottom picture?

What guys, what state, what weapons, etc?

/and why would either of them need a concealed carry permit to walk down the street with rifles on their backs?


I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.
 
2013-01-12 10:37:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: I simply see a misguided individual doing an unfortunate thing. I do not see from this any advocation.


What's misguided or unfortunate about it?

/Sorry.  I'm asking a separate question when you have yet to source the photo.
 
2013-01-12 10:37:20 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

Two guys with concealed permits carrying rifles.

What is your bottom picture?

What guys, what state, what weapons, etc?

/and why would either of them need a concealed carry permit to walk down the street with rifles on their backs?


http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/men-armed-with-rifles-walk-through - portland-to-educate

There was a thread on it.

No permits needed for the rifles but, if I recall, they had handguns too.

/Ruffled a few feathers with the locals but there was no harm and no charges pressed.
/The cops only asked em to knock it off cause it was making a fuss.
 
2013-01-12 10:37:36 AM  

ThisIsntMe: I do not see from this any advocation.


Watch the video.
 
2013-01-12 10:37:57 AM  
Put simply, this is just another case of a rich white liberal not being subjected to the same laws that the poor black people are being jailed for. Must be nice to be liberal and above the law.
 
2013-01-12 10:40:51 AM  

way south: thamike: ThisIsntMe: thamike: ThisIsntMe: You do realize Gregory is breaking a law and the other two aren't?

What's the bottom picture of?

Two guys with concealed permits carrying rifles.

What is your bottom picture?

What guys, what state, what weapons, etc?

/and why would either of them need a concealed carry permit to walk down the street with rifles on their backs?

http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/men-armed-with-rifles-walk-through - portland-to-educate

There was a thread on it.

No permits needed for the rifles but, if I recall, they had handguns too.

/Ruffled a few feathers with the locals but there was no harm and no charges pressed.
/The cops only asked em to knock it off cause it was making a fuss.


Concealed carry permits all around. Cops asked them to stop because despite the law, the local populace has been told to call 911 if they see a gun. The cops admitted there was no threat but asked them to stop. And they did.
 
2013-01-12 10:40:58 AM  

ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.


So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?
 
2013-01-12 10:41:10 AM  
I can't believe anyone actually cares about this.

/Don't even have anything funny to say. That's it.
 
2013-01-12 10:43:51 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.

So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?


Googling two men with rifles was too hard for you?
 
2013-01-12 10:43:56 AM  

way south: There was a thread on it.

No permits needed for the rifles but, if I recall, they had handguns too.

/Ruffled a few feathers with the locals but there was no harm and no charges pressed.
/The cops only asked em to knock it off cause it was making a fuss.


Ah thanks.

I am glad to see it's still legal to be an asshole in Oregon.
 
2013-01-12 10:44:05 AM  

Triumph: Rich and affluent? That never happens.


Since when did journalism start paying?
 
2013-01-12 10:44:39 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.

So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?

Googling two men with rifles was too hard for you?


Put it back on the shelf, man.  You don't even play my sport.
 
2013-01-12 10:46:26 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ThisIsntMe: I do not see from this any advocation.

Watch the video.


Sorry, I'm not baitable that way. If I say something, OK. If I see it, OK. But, I'm not getting involved if you have a problem with a talking head. His pictures indicate he broke the law. It's a bad law. But, it's the law.They didn't press charges. That's the DA's privilege. I think it's not fair or correct and I'll say my part. But I'm not on a witch hunt. So Good luck.
 
2013-01-12 10:47:08 AM  

cptrios: I can't believe anyone actually cares about this.

/Don't even have anything funny to say. That's it.


I dunno about everyone else, but I either wanted to see the hypocrite get his comeuppance or have him set a precedent saying the law he's pushing is stupid.
Instead he gets out on the "I'm too pretty to go to jail" defense.

/Which only proves the legal system is a joke.
/But we already knew that.
 
2013-01-12 10:47:47 AM  

edmo: Triumph: Rich and affluent? That never happens.

Since when did journalism start paying?


When Uncertainty Reduction Theory was reversed and weaponized.
 
2013-01-12 10:49:41 AM  

shotglasss: Put simply, this is just another case of a rich white liberal not being subjected to the same laws that the poor black people are being jailed for. Must be nice to be liberal and above the law.


While this is true, it's clear and publicized evidence of it.

When the inevitable supreme court case shows up as a result, it'll be easy to show it is inconsistently enforced and the whole law will be thrown out. Strengthening the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens.
 
2013-01-12 10:50:19 AM  

way south: I dunno about everyone else, but I either wanted to see the hypocrite get his comeuppance or have him set a precedent saying the law he's pushing is stupid.
Instead he gets out on the "I'm too pretty to go to jail" defense.

/Which only proves the legal system is a joke.
/But we already knew that.


Yeah, that's why the legal system is a "joke."  Not enough pretty people being thrown in jail for minor nonviolent offenses.
Also, that's the problem with pretty people--not enough David Gregory to change the definition of pretty.
 
2013-01-12 10:51:11 AM  

way south: I dunno about everyone else, but I either wanted to see the hypocrite get his comeuppance or have him set a precedent saying the law he's pushing is stupid.
Instead he gets out on the "I'm too pretty to go to jail" defense.


You put it very well. I'm fine if either the left or the right get their way, as long as it is consistent. If Gregory forces prosecutors to make rational judgments and not notch wins in their briefcases, that is cool. If they are going to be dicks to everyone, well, not that cool but at least not hypocritical.
 
2013-01-12 10:52:31 AM  

thamike: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.

So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?

Googling two men with rifles was too hard for you?

Put it back on the shelf, man.  You don't even play my sport.


Yeah, I'm not deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-01-12 10:53:48 AM  

thamike: I am glad to see it's still legal to be an asshole in Oregon.


It's legal to be an asshole in every state.

/maybe not that kind....
 
2013-01-12 10:56:05 AM  

thamike: way south: I dunno about everyone else, but I either wanted to see the hypocrite get his comeuppance or have him set a precedent saying the law he's pushing is stupid.
Instead he gets out on the "I'm too pretty to go to jail" defense.

/Which only proves the legal system is a joke.
/But we already knew that.

Yeah, that's why the legal system is a "joke."  Not enough pretty people being thrown in jail for minor nonviolent offenses.
Also, that's the problem with pretty people--not enough David Gregory to change the definition of pretty.


I'm curious. Has anyone been thrown in jail over this sort of thing?
 
2013-01-12 10:57:21 AM  

thamike: Yeah, that's why the legal system is a "joke."  Not enough pretty people being thrown in jail for minor nonviolent offenses.


Its not the quantity, its the quality.
Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.
No one felt sorry for them when they committed a "minor non violent offence". They had to spend real money on lawyers and sit through their trial.

Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny.
 
2013-01-12 10:57:25 AM  

James F. Campbell: ThisIsntMe: War of Northern Oppression

Hm.


In no way did I mean to offend anyone. I am a Southerner and proud of my heritage.I also understand everything that was gained during the War of Northern Oppression.On the political, social and economic scale.I would hope that  everyperson would have similar opportunities. My family were sharecroppers in Dothan, Alabama.And my Great Grans fought beside anybody who would fight. They passeed to me a strong belief in States' Rights. and a strong understanding of what the US Constitution does and does not require/allow. Again, if I have offended anyone,I am deeply sorry.
 
2013-01-12 10:57:29 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.

So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?

Googling two men with rifles was too hard for you?

Put it back on the shelf, man.  You don't even play my sport.

Yeah, I'm not deliberately obtuse.


Only every other thread.  You're better when you're drunk.
 
2013-01-12 10:59:19 AM  

way south: thamike: Yeah, that's why the legal system is a "joke."  Not enough pretty people being thrown in jail for minor nonviolent offenses.

Its not the quantity, its the quality.
Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.
No one felt sorry for them when they committed a "minor non violent offence". They had to spend real money on lawyers and sit through their trial.

Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny.


The real question is what is ...or should be the consistent application.
 
2013-01-12 11:00:37 AM  

way south: Its not the quantity, its the quality.
Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.
No one felt sorry for them when they committed a "minor non violent offence". They had to spend real money on lawyers and sit through their trial.

Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny.


Uh huh.
 
2013-01-12 11:00:46 AM  

way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.


Citation?
 
2013-01-12 11:02:32 AM  

Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?


Googling "people put through the ringer" is too hard for you?
 
2013-01-12 11:02:34 AM  

way south: Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny.


So here's your chance to take up arms against the government since they're tyrants now.
 
2013-01-12 11:03:47 AM  

Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?


There won't be one Fart. 100 people have not been put through the ringer due to this law. Most who have are minorities in the inner cities.
 
2013-01-12 11:04:06 AM  
Epic levels of butthurt detected over sensible prosecutorial discretion. I'm starting to add "zero tolerance advocate" to peoples' favorite notes, so they can be easily flagged as monumental hypocrites later.
 
2013-01-12 11:04:12 AM  

ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression


You really aren't doing yourself any favors by referring to "the War of Northern Oppression". Do I actually have to remind you that you Southerners were the ones who started the war, and started it because you wanted to own other humans as property?
 
2013-01-12 11:04:51 AM  

thamike: Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?

Googling "people put through the ringer" is too hard for you?


I tried that but what's so bad about making people watch that Johnny Knoxville film?
 
2013-01-12 11:10:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


I guess you didnt read about the black dude going to take his atf test or whatever, ending up in jail over an extended mag in dc.

He was curious why he went to jail and this dude didnt.
 
2013-01-12 11:15:47 AM  

qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression

You really aren't doing yourself any favors by referring to "the War of Northern Oppression". Do I actually have to remind you that you Southerners were the ones who started the war, and started it because you wanted to own other humans as property?


Would you actually like to give Citations based on Fort Sumter?
 
2013-01-12 11:17:05 AM  

ThisIsntMe: qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression

You really aren't doing yourself any favors by referring to "the War of Northern Oppression". Do I actually have to remind you that you Southerners were the ones who started the war, and started it because you wanted to own other humans as property?

Would you actually like to give Citations based on Fort Sumter?


Or maybe the fact that Lincoln only wrote the Emancipation Proclamation to incluse the Southern States.
 
2013-01-12 11:17:58 AM  
Because the Northern non-Whites were emancipated three years after the close of the war.
 
2013-01-12 11:18:33 AM  
Or maybe, I'm wrong.
Could be. Never know.
 
2013-01-12 11:19:42 AM  

ThisIsntMe: qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression

You really aren't doing yourself any favors by referring to "the War of Northern Oppression". Do I actually have to remind you that you Southerners were the ones who started the war, and started it because you wanted to own other humans as property?

Would you actually like to give Citations based on Fort Sumter?


This is where this sh*t gets tedious.
 
2013-01-12 11:19:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe: qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression

You really aren't doing yourself any favors by referring to "the War of Northern Oppression". Do I actually have to remind you that you Southerners were the ones who started the war, and started it because you wanted to own other humans as property?

Would you actually like to give Citations based on Fort Sumter?


I didn't say anything about the Emancipation Proclamation. You Southerners seceded, raised militias, and seized federal property by force of arms. End of discussion.
 
2013-01-12 11:22:25 AM  
Raised militias, Seceded and seized State Property you mean.
 
2013-01-12 11:23:28 AM  
Last time I checked Federal Property was District of Columbia.

Do you have a different reckoning?
 
2013-01-12 11:23:53 AM  

Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?


You'd have found at least one case in this very thread, if you skimmed it.

"Asked how many people were arrested in 2012 for "high capacity magazines," it took the police department five days to tell me that there were "more than" 105 arrests for possession last year. One of those was Mr. Brinkley, but none were Mr. Gregory."
 
2013-01-12 11:24:00 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Last time I checked Federal Property was District of Columbia.

Do you have a different reckoning?


US military installations are federal property.
 
2013-01-12 11:24:43 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Or maybe the fact that Lincoln only wrote the Emancipation Proclamation to incluse the Southern States.


Rebelling states.  And that was because the 13th Amendment was in the works for the entire nation.  The entire nation being all the states, despite my ancestors' insistence that their states constituted a separate nation.
 
2013-01-12 11:25:57 AM  

DoctorCal: Epic levels of butthurt detected over sensible prosecutorial discretion. I'm starting to add "zero tolerance advocate" to peoples' favorite notes, so they can be easily flagged as monumental hypocrites later.


Calling out hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy.

Are critics of "family values" hypocrites for demanding "family value advocates" live up to their values when they themselves don't? If someone opposes the war on drugs but then a video comes out of Obama doing a line of coke 3 weeks ago hits the net... should they not demand his prosecution?

At this point the DC prosecutor should say it's a bad law and he won't enforce it if he's not going to enforce it for Gregory.
 
2013-01-12 11:27:09 AM  

qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: Last time I checked Federal Property was District of Columbia.

Do you have a different reckoning?

US military installations are federal property.


No actually prior to the war They were State Batteries, which is why they initially left Ft. Sumter and then shelled it.
 
2013-01-12 11:27:50 AM  
Wait so is this the thread where the gun nuts and the contrarians band together to get mired in a historical debate that not only is almost everybody unqualified to participate in, but that is also completely irrelevant to the situation at hand?
 
2013-01-12 11:28:40 AM  

ThisIsntMe: qorkfiend: ThisIsntMe: Last time I checked Federal Property was District of Columbia.

Do you have a different reckoning?

US military installations are federal property.

No actually prior to the war They were State Batteries, which is why they initially left Ft. Sumter and then shelled it.


No, they weren't. They raised militias, seized weapons from federal arsenals, and attacked a US military fort, precipitated a large-scale Civil War, and did it all in the name of slavery. It boggles my mind that you see this as a source of pride.
 
2013-01-12 11:29:59 AM  

Mrbogey: Calling out hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy.


Unless it's racist.
 
2013-01-12 11:30:18 AM  
Isn't that guy a jew? Or are Jewish people considered white now?
 
2013-01-12 11:32:20 AM  
I'm not going to argue a dead battle friend. There is no point. Let's face the battle before us. It doesn't mater if we call it Bull Run, or Mannassess. The point is we have a country that will listen to it's people.
 
2013-01-12 11:33:38 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Mannassess


You didn't say "ass" twice.
 
2013-01-12 11:34:25 AM  

thamike: ThisIsntMe: Mannassess
Ass

You didn't say "ass" twice.

 
2013-01-12 11:34:53 AM  
On the one hand, de minimus non curat lex. On the other hand, David Gregory is annoying as hell and I wouldn't mind seeing him spend some time in the joint just on general principles.
 
2013-01-12 11:36:29 AM  
I'm thinking Gregory is done. He's past and the media is gonna move on.


/ Just sayin'
 
2013-01-12 11:38:00 AM  

bossuniversalAA: Isn't that guy a jew? Or are Jewish people considered white now?


Yeah, but don't worry. You still don't have to let them join the Elks lodge.
 
2013-01-12 11:40:37 AM  

ThisIsntMe: I'm thinking Gregory is done. He's past and the media is gonna move on.


/ Just sayin'


Can't wait until HoneyBooBoo gets the big desk.
 
2013-01-12 11:42:22 AM  

BMulligan: bossuniversalAA: Isn't that guy a jew? Or are Jewish people considered white now?

Yeah, but don't worry. You still don't have to let them join the Elks lodge.


Cap'n Crunch isn't Jewish?
 
2013-01-12 11:42:38 AM  
This how things are done is a corrupt banana republic. Laws are enforced with discretion.
 
2013-01-12 11:43:11 AM  

Mrbogey: DoctorCal: Epic levels of butthurt detected over sensible prosecutorial discretion. I'm starting to add "zero tolerance advocate" to peoples' favorite notes, so they can be easily flagged as monumental hypocrites later.

Calling out hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy.

Are critics of "family values" hypocrites for demanding "family value advocates" live up to their values when they themselves don't? If someone opposes the war on drugs but then a video comes out of Obama doing a line of coke 3 weeks ago hits the net... should they not demand his prosecution?

At this point the DC prosecutor should say it's a bad law and he won't enforce it if he's not going to enforce it for Gregory.


There hasn't been any hypocrisy pointed out. Sometimes the enforcement authority for a rule has latitude to choose not to enforce the rule. This is one of those times. Your rabid insistance that the motive for the choice is, somehow, political doesn't equate the choice to 'hypocrisy' by any reasonably informed, sane standard.

Later on, when a kid gets expelled from school for having Fruity Chewable Tums in their locker, and someone is outraged about 'zero tolerance', and it turns out they were in here with an epic hard-on for David Gregory to be arrested, that will be hypocrisy. And they will have their nose smeared in their own feces to remind them.
 
2013-01-12 11:47:10 AM  

badhatharry: This how things are done is a corrupt banana republic. Laws are enforced with discretion.


But who was phone the whole thingof?
 
2013-01-12 11:47:42 AM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


I see. So I can produce a YouTube segment of the exact same thing, and I don't have to worry about anything?
 
2013-01-12 11:48:09 AM  
If Alex Jones would have pulled one out on Pierce Morgan's show he probably would have been shot on sight.
 
2013-01-12 11:50:47 AM  

badhatharry: Pierce Morgan's


Pierced Morgan.  We serve it every Christmas dinner, ever since the pierced Brosnan recall.
 
2013-01-12 11:55:34 AM  

way south: Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?

You'd have found at least one case in this very thread, if you skimmed it.

"Asked how many people were arrested in 2012 for "high capacity magazines," it took the police department five days to tell me that there were "more than" 105 arrests for possession last year. One of those was Mr. Brinkley, but none were Mr. Gregory."


So one guy because he had a warrant out counts as over a hundred. Um, OK.
 
2013-01-12 11:58:19 AM  

Fart_Machine: way south: Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?

You'd have found at least one case in this very thread, if you skimmed it.

"Asked how many people were arrested in 2012 for "high capacity magazines," it took the police department five days to tell me that there were "more than" 105 arrests for possession last year. One of those was Mr. Brinkley, but none were Mr. Gregory."

So one guy because he had a warrant out counts as over a hundred. Um, OK.


Also do we know the circumstances of those other 105 arrests? Did they also have warrants or other circumstances in addition to having high capacity magazines?
 
2013-01-12 12:01:49 PM  

ZzeusS: dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.

I see. So I can produce a YouTube segment of the exact same thing, and I don't have to worry about anything?


That would depend on the discretion of the prosecutor.

Do you expect that you could do so without concern? Why or why not?
 
2013-01-12 12:10:14 PM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


you call NBC and tell them you are going to indite and say that a guilty plea will result in a small fine. if they are smart they admit it was stupid, cop the plea and pay the fine. if not you go ahead and get them for every thing imaginable. threaten jail, go on TV proclaiming they are not better than the local gangsters using the same magazines. infer that's where they got it.

if you are serious about having everybody live by the rule of law you don't let some high profile dickwad walk. do that and your gun laws become (more of) a joke.
 
2013-01-12 12:18:20 PM  

Curious: dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.

you call NBC and tell them you are going to indite and say that a guilty plea will result in a small fine. if they are smart they admit it was stupid, cop the plea and pay the fine. if not you go ahead and get them for every thing imaginable. threaten jail, go on TV proclaiming they are not better than the local gangsters using the same magazines. infer that's where they got it.

if you are serious about having everybody live by the rule of law you don't let some high profile dickwad walk. do that and your gun laws become (more of) a joke.


My guess is the prosecution didn't follow your advice because they didn't want to look stupid.
 
2013-01-12 12:19:24 PM  
This is an outrage. If we let the host of Meet The Press get away with this, soon all the hosts of Meet The Press will be doing it.
 
2013-01-12 12:20:18 PM  

Curious: dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.

you call NBC and tell them you are going to indite and say that a guilty plea will result in a small fine. if they are smart they admit it was stupid, cop the plea and pay the fine. if not you go ahead and get them for every thing imaginable. threaten jail, go on TV proclaiming they are not better than the local gangsters using the same magazines. infer that's where they got it.

if you are serious about having everybody live by the rule of law you don't let some high profile dickwad walk. do that and your gun laws become (more of) a joke.


I doubt a lowly DA would get into that kind of public, national pissing match with NBC. You call NBC and say you're going to indict, if David Gregory doesn't plea guilty? They say "Ok, our million-dollar lawyers will see your public servant's ass in court," because no one pleads guilty to a misdemeanor. You try to go on TV and build your case to the public? NBC slams you for tainting the process and the judge throws the case out for prosecutorial misconduct. You infer they got the magazine from gangsters? Everyone laughs at you because we all know that any sufficiently motivated person can acquire one. Threaten a powerful person, who is also a prominent journalist for a major, well-connected media conglomerate, with jail? You better be 100% sure that you're going to win, because they will absolutely call your bluff.

Note that I'm not saying this is good, or the desired way things should work. It's simply the system we have at this time.
 
2013-01-12 12:26:12 PM  

Curious: you call NBC and tell them you are going to indite and say that a guilty plea will result in a small fine


buh?
 
2013-01-12 12:34:19 PM  

Fart_Machine: Curious: dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.

you call NBC and tell them you are going to indite and say that a guilty plea will result in a small fine. if they are smart they admit it was stupid, cop the plea and pay the fine. if not you go ahead and get them for every thing imaginable. threaten jail, go on TV proclaiming they are not better than the local gangsters using the same magazines. infer that's where they got it.

if you are serious about having everybody live by the rule of law you don't let some high profile dickwad walk. do that and your gun laws become (more of) a joke.

My guess is the prosecution didn't follow your advice because they didn't want to look stupid.


To expand on your point, I would guess that prosecutors rarely take legal advice from people who don't know how to spell "indict."
 
2013-01-12 12:38:00 PM  

DoctorCal: Later on, when a kid gets expelled from school for having Fruity Chewable Tums in their locker, and someone is outraged about 'zero tolerance', and it turns out they were in here with an epic hard-on for David Gregory to be arrested, that will be hypocrisy. And they will have their nose smeared in their own feces to remind them.


If stupid laws like this and 'zero tolerance' didn't exist, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 
2013-01-12 12:39:56 PM  

thamike: badhatharry: Pierce Morgan's

Pierced Morgan.  We serve it every Christmas dinner, ever since the pierced Brosnan recall.


I get those Brits mixed up. They all look alike to me.
 
2013-01-12 01:12:32 PM  

GoldSpider: DoctorCal: Later on, when a kid gets expelled from school for having Fruity Chewable Tums in their locker, and someone is outraged about 'zero tolerance', and it turns out they were in here with an epic hard-on for David Gregory to be arrested, that will be hypocrisy. And they will have their nose smeared in their own feces to remind them.

If stupid laws like this and 'zero tolerance' didn't exist, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Yes. If the law that the butthurt zealots in this thread want Gregory charged under didn't exist, we wouldn't be having a conversation about the fact that he wasn't charged. Thanks for that brilliant interjection.
 
2013-01-12 01:24:53 PM  
BMulligan [TotalFark]
2013-01-12 11:38:00 AM

bossuniversalAA: Isn't that guy a jew? Or are Jewish people considered white now?

Yeah, but don't worry. You still don't have to let them join the Elks lodge.


oh yeah, i forgot ...when ever jews do something stupid, they're all of a sudden considered white.
 
2013-01-12 01:26:56 PM  

ThisIsntMe: the War of Northern Oppression


You're an idiot, and we are all now dumber for having read what you have said. Congratulations.
 
2013-01-12 01:27:01 PM  

badhatharry: thamike: badhatharry: Pierce Morgan's

Pierced Morgan.  We serve it every Christmas dinner, ever since the pierced Brosnan recall.

I get those Brits mixed up. They all look alike to me.


Do yourself a favor. Don't try to make jokes.
 
2013-01-12 01:28:38 PM  

bossuniversalAA: BMulligan [TotalFark]
2013-01-12 11:38:00 AM

bossuniversalAA: Isn't that guy a jew? Or are Jewish people considered white now?

Yeah, but don't worry. You still don't have to let them join the Elks lodge.

oh yeah, i forgot ...when ever jews do something stupid, they're all of a sudden considered white.


Someone got lost on the road to Stormfront.

/plonk
 
2013-01-12 01:28:51 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Breaks the law to make a political statement = Just fine!
[i46.tinypic.com image 399x306]

Obey the law, making a political statement = Assholes!
[i49.tinypic.com image 645x362]


Man I wish about 40 NBPP members (if there are that many) would do that in oh, Tuscaloosa or Cincinnati. I would looove to see how that went over with the 2nd Amendment is inviolate crowd.
 
2013-01-12 01:30:22 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle:

What that really means: if we charged him we'd get locked in a first amendment lawsuit that wouldn't resolve for years and we'd probably lose anyway.



That's the point. The network has enough money and power to fight that legal battle while the average citizen does not. In places like New York, D.C., and California where gun laws are extremely restrictive, money and political power has always been a substitute for a gun permit. The ultra rich already get enough perks. I don't want to live in a world where only law enforcement and the rich can own firearms and that's what we are moving toward.

David Gregory didn't suddenly become a menace to society because he was in possession of a 30 round magazine. What makes him so special that he can be trusted more than the average citizen? I disagree with the assertion that because someone is a face on national television that they are somehow more responsible or trustworthy than I.
 
2013-01-12 01:38:01 PM  
Could a few of you quit dancing with your strawmen long enough to post your outrage to youtube and link it here?
 
2013-01-12 01:40:43 PM  

thamike: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: BraveNewCheneyWorld: thamike: ThisIsntMe: I'd have to look , but it might be Oregon. or maybe not, youtube it for the particulars.

So we are supposed to take you on your word based solely on the photo's existence?

Googling two men with rifles was too hard for you?

Put it back on the shelf, man.  You don't even play my sport.

Yeah, I'm not deliberately obtuse.

Only every other thread.  You're better when you're drunk.


Ad hominem, how unexpected. You people literally have not a single fact on your side. You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy. So keep farking that chicken, and fail yet again to get your pet project advanced.
 
2013-01-12 02:05:49 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy.


Oh the ironing...
 
2013-01-12 02:07:42 PM  

The_Mad_Dutchman: For all the people jumping on the bandwagon that this decision was made for the stated reason that "criminal charges wouldn't serve the public's best interests", you need to seriously read up on DC's gun laws and how they are applied to persons not in the media. People are prosecuted for possessing a handful of rounds of ammunition, or a magazine as shown in the television segment. These are the sole charges and and aren't, as was stated by someone else in this thread, tacked on other charges to "cover the bases". The plain fact is if you or I had waved that mag around on television, we'd be facing charges, but because of who did it and the agenda behind it, it gets a free pass. The people lauding this decision should be ashamed.


Let me make it really clear for you:  This is his job. No matter what the politics. If he were talking about terrorists and showing people what a suicide bomb looked like,  that would be his job too. It does not indicate how the reporter actually feels about gun control, how the station feels about gun control, or any damn thing else about gun control. His job is to explain controversy for people who might not have a clear grasp on it. He's a farking journalist. There is no 'agenda', any more than you serving your customers their burgers and fries has an 'agenda'.

Amazingly enough, there is a difference in the eyes of the law (or at least there's supposed to be) between someone doing their job and someone trying to use an illegal weapon.
 
2013-01-12 02:14:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: Fart_Machine: way south: Fart_Machine: way south: Over a hundred other people have been put through the ringer as a result of this law because they weren't given the "I'm famous" exemption.

Citation?

You'd have found at least one case in this very thread, if you skimmed it.

"Asked how many people were arrested in 2012 for "high capacity magazines," it took the police department five days to tell me that there were "more than" 105 arrests for possession last year. One of those was Mr. Brinkley, but none were Mr. Gregory."

So one guy because he had a warrant out counts as over a hundred. Um, OK.

Also do we know the circumstances of those other 105 arrests? Did they also have warrants or other circumstances in addition to having high capacity magazines?


You are grasping for straws now.

The law was enforced before and people suffered for it. That much is clear.
Why shouldn't it be enforced here, Because its now a trivial charge?
It was serious business before David Gregory found himself in trouble.

If these prosecutors try to enforce the same AWB after this, how serious should anyone take it?
It's a minor mistake, like jaywalking.
Not worth the prosecutors time... Tell the cops to give these people back their stuff and apologize for overreacting.
 
2013-01-12 02:20:12 PM  

way south: You are grasping for straws now.


Because a newscaster showing an expanded mag for demonstration purposes on television is exactly the same as a couple being found on a guy who had a warrant? Seriously?
 
2013-01-12 02:20:20 PM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy.

Oh the ironing...


I knew I could count on you to prove my point. You bring nothing to the table, I routinely bring facts.
 
2013-01-12 02:21:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy.

Oh the ironing...

I knew I could count on you to prove my point. You bring nothing to the table, I routinely bring facts.


Hahahahahahaha. You're farking hilarious. Go get your shinebox.
 
2013-01-12 02:25:24 PM  

Baz744: Mikey1969: Who's Heller? That's not anybody involved in this story, the one about the person who illegally possessed a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo in DC. The "logic" here is that despite what you seem to think, just because he is a journalist, he doesn't get to break the law and cry "first amendment". The rest of us don't get to, and journalists don't have a special set of laws that they get to abide by.

But I was told laws banning high capacity magazines tyrannically savagely trample the rights of lawful gun owners. I guess possessing high capacity magazines is only constitutionally protected when it's not a member of the press using it for high value 1st Amendment demonstrative purposes?


Wow, it's easy to tell how new of a talking point this is for you people, you're horrible at it. At least most of you gave up the slightly less stupid 'How do we know that it was even a real magazine?" attempt at debate.

You people are either stupid or are being deliberately obtuse with your definitions on both the first and second amendments.

He's not protecting himself if he owns and accessory to a gun, and not only doesn't own a gun, but never plans on owning one.

As for the first amendment, under your idiotic interpretation, he could walk into a mall with a gun and a magazine full of blanks and open fire, and not suffer any consequences, just as long as he claimed "first amendment".
 
2013-01-12 02:42:20 PM  
Is anyone really thinking this warrants jail time? A bit reactionary, are we?
 
2013-01-12 02:46:51 PM  
Yep, we're so good at enforcing the gun laws that are the books now, we need more. Makes perfect sense to me.
 
2013-01-12 02:49:12 PM  
Is James O Keefe in jail for tampering with US Senate phone lines and for committing voter fraud yet?
 
2013-01-12 03:10:07 PM  

way south: If these prosecutors try to enforce the same AWB after this, how serious should anyone take it?


Well, I'm not sure about "anyone", but people who reside in the relevant jurisdiction should take it as serious as the possible consequences of being charged under the law.

There sure are a lot of dumb motherfarkers in here.
 
2013-01-12 03:39:48 PM  

Proteios1: Is anyone really thinking this warrants jail time? A bit reactionary, are we?


I don't want anyone to go to jail for possessing weapons, aside from those who posses illegal weapons while trying to make those weapons illegal nationwide.

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy.

Oh the ironing...

I knew I could count on you to prove my point. You bring nothing to the table, I routinely bring facts.

Hahahahahahaha. You're farking hilarious. Go get your shinebox.


Great response.. Here's one for you to conveniently ignore again. Rifles, and specifically "assault rifles" are responsible for the least amount of firearm crime. There's no valid reason to put them on the top of the gun control target list, aside from the fact that you didn't care about murder until you were reminded about it from television.
 
2013-01-12 03:47:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Proteios1: Is anyone really thinking this warrants jail time? A bit reactionary, are we?

I don't want anyone to go to jail for possessing weapons, aside from those who posses illegal weapons while trying to make those weapons illegal nationwide.

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're fear-mongers who rely on lies, emotionalism and fallacy.

Oh the ironing...

I knew I could count on you to prove my point. You bring nothing to the table, I routinely bring facts.

Hahahahahahaha. You're farking hilarious. Go get your shinebox.

Great response.. Here's one for you to conveniently ignore again. Rifles, and specifically "assault rifles" are responsible for the least amount of firearm crime. There's no valid reason to put them on the top of the gun control target list, aside from the fact that you didn't care about murder until you were reminded about it from television.


Build moar strawmen!

/never advocated gun control just find you to be a reactionary doofus.
 
2013-01-12 04:05:17 PM  

DoctorCal: There hasn't been any hypocrisy pointed out.


Except the hypocrisy of guys like you. Sorry to keep having to smear your nose in it.
 
2013-01-12 04:20:01 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.

You have my and all my dead relatives votes good sir.


Anyone who can bring those three groups together and get them to agree on anything deserves to win an election. My gun nut cousin, as much as I love him, is the most homophobic asshole I know.

Not everyone who owns guns qualifies as a "nut." Not everyone who advocates the legalization of marijuana is a "pothead." Idiotic generalization is idiotic.
 
2013-01-12 04:27:41 PM  

Mrbogey: DoctorCal: There hasn't been any hypocrisy pointed out.

Except the hypocrisy of guys like you. Sorry to keep having to smear your nose in it.


Let me know when you plan to get started pointing out my hypocrisy. I'll wait.
 
2013-01-12 04:34:49 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ad hominem, how unexpected.


You're supposed to read the definition on your word of the day calendar.  You're also supposed to tear that sheet off to reveal a new word the next day.  And welcome to Fark.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You people literally have not a single fact on your side.


I'm not sure which people you believe I represent.  Hell, I wasn't even trying to represent all these people who think you're an idiot.  I don't think you're an idiot.  i just think that you forget which persona you meant to use from time to time, and I think it has to do with drinking and isolation.
 
2013-01-12 05:22:06 PM  

thamike: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ad hominem, how unexpected.

You're supposed to read the definition on your word of the day calendar.  You're also supposed to tear that sheet off to reveal a new word the next day.  And welcome to Fark.


thamike: You're better when you're drunk.


short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

Thought I'd help out since you clearly don't know what it means. Still waiting for you to say something on the gun control subject that's rooted in fact and reason...
 
2013-01-12 05:32:33 PM  

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


Translation: Prosecuting David Gregory would point out the stupidity of the law, and it would throw both the law and the administration of it into disrepute, so we are going to just drop it to make this whole thing go away.
 
2013-01-12 05:42:00 PM  

dittybopper: Translation: Prosecuting David Gregory would point out the stupidity of the law


Precisely. But hypocrisy, or something.
 
2013-01-12 06:00:08 PM  

numbquil: [nonsense]


Your self-enforced ignorance of the concept of context doesn't make it not exist.
 
2013-01-12 06:16:56 PM  
*crickets*

Well played. I expected some fabricated assertion of my opinion on something in order to fulfill the requirements of hypocrisy. Congrats on exceeding my expectations by the simple act of turning tail and hiding like a pathetic little biatch. (A decent person would probably just apologize for the mischaracterization, but I've seen enough of your trolly ass around here to know that description doesn't apply.)

/off to see Django Unchained
 
2013-01-12 07:53:42 PM  

DoctorCal: Let me know when you plan to get started pointing out my hypocrisy. I'll wait.


You seem to be opposed to dumb motherfarkers while simultaneously being one. Such hypocrisy.

DoctorCal: Later on, when a kid gets expelled from school for having Fruity Chewable Tums in their locker, and someone is outraged about 'zero tolerance', and it turns out they were in here with an epic hard-on for David Gregory to be arrested, that will be hypocrisy. And they will have their nose smeared in their own feces to remind them.


When we find out that the principal is weekly expelling kids for having chewable Tums but when a rich kid brings some he doesn't get expelled I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal and shout down the "hypocrites".
 
2013-01-12 08:05:24 PM  

Mrbogey: When we find out that the principal is weekly expelling kids for having chewable Tums but when a rich kid brings some he doesn't get expelled I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal and shout down the "hypocrites".


That might make sense if Gregory was busted with them on his person while under a warrant like the guy from the Washington Times article.
 
2013-01-12 08:42:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: When we find out that the principal is weekly expelling kids for having chewable Tums but when a rich kid brings some he doesn't get expelled I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal and shout down the "hypocrites".

That might make sense if Gregory was busted with them on his person while under a warrant like the guy from the Washington Times article.


Because nobody's every been arrested for having banned items in a video. You know about this thing called youtube right? It happens all the time.
 
2013-01-12 08:54:30 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: When we find out that the principal is weekly expelling kids for having chewable Tums but when a rich kid brings some he doesn't get expelled I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal and shout down the "hypocrites".

That might make sense if Gregory was busted with them on his person while under a warrant like the guy from the Washington Times article.

Because nobody's every been arrested for having banned items in a video. You know about this thing called youtube right? It happens all the time.


Were the youtubers busted with the video as evidence or did the videos prompt an investigation leading to discovering evidence in their possession?
 
2013-01-12 08:55:04 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: When we find out that the principal is weekly expelling kids for having chewable Tums but when a rich kid brings some he doesn't get expelled I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal and shout down the "hypocrites".

That might make sense if Gregory was busted with them on his person while under a warrant like the guy from the Washington Times article.

Because nobody's every been arrested for having banned items in a video. You know about this thing called youtube right? It happens all the time.


Somebody got arrested for having an extended mag in a video?
 
2013-01-12 09:58:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Were the youtubers busted with the video as evidence or did the videos prompt an investigation leading to discovering evidence in their possession?


Of course they were investigated. Why would you even ask that?
 
2013-01-12 11:46:53 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Were the youtubers busted with the video as evidence or did the videos prompt an investigation leading to discovering evidence in their possession?

Of course they were investigated. Why would you even ask that?


Answer the question.
 
2013-01-13 12:03:07 AM  

DoctorCal: I expected some fabricated assertion of my opinion on something in order to fulfill the requirements of hypocrisy.


Mrbogey: I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal


Thanks for living down to expectations!
 
2013-01-13 01:20:44 AM  

DoctorCal: DoctorCal: I expected some fabricated assertion of my opinion on something in order to fulfill the requirements of hypocrisy.

Mrbogey: I'm sure you'lkl be there to defend the principal

Thanks for living down to expectations!


I properly applied your reaction and severe butthurt over being schooled on how it's not hypocrisy to demand people not be hypocrites. I didn't have to fabricate anything when you've made it clear you selectively apply your principles.
 
2013-01-13 07:52:14 AM  

kim jong-un: Spain... the country that was still a fascist dictatorship well into most Farkers' lifetimes...


In spite of the Catalans employing "2nd-amendment solutions," as they might be called over here.
 
2013-01-13 08:34:20 AM  
The next time Republicans get pulled over for speeding, the cops shouldn't let them off with a warning.
 
2013-01-13 11:58:25 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Were the youtubers busted with the video as evidence or did the videos prompt an investigation leading to discovering evidence in their possession?

Of course they were investigated. Why would you even ask that?

Answer the question.


Miss something there sport?
 
2013-01-13 12:05:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Were the youtubers busted with the video as evidence or did the videos prompt an investigation leading to discovering evidence in their possession?

Of course they were investigated. Why would you even ask that?

Answer the question.

Miss something there sport?


So they were found with contraband in their possession?

Was Gregory found with contraband in his possession?

You do understand that sex and porn are not the same thing, right?
 
2013-01-13 12:06:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

Thought I'd help out since you clearly don't know what it means. Still waiting for you to say something on the gun control subject that's rooted in fact and reason...


I know what it means.  Look at your own posts and maybe you'll stop acting like Scut Farkus defeated all the time.  And since it isn't really the subject of the thread, I have nothing to say to you about gun control.

On topic,  I think NBC is staffed by assholes, and they shouldn't have blown this up for no reason.  There is no excuse for having David Gregory violate a law and throwing down the 1st Amendment gauntlet at the DC police.  It's as hostile and useless as teabaggers wearing a rifle to a protest and insinuating an armed response to a president that has never done anything to antagonize them.
 
2013-01-13 12:06:51 PM  

GAT_00: Hey look, predictable people with predictable responses.

Lsherm: Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?

I think you can't prove anything from an image on a TV.  But thanks Senator Frist.


Right and all those dumb asses that put crap on youtube and get arrested proves that images on tv are not actionable.LOL
 
2013-01-13 12:10:06 PM  

Mrbogey: severe butthurt over being schooled on how it's not hypocrisy to demand people not be hypocrites.


Kind of like racism.
 
2013-01-13 12:20:05 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Was Gregory found with contraband in his possession?


No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get. See the difference? Jesus, you are slow.
 
2013-01-13 12:28:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Was Gregory found with contraband in his possession?

No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get. See the difference? Jesus, you are slow.


What benefit? Are you under the impression he does the show from his living room?
 
2013-01-13 12:32:54 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get.


Last time i checked, television networks don't use public defenders.
 
2013-01-13 01:27:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Was Gregory found with contraband in his possession?

No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get. See the difference? Jesus, you are slow.

What benefit? Are you under the impression he does the show from his living room?


Is asking stupid questions your new shtick?
 
2013-01-13 01:54:29 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Was Gregory found with contraband in his possession?

No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get. See the difference? Jesus, you are slow.

What benefit? Are you under the impression he does the show from his living room?

Is asking stupid questions your new shtick?


Are we all just asking questions here?
 
2013-01-13 05:31:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get.


If he had them in the capacity of a "regular person" you might have a point. You know, like he got stopped by the police and they found extended mags on his person.
 
2013-01-13 05:58:09 PM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get.

If he had them in the capacity of a "regular person" you might have a point. You know, like he got stopped by the police and they found extended mags on his person.


Show me that exemption in the law. I'll wait for your citation.
 
2013-01-13 07:32:55 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, because law enforcement gave him a benefit that no regular people get.

If he had them in the capacity of a "regular person" you might have a point. You know, like he got stopped by the police and they found extended mags on his person.

Show me that exemption in the law. I'll wait for your citation.


So it's not the same thing which is why the prosecutor declined to pursue the case, your hard-on for Gregory non-withstanding. That's all you had to say.
 
2013-01-13 07:39:44 PM  
I'm also sure you're feeling terrible that they haven't busted everyone smoking a bong on YouTube.
 
2013-01-13 08:20:04 PM  

Fart_Machine: So it's not the same thing which is why the prosecutor declined to pursue the case


[citation needed]

Fart_Machine: I'm also sure you're feeling terrible that they haven't busted everyone smoking a bong on YouTube.


You missed the point again, that's so weird!
 
2013-01-13 09:07:43 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: So it's not the same thing which is why the prosecutor declined to pursue the case

[citation needed]


"Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.

It's in the article for the thread. I know reading is hard.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You missed the point again, that's so weird!


More like you failed to get the point. Not surprising really.
 
2013-01-14 09:06:07 AM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: So it's not the same thing which is why the prosecutor declined to pursue the case

[citation needed]

"Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.


Because simple possession by anyone else indicates they're on their way to murder someone. You're an idiot, or habitually, willfully obtuse.

Fart_Machine: More like you failed to get the point. Not surprising really.


Hooray, more projection!
 
2013-01-14 10:56:00 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because simple possession by anyone else indicates they're on their way to murder someone. You're an idiot, or habitually, willfully obtuse.


Farking context how does it work? If you don't understand then you're the idiot, not me.
 
2013-01-14 12:49:42 PM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because simple possession by anyone else indicates they're on their way to murder someone. You're an idiot, or habitually, willfully obtuse.

Farking context how does it work? If you don't understand then you're the idiot, not me.


You might want to expand that little debating flowchart you apparently have. It should consist of more than "did you get caught saying something stupid" --> "insult them"
 
2013-01-14 12:59:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You might want to expand that little debating flowchart you apparently have. It should consist of more than "did you get caught saying something stupid" --> "insult them"


BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're an idiot


Indeed. Go away troll.
 
2013-01-14 01:13:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You might want to expand that little debating flowchart you apparently have. It should consist of more than "did you get caught saying something stupid" --> "insult them"

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're an idiot

Indeed. Go away troll.


Because simple possession by anyone else indicates they're on their way to murder someone. You're an idiot, or habitually, willfully obtuse.

Oh look, you cut out the whole point I made. You should do editing for cable news, you'd fit right in.
 
2013-01-14 01:18:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You might want to expand that little debating flowchart you apparently have. It should consist of more than "did you get caught saying something stupid" --> "insult them"

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're an idiot

Indeed. Go away troll.

Because simple possession by anyone else indicates they're on their way to murder someone. You're an idiot, or habitually, willfully obtuse.

Oh look, you cut out the whole point I made. You should do editing for cable news, you'd fit right in.


Gregory wasn't charged because the DC Attorney General took into context that it wasn't "simple possession". You were caught saying something stupid and insulted me for pointing it out. Find another bridge. Thanks.
 
Displayed 409 of 409 comments

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