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  
•       •       •

7291 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report