|Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Your grasping at straws is getting funnier by the moment.
I did not in any way say what you claim. I did not try to "excuse" any criminal behavior by "the elite" - nor did I at any point say or imply that my hypothetical should be any DIFFERENT if Joe Blow had borrowed a magazine from a D.C. cop (say for a magazine photo shoot, or an art project or anything like that).
In fact, I have previously given examples of a D.C. cop letting a kid shoot his duty weapon. So BY MY OWN WORDS, clearly I am not talking about something that should be okay for "the elite" but not for the average person, because the very example I gave to make my point involved a kid being allowed to shoot a gun.
So, either so are unable to read and comprehend simple English, or your argument is now so weak, that you are forced to LIE about what I have been saying.
This entire time, I have merely pointed out that IF
they temporarily borrowed a magazine from law enforcement, then it does not seem to be any kind of serious crime, even though as a technicality, of course the argument could be made. Furthermore, my point has also been that no prosecutor or judge would ever take this seriously, no more than a prosecutor or judge would take someone seriously that claimed a kid should be charged with a felony, if a cop let the kid shoot his gun. My ENTIRE POINT is based on a purely hypothetical case (that may not even be true). As I have repeatedly stated
- and you apparently have trouble comprehending - if it turns out that he got the magazine somewhere other than on loan from law enforcement, of course he should be charged with a crime
I have been saying the same thing consistently, and you have been getting more and more bizarre in your desperate attempt to try to make some ludicrous point about my HYPOTHETICAL situation.
I GET the fact that you want to be as petty and silly as the antis, in some attempt to try to win the battle or propaganda and perception. But, wars of principle are NOT won by being petty and silly. Gun rights have been moving in the RIGHT direction for the past 15 years or so, and all along, WE have been principled, and THEY have been getting more and more shrill and hysterical.
If you want to adopt those tactics, knock yourself out. But please don't tell lies about what I am saying. My words in this thread are clear for anyone to read, and NOWHERE did I make the argument that (in my hypothetical case) the "temporary borrowing" should only be okay for "the elite" - in fact, I was very specific in my example of the child, that I meant the logic to apply to anyone.
Feel free to apologize for the bullshit you posted, but given your posts in this thread, I won't be holding my breath.
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.
IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.
My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.
IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.
A crime is a crime is a crime. There is nothing in DC's law that exempts individuals who have LE's blessing. We are not a third world dictatorship where the law is subjectively applied because some elitist gun-grabbing Libtard wants to make a point. To believe that puts the Liberal ideology above law and ultimately reason. It's just like Bloomtard calling for an LE strike demanding gun control which he claims will make his city safe. How many Americans would have been robbed, raped, and murdered in an LE strike?!??!! Again, agenda before law and reason.
If you would stop digging yourself in you would realize I am the one being principled. This "journalist" wanted to make 30 rounders appear dangerous, easy to get, and in need of regulation. He told a lie. That lie was also a crime because the narrative he is trying to create is wholly different from reality in the District of Columbia.
If all men are held to the same standard, the world becomes more just. If Liberals want to create laws, they should have to live by those laws. The great lie of Liberalism, as illustrated in the last election, is that there is a "free lunch." Someone else will pay and you are exempt. It is a reality of special people with special privileges.
Go ahead and give them quarter. They'll give you none--you aren't one of their special people.
And you want me to apologize to you?
Why don't you back us up and help us fight these people in every way possible instead of making excuses?