User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:06:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Is it a felony? Can you make a citizen's arrest in DC? I bet I can catch him....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:10:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Arfcom should prepare for the wrath of NBC, and be on alert.
Remember, as liberals, they will not just get angry or talk - they will act in ways to punish. I just don't know if they understand who they're messing with. "Back-firing" is a very small and inadequate description of how this will blow up in their faces. I use the Fight Club analogy "We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:11:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Dear NRA:
Please take all that money I sent you last week and put it towards "Wanted" ads for David Gregory - preferably running during MTP. This is a golden opportunity to drive home the enforcement issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:14:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Is it a felony? Can you make a citizen's arrest in DC? I bet I can catch him.... If you perform a citizen's arrest , I will send a donation in your name to the Adopt a Penguin Fund through the World Wildlife Foundation. ETA You think I'm shitting you don't you. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgifts.worldwildlife.org%2Fgift-center%2Fgifts%2FSpecies-Adoptions%2FEmperor-Penguin.aspx&ei=W8jXUP-XKofk8gTZsYGoDA&usg=AFQjCNHjQbs5rPGoxIPjkNwRgF7HLIhECA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&cad=rja |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:15:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Is it a felony? Can you make a citizen's arrest in DC? I bet I can catch him.... Just sit outside Sidwell Friends and notify one of the 11 armed guards when he pulls up to drop off the kiddies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:17:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: CA =/= DCHere is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:19:24 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:21:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do these assholes think reloading is such a big deal anyway. This kook reloaded many times. So what if he has to do it a few more. It only takes a few seconds. Getting rid of 30 round mags will do nothing. Come on. If it's not a big deal, then why are we fighting tooth and nail to avoid having neutered magazines? Incrementalism. Start small and whittle it down. If you can get someone to accept the logic, then its just a matter of degree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:21:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
CA =/= DC
Here is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 No, see, DC is Federal, so they can enforce any state law that they want! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:26:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Was he in dc ? Be could do a interview from any studio.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:35:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do these assholes think reloading is such a big deal anyway. This kook reloaded many times. So what if he has to do it a few more. It only takes a few seconds. Getting rid of 30 round mags will do nothing. Come on. If it's not a big deal, then why are we fighting tooth and nail to avoid having neutered magazines? It IS a big deal when you are fighting an armed assailant, or frankly anyone that intends to do you harm. If you have 2 armed people in break into your house, you are going to be very happy that you have that many rounds available without having to commit a magazine change. Do you know when it DOESN'T matter? When you are murdering 7- 8 year old children. The shooter at VTech performed 17 mag changes during his rampage. And he was able to do so unimpeded because he was murdering unarmed college students and staff. Does anyone honestly think that if the shooter was restricted to 5 round magazines the outcome in Sandy Hook would have been much different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:53:42 PM EDT
[#12]
Just emailed the DC police this
Gentleman, This morning Mr Gregory was in possesion of a AR-15 magazine on national TV, which is in violation of D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 This is a felony offense as per DC laws, see below: "DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines - D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.�." Several citizens have been prosecuted under your unconstitutional gun laws and just because he is a reporter he should not get a pass. I do not like your laws, but if you pulled me over and I had a AR-15 mag I would go to jail and have to spend countless dollars to get my sentence reduced/stay out of jail. Would a "I didnt know"save me??? Or can I too get permission to posses 30rd mags while in DC?? Heck no, you would throw me in jail and say..tell it to the Judge. I ask you do one of two things: Prosecute him or get rid of the law Its your duty to do the right thing, I would rather you just drop the law, but if not he needs to be held accountable. Thanks for your time Joe |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:09:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Was he in dc ? Be could do a interview from any studio. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Meet the Press is filmed in the DC studios of WRC TV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRC-TV#Programs |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:16:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its awesome this made it on drudge and elsewhere, hopefully something comes of it. I just wish LaPierre had pointed that out on national TV. It would have been a legendary moment on TV. Ted would have I signed the petition and sent it to everyone I know HIT IT i just signed it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:16:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Just emailed the DC police this Gentleman, This morning Mr Gregory was in possesion of a AR-15 magazine on national TV, which is in violation of D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 This is a felony offense as per DC laws, see below: "DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines - D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term �large capacity ammunition feeding device� shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.�." Several citizens have been prosecuted under your unconstitutional gun laws and just because he is a reporter he should not get a pass. I do not like your laws, but if you pulled me over and I had a AR-15 mag I would go to jail and have to spend countless dollars to get my sentence reduced/stay out of jail. Would a "I didnt know"save me??? Or can I too get permission to posses 30rd mags while in DC?? Heck no, you would throw me in jail and say..tell it to the Judge. I ask you do one of two things: Prosecute him or get rid of the law Its your duty to do the right thing, I would rather you just drop the law, but if not he needs to be held accountable. Thanks for your time Joe Very nice! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:20:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Has anyone tried phoning in the report to the DC police yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:21:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a thread around here discussing cnn's Don Lemon perjuring himself on the 4473 when he purchased an ar15 in Colorado. It is something about residency. Don't know if he did, but we should check into both of this maybe. Where's Don Lemon a resident of at all? If he's from NY now, he's probably in violation of several of their state laws, too. Edit: Disregard. He's from Georgia, apparently. Legal for long guns. Nevermind. It's only legal to buy long guns in neighboring states. Any other states and it has to go through a dealer in your state of residence. Huh? If you are a say Florida resident it is illegal to buy a gun while you are in Nevada. The only legal way to do it is like buying over the internet, you pay for it at the dealer in NV and he ships it to your local dealer in FL where you fill out the 4473 and do the background check. That is not true and has been cleared up here before. There is nothing in federal law about restricting long gun sales to neighboring states. A few states require it to be a neighboring state, but most don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:24:54 PM EDT
[#18]
OODA, things may look a bit different when you log out and log back in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:25:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Has anyone tried phoning in the report to the DC police yet? Someone in this thread posted they had phoned it into the DC gun snitch line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:26:16 PM EDT
[#20]
I doubt if the police do anything about it other then have a good chuckle, especially if his kids go to school with Obama's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:27:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anyone tried phoning in the report to the DC police yet? Someone in this thread posted they had phoned it into the DC gun snitch line. And someone just blabbed about it on the Bill Cunningham show, so lets hope it gets some momentum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:31:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Has anyone contacted LE or NBC about this? I say get this out to as many outlets as possible, If a law abiding person did something similar, the media would have already convicted them. Hell, Zimmerman was pretty much guilty by the media before he was taken to the police station.
I've never seen gun control issues like this before and us as gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment must do what he can to preserve our rights. So if that includes nailing the anti's with violation of laws, even better. We must not let up, we must show discredit to their reporting. Yes people in general wont care or the media will sweep it under a rug, but if we continue to hammer them the tide may turn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:32:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... My point is merely that IF (and obviously it's a big 'if") the news organization went to the police, and the police loaned them a mag for the duration of the story, and then they returned it, then the "outrage" at their flaunting of the law seems a little manufactured to me. All this "outrage" just seems petty and silly to me, as a way of nailing someone for a technicality, mostly because we don't LIKE the guy. (I'm not saying that's what you are saying, but that's the feeling that I get from a lot of posters in this thread). No, it seems we don't all know what possession means. But many of our "conversations" get dragged down into the trivial and petty nuances so your response is no surprise... It is kind of strange to see someone manufacture a defense for the antis and then defend them so vigorously (in this environment). He broke the law. PERIOD. How many gun owners have lost years of their lives for petty violations and victimless crimes they weren't even aware they committed? 
You've exposed me! I'm secretly Diane Feinstein's account!!! You got caught trying to excuse the hypocrisy of the elite antis. Only for me, not for thee 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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:42:59 PM EDT
[#24]
I know I am late but I like how these "newscasters" or show hosts have an earpiece in and 20 guys behind a curtain telling them what questions to ask or what points to bring up  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:45:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are people in prison for felon in possession for merely having finger prints found on a weapon they never owned, used , or even fired We're not talking about someone saying a cop GAVE it to him, and basically owning it or having it long-term I'm talking about a reporter TEMPORARILY BORROWING one for the brief time to shoot a news story and then returning it. In that hypothetical case, it's not clear that it would rise to the standard of "possesssing" that would be enough for a prosecutor or judge to gie a shit about. My point is that it wouldn't really be any different from a cop at the range letting some kid shoot his AR or something like that. Obviously that kid is not in illegal possession of an AR for the few minutes e is holding it. The argument would become so technical that it would be pointless. If a cop had let David Gregory touch a magazine, is that a crime? What about if he left him hold it for 5 minutes? What about loaning it for 2 hours? What if a cop was AT the studio, just off-camera? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that TECHNICALLY a law might have been broken, but it would be in such an ambiguous way that no judge or prosecutor would care ... IF in fact we are talking about borrowing it temporarily from law enforcement. How did their prints get on the weapon? they picked it up just like Mr Gregory did with this magazine I was just stating that in the past merely holding a item has constituted possession if the powers that be would like to pursue it and in this case there is video to go along with it |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:47:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Signed, #510
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:51:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
CA =/= DC
Here is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 I know, and all Gregory meant to show was how easy it was to get one in Washington D.C. CA legislators are the most prolific and thorough bunch of law makers on earth when it comes to guns. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 7:54:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the same thing . But he prob got it from local law enforcement. It looks fairly used. Yup... that's my thought. But who knows? That is a good point. How is it a good point? He is in possession of a prohibited item. There is no exemption in the law because you know somebody or got it from LE. All it proves is a cop broke the law by transferring a prohibited item and something that might be department property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 8:29:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Is there any evidence that the mag was functional or an actual 30 rounder (as opposed to a pinned 10 rounder)?
Unless the reporter came into the mag illegally, this is just silly. If a reporter went to a police evidence locker to do a story about drugs and touched a baggy of drugs to set up some pictures, should the reporter go to jail for "possession". Dollars to donuts this mag was either property of the DC police (or other law enforcement agency) and the cop was in the studio (so no one would get hurt by the dangerous mag) or it was non-functioning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 8:32:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Is there any evidence that the mag was functional or an actual 30 rounder (as opposed to a pinned 10 rounder)? Unless the reporter came into the mag illegally, this is just silly. If a reporter went to a police evidence locker to do a story about drugs and touched a baggy of drugs to set up some pictures, should the reporter go to jail for "possession". Dollars to donuts this mag was either property of the DC police (or other law enforcement agency) and the cop was in the studio (so no one would get hurt by the dangerous mag) or it was non-functioning. I don't know, the mag looks legit. It needs to be investigated, I don't want illegal mags on the street. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 8:38:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Is there any evidence that the mag was functional or an actual 30 rounder (as opposed to a pinned 10 rounder)? Unless the reporter came into the mag illegally, this is just silly. If a reporter went to a police evidence locker to do a story about drugs and touched a baggy of drugs to set up some pictures, should the reporter go to jail for "possession". Dollars to donuts this mag was either property of the DC police (or other law enforcement agency) and the cop was in the studio (so no one would get hurt by the dangerous mag) or it was non-functioning. He said it was a 30 rounder... and he held up an actual 10 rounder afterwards. Occam's razor, a well as Gregory's words and easy visual confirmation suggest that it was indeed what he said it was. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, David Gregory said it was a duck, then he held up a chicken to compare it to, saying "this isn't a duck" about 10 seconds later in the segment. It's probably a duck. Gun laws are byzantine - and it should come as no shock that those seeking more of them don't realize they're violating them. That's much of the point of calling it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2012 10:53:36 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 1:34:33 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: OODA, things may look a bit different when you log out and log back in. good man  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:13:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was he in dc ? Be could do a interview from any studio. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Meet the Press is filmed in the DC studios of WRC TV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRC-TV#Programs And I believe Wayne LaPierre mentioned "This town" in reference to DC during the interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:22:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Both mags. 
Oh, and he knows it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 2:41:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
On Drudge: Ha Here's the page the Drudge link connected to http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/david-gregory-violates-dc-gun-law-on-national-tv/ Somewhere around 230,000 views or so for just that single page. No freakin' clue how much traffic for everywhere else it's been picked up by and how far out it's gotten now, obviously. Can't stop the signal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:18:39 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Here is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 Are the MTP studios in California? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 3:45:38 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 Are the MTP studios in California? Nope, DC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:14:13 AM EDT
[#39]
David is probably meeting with NBC legal this morning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 4:49:21 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
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.
Alinksy's Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Seems to work pretty effectively. Most of the converts I make are because I point out how silly gun laws are, and how serious the penalties for breaking them are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 5:05:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Not being carried by the "major" networks yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 6:33:14 AM EDT
[#42]
It would be hilarious to see video of him 'splaining this to a pissed-off judge on Christmas morning....lol...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 6:47:32 AM EDT
[#43]
I just shot FNC an email asking why they are not investigating this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 6:49:47 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is an excerpt from CA law. Not a violation. (31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes: (A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production. (B) For export pursuant to federal regulations. (C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations. -- SeanNewton - 29 Oct 2007 Are the MTP studios in California? Nope, DC Exactly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 8:35:29 AM EDT
[#45]
Seeing more and more press about this today. Keep up the pressure, emails, and hpone calls boys! We need to keep the pressure on him and the enforcement agencies. If nothing else, a statement from NBC, Himself, or law enforcement needs to be made, but I demand justiice!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 10:34:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Needs cock sauce...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 10:36:33 AM EDT
[#47]
Cliff notes please:
Did this fuckstick get charged with a crime yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:10:21 AM EDT
[#48]
I looked up the code online and there do not seem to be any exceptions for educational purposes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:22:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
[snip] 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.
You said... Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2012 11:38:45 AM EDT
[#50]
This is black and white, open and shut.
He's guilty. Busted right on TV. The only remaining issue is if LE will do the right thing, or the political thing. LE exists to enforce laws, failing to enforce this "in your face" violation will make LE inept or complicit. Which is it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
