did david gregory break the law on meet the press holding up that magazine

[Valerie]

"The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm".

I'll go get a contract killer for a bitch I know, but the guy is an undercover cop. So, the law is not "against" me because I caused no harm.

The fact that you are serious is hysterical.

No you.

I have no idea what that means. Really.

In the event I should take you seriously, I will attempt to explain. I am also hysterical because I can't believe you are serious.

 

[Valerie]

Hmm I wonder if all those who want to hang Mr Gregory over this harmless incident aren't also crying over how on earth some violent maniac who had killed his grandma with a hammer somehow gained access to an assault rifle to kill 4 firemen on Christmas eve. In contrast, this thread here seems absolutely fauxrageous...

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

All I meant to say was that the law was not aimed at this incident in particular, but Si knew that already... The law exists and then viola! shit happens and we attempt to apply the law when actual harm is done...

 

[Si modo]

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

All I meant to say was that the law was not aimed at this incident in particular, but Si knew that already... The law exists and then viola! shit happens and we attempt to apply the law when actual harm is done...

So, when I contract a murder with an undercover cop, he turns me in, no harm is done, and I don't have any criminal issues to worry about.

Also, if I drive drunk, but I don't cause any harm, I have no legal issues.

Dayum...you are funny.

 

[Valerie]

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

All I meant to say was that the law was not aimed at this incident in particular, but Si knew that already... The law exists and then viola! shit happens and we attempt to apply the law when actual harm is done...

So, when I contract a murder with an undercover cop, he turns me in, no harm is done, and I don't have any criminal issues to worry about.

Also, if I drive drunk, but I don't cause any harm, I have no legal issues.

Dayum...you are funny.

You're pretty funny. Too bad you fail to stick to the topic. ha ha

 

[Si modo]

All I meant to say was that the law was not aimed at this incident in particular, but Si knew that already... The law exists and then viola! shit happens and we attempt to apply the law when actual harm is done...

So, when I contract a murder with an undercover cop, he turns me in, no harm is done, and I don't have any criminal issues to worry about.

Also, if I drive drunk, but I don't cause any harm, I have no legal issues.

Dayum...you are funny.

You're pretty funny. Too bad you fail to stick to the topic. ha ha

OK. Let's go back to the topic. It is illegal in the District to be in possession of this magazine. There is no exception in the code about whether harm occurred as a result of the possession. It is illegal to be in possession of it in the District. Period.

Capiche?

 

[Valerie]

So, when I contract a murder with an undercover cop, he turns me in, no harm is done, and I don't have any criminal issues to worry about.

Also, if I drive drunk, but I don't cause any harm, I have no legal issues.

Dayum...you are funny.

You're pretty funny. Too bad you fail to stick to the topic. ha ha

OK. Let's go back to the topic. It is illegal in the District to be in possession of this magazine. There is no exception in the code about whether harm occurred as a result of the possession. It is illegal to be in possession of it in the District. Period.

Capiche?

Yo no comprendo...

 

[Politico]

40 pages! This now reeks of desperation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That claim is obviously false. Why should the ATF even be involved in the matter? It's a D.C. Law, not a federal regulation. It's up to the D.C. police to make such a decision, not the ATF.

They don't get it, why would it be under investigation if the police gave Gregory permission to break the law?

Its irrelevant.

The spirit of the law was not broken. His intent was to educate and report.

It is like a man getting a jaywalking ticket becuase he ran across the middle of the street to assist a woman being mugged.

Only wing nuts on both sides of the aisle are up in arms over this...the left adamantly defending him and the right looking to slander him.

His actions do not need defending nor do they warrant slander.

What exactly was his credentials to educate anyone? He's not above the law

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is not illegal to touch this mag if the owner is shitting right there.

you people on the right have lost all perspective on everything

He had it in his possession he broke the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is not illegal to touch this mag if the owner is shitting right there.

you people on the right have lost all perspective on everything

Jeezus TM, just shut up already. You are the dumbest poster on these boards and it is beyond me how you can continually expose yourself and not even notice how dumb you REALLY are!

It is illegal for that magazine to be in DC, REGARDLESS of who owns it or where they are sitting, unless you meet the qualifications outlined in the law.

David Gregory FAILED.

really?

then what about the exceptions in the law which were discussed earlier in the thread you fucking idiot?

certain people were allowed to own them like cops.

pretending this was illegal for DAYS is proof of how insane the right is

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Si modo]

You're pretty funny. Too bad you fail to stick to the topic. ha ha

OK. Let's go back to the topic. It is illegal in the District to be in possession of this magazine. There is no exception in the code about whether harm occurred as a result of the possession. It is illegal to be in possession of it in the District. Period.

Capiche?

Yo no comprendo...

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

hope someone calls the dc atf

If this is the issue of the day, then suicide is the only remedy.

Look, the law is stupid but how can the left want more gun control but yet one of their own violates an existing law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Consultation with police is not a cut-and-dried determination of what's legal or not.
Once again, Police. Do. Not. Make. Laws. What some officer says is legal or illegal is his opinion. The actual decision belongs to the Court.

In little tiny words, whether a cop says something is illegal or not --- doesn't actually make it illegal or not. In other words the police are not David Gregory's fucking parents.

OTOH I think I have my answer about the life forms on your planet....

Are you really THIS stoopid? You act like it is some sort of revelation that police don't make the laws. That isn't in contention and you bringing it up is a really bad attempt at obfuscation. No one is arguin that. What police do is enforce the laws that are written. They have to have knowledge of the laws in order to know what to enforce and what not to enforce. One arrested for breaking a law, THEN it is up to the court system to handle the case. Your argument is that if I ask a policeman if it is OK to drive 100 MPH thru a school zone and he tells me no, I can ignore him because he doesn't make the law. Tell you what gopo, speed thru a school zone and see what happens. When the officer pulls you over, tell him his opinion doesn't matter because he didn't srite the law. Please do it! Report back to the class.

What about when a police officer excuses you and your pregnant wife speeding through traffic to get to the maternity ward? They probably won't give you a speeding ticket and they'd even escort you through! OMG what hypotwits, they "broke the law"!

Was this an emergency? Great straw man you're building.

 

[Valerie]

OK. Let's go back to the topic. It is illegal in the District to be in possession of this magazine. There is no exception in the code about whether harm occurred as a result of the possession. It is illegal to be in possession of it in the District. Period.

Capiche?

Yo no comprendo...

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens? Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world? Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yo no comprendo...

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens? Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world? Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

He is not above thew law. How do you expect to push new laws when you can't even support an old law?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The old slippery slope comes to mind.

 

[Valerie]

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens? Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world? Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

He is not above thew law. How do you expect to push new laws when you can't even support an old law?

How can you expect to be taken seriously on your purportedly harmless agenda to keep gun laws loose by pouncing on this guy for appearing loose with a magazine on a news show designed to merely confront and inform the public on this serious issue?

 

[Si modo]

Yo no comprendo...

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens?

I only get a ticket when caught.

Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world?

Apples and chainsaws: Where was the life or death emergency in this situation?

Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

The aim of this law IS absolutely personal safety, thus why the District decided it is illegal to be in possession of such a magazine and the District code mentions zero exceptions to that law. It doesn't say we only enforce it when ghetto rats, gangs, or guys with low-hanging pants have one. It doesn't say when a decent looking white man wearing a suit and tie on the tube has one, we turn our heads and ignore the law, especially when his employer asked us if he could break the law and we said no (duh).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens? Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world? Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

He is not above thew law. How do you expect to push new laws when you can't even support an old law?

How can you expect to be taken seriously on your purportedly harmless agenda to keep gun laws loose by pouncing on this guy for appearing loose with a magazine on a news show designed to merely confront and inform the public on this serious issue?

Slow down their bucko, I have said the law is stupid, but it is a law and you as a gun grabber should want that law enforced. How can you support more gun control when you can't even support an exist law?

 

[Ernie S.]

Dave has spoken so much, Dave doesn't even remember how Dave started this--
/begin quote



sterculinum publicum!

Did the NBC peacock hold up the magazine?? No... And whether he acted alone or because 7 dwarfs said they cleared it with the government is irrelevant, BECAUSE HE DID THE ACTION.. and his IGNORANCE of the law is not an excuse to break the law.. it does not throw out the FACT that it is an illegal act... it can have influence on something like sentencing, but not as an excuse for guilt..

My God, are you fucking dense

And I told you that these programs don't come together in a vacuum. I have 25 years in broadcasting, I think I might know what I'm talking about. I even let it sink in for several hours and you still don't get it? Dense? Here's some dents

Didn't you declare a unilateral "/end thread" a while back? Wtf?

So, You say you've been in broadcasting for 25 years and we are supposed to believe you? Why should we, when nothing else you have posted here proves that you're intelligent enough to find the same address 2 days in a row, much less for 25 years?