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

[BallsBrunswick]

What's obvious is that you wish I was a homosexual. Got a crush on me? Sorry, dont' swing your way nancy.

I'm not gay but even if I was I wouldn't date someone who's mentally handicapped and heavily armed. I think it's interesting you're projecting on me and then asking if I find you attractive though. That's very 7th grade. It's good that you're starting to explore your feelings.

Oh you're not gay? So you act like a pussy why?

Here once again you're asking about sexuality and then trying to view me as a female sexual organ even though I'm clearly a man. My god you are just crawling with latent homosexual tendencies. And I'm just trying to help you figure out why you're such an angry man and why you have so many confused feelings. It's because you're afraid to be you and you're afraid of your true feelings being discovered. But it's alright man, suck a dick and be liberated. The childhood you grew up in where it was beaten into you that you couldn't be a homosexual is dead.

 

[jtpr312]

I'm not gay but even if I was I wouldn't date someone who's mentally handicapped and heavily armed. I think it's interesting you're projecting on me and then asking if I find you attractive though. That's very 7th grade. It's good that you're starting to explore your feelings.

Oh you're not gay? So you act like a pussy why?

Here once again you're asking about sexuality and then trying to view me as a female sexual organ even though I'm clearly a man. My god you are just crawling with latent homosexual tendencies. And I'm just trying to help you figure out why you're such an angry man and why you have so many confused feelings. It's because you're afraid to be you and you're afraid of your true feelings being discovered. But it's alright man, suck a dick and be liberated. The childhood you grew up in where it was beaten into you that you couldn't be a homosexual is dead.

Once again you show us your lack of vocabulary skils. Let me help you out puss.

pussy-A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.


See I even underlined the portions that apply to you.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Oh you're not gay? So you act like a pussy why?

Here once again you're asking about sexuality and then trying to view me as a female sexual organ even though I'm clearly a man. My god you are just crawling with latent homosexual tendencies. And I'm just trying to help you figure out why you're such an angry man and why you have so many confused feelings. It's because you're afraid to be you and you're afraid of your true feelings being discovered. But it's alright man, suck a dick and be liberated. The childhood you grew up in where it was beaten into you that you couldn't be a homosexual is dead.

Once again you show us your lack of vocabulary skils. Let me help you out puss.

pussy-A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.


See I even underlined the portions that apply to you.

Yes I realize those are all the things you're running from and you're projecting. But I think it's clear you find me attractive as I'm an intelligent and confident man but you don't know what to do with these feelings. I also think it's telling you react differently towards me than you do other posters. Generally you go off into a paranoid and wannabe tough guy fit screaming that people are faggots and talking about your guns but with me you seem to be subdued and you keep trying to view me as a female to fit into your conscious view that was beaten into you as a child that homosexuality was wrong but also your unconscious view that you just really really want a dick inside of you. I appreciate your child like efforts at flirtation but once again I'm not gay and I think a lot of these issues could be resolved in counseling or you just giving in on your multiple decade struggle and just take it up the ass.

 

[Si modo]

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

We'll see what a judge, the one in authority to decide that, thinks. I'm not so sure it will wash all that well, especially when NBC was told by the cops not to do it, yet they still did it. I do believe there is another code concerning that, too. It's a blatant disrespect for the law. Sorry ironic as well.

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all (nor is it against the law-- "you can't legislate respect", sayeth Captain Obvious). We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

Well, good thing Gregory showed the illegal magazine in the District and not Virginia. I can get charges if I tell a cop "fuck you" and I can charges if the cop tells me not to do something and I still do it.

Videos are definitely submissable evidence. It has been that way for quite a while.

I definitely think LaPierre will testify, for the prosecution.

Gregory clearly and blatantly broke the law. He doesn't get a passin the District on gun laws simply because he is a white guy in a suit.

 

[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?

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).

That point I was trying to get you to see by using the speeding incident as an example, was to show that sometimes an officer will allow you to break a law and there is no harm in him escorting you over the speed limit to the hospital...

Did you see the NRA President came out and said this whole thing is silly and Gregory should not be charged? BTW - The story also states we STILL don't know whether NBC was granted permission...

David Gregory Should Not Be Prosecuted: NRA President David Keene


You can pound your fist on the table that cops aren't allowed to grant special permission to speeders who are in labor, but that is the point I was trying to get you to see, in that the incident was indeed harmless. The aim of the gun law in question IS personal safety and David Gregory holding up a gun mag as a prop on a news show did not threaten anyone's personal safety.

Those of you who can't see past your partisan noses who assume I came to this thread to stand up for a network or a person are just dumb hacks. I never even knew who this guy was, I was merely responding to a story which I immediately thought was ridiculous on it's face..I laughed and stated my opinion, and all this thread has done is further prove the silliness of those who insist he should be harshly prosecuted.

 

[Si modo]

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.

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).

That point I was trying to get you to see by using the speeding incident as an example, was to show that sometimes an officer will allow you to break a law and there is no harm in him escorting you over the speed limit to the hospital...

Did you see the NRA President came out and said this whole thing is silly and Gregory should not be charged? BTW - The story also states we STILL don't know whether NBC was granted permission...

David Gregory Should Not Be Prosecuted: NRA President David Keene


You can pound your fist on the table that cops aren't allowed to grant special permission to speeders who are in labor, but that is the point I was trying to get you to see, in that the incident was indeed harmless. The aim of the gun law in question IS personal safety and David Gregory holding up a gun mag as a prop on a news show did not threaten anyone's personal safety.

Those of you who can't see past your partisan noses who assume I came to this thread to stand up for a network or a person are just dumb hacks. I never even knew who this guy was, I was merely responding to a story which I immediately thought was ridiculous on it's face..I laughed and stated my opinion, and all this thread has done is further prove the silliness of those who insist he should be harshly prosecuted.

IF the cops granted NBC and Gregory "permission" to break the law - when no life was in imminent danger, either - then I wonder why Metro PD is currently investigating?

 

[Too Tall]

I get mine from Google, which means everywhere. So what? There isn't much on this story, because it's not much of a story.

"The cops are investigating", yeah so that should take about eight minutes. But this is just the point -- it's not an easy win for a DA. I don't know where you get that idea. You have one witness who's visual-only, who may not have even been looking at the object since this question was not the question at the time, and you may have no object.

I guess what I'm saying is you're missing a ... smoking gun Ha! I kill me.

And ...why do you keep harping on David Gregory's race? Nobody else brought that up -- did they?

It's a District law. The majority of the District is Black. The cops take it easy on this white guy in a suit, especially when there were millions of witnesses? The residents will not be pleased.

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

 

[Si modo]

It's a District law. The majority of the District is Black. The cops take it easy on this white guy in a suit, especially when there were millions of witnesses? The residents will not be pleased.

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

Why should this law be ignored?

If it is, every young black man and woman who have already been convicted of this should get an appeal, at a minimum, and sue for discrimination. I doubt the Court is going to want that sort of shit happening.

 

[GuyPinestra]

44 pages, one conclusion.

The hypocrites of the Left are LEGION.

Had this been Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity you guys would be RABID!

I find it all quite humorous.

 

[Valerie]

44 pages, one conclusion.

The hypocrites of the Left are LEGION.

Had this been Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity you guys would be RABID!

I find it all quite humorous.

Tell that to the President of the NRA who agrees with me!

 

[Valerie]

There is one witness, unless you count the camera crew, and I don't think they're close enough to get a good look. Actually you could question the stagehand that brought it up too, but each of these cases depends on that witness being familiar enough with the magazine to definitively state that it is that and not a prop. Rotsa ruck there.

Your "millions" simply saw him pick up "something". If you or I were under oath asked to positively identify what we saw on TV -- we couldn't.

As for the District, while I'm amazed that you propose to speak for black people in DC, I suggest not burning the bridge on the day job, because we all know when there's no case, there's no case. You're projecting again.

This is basically a last-minute entry for silliest story of the year, aiming valiantly for honourable mention. Have some perspective.

What would you be saying if this had been Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that had displayed a 30 round magazine?

And, if this is violation of the DC law is ignored, as it should be, what happens when it becomes a federal law?

How about all of the assault weapons used in movies? Will they continue to be exempt from the law?

So many questions, so few answers.

Why should this law be ignored?

If it is, every young black man and woman who have already been convicted of this should get an appeal, at a minimum, and sue for discrimination. I doubt the Court is going to want that sort of shit happening.

I don't know why you want to bring race and discrimination into this? Each circumstance is different and as I said yesterday, this law has a range of punishments for a reason. I read an article someone posted at the very beginning of this thread which cited the punishments for breaking this particular law can range from a fine up to the most severe, depending on the circumstances...

 

[Valerie]

I only get a ticket when caught.

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

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).

That point I was trying to get you to see by using the speeding incident as an example, was to show that sometimes an officer will allow you to break a law and there is no harm in him escorting you over the speed limit to the hospital...

Did you see the NRA President came out and said this whole thing is silly and Gregory should not be charged? BTW - The story also states we STILL don't know whether NBC was granted permission...

David Gregory Should Not Be Prosecuted: NRA President David Keene


You can pound your fist on the table that cops aren't allowed to grant special permission to speeders who are in labor, but that is the point I was trying to get you to see, in that the incident was indeed harmless. The aim of the gun law in question IS personal safety and David Gregory holding up a gun mag as a prop on a news show did not threaten anyone's personal safety.

Those of you who can't see past your partisan noses who assume I came to this thread to stand up for a network or a person are just dumb hacks. I never even knew who this guy was, I was merely responding to a story which I immediately thought was ridiculous on it's face..I laughed and stated my opinion, and all this thread has done is further prove the silliness of those who insist he should be harshly prosecuted.

IF the cops granted NBC and Gregory "permission" to break the law - when no life was in imminent danger, either - then I wonder why Metro PD is currently investigating?

Because some rabid ninnies from the blogosphere complained and forced them to...

 

[beretta304]

That point I was trying to get you to see by using the speeding incident as an example, was to show that sometimes an officer will allow you to break a law and there is no harm in him escorting you over the speed limit to the hospital...

Did you see the NRA President came out and said this whole thing is silly and Gregory should not be charged? BTW - The story also states we STILL don't know whether NBC was granted permission...

David Gregory Should Not Be Prosecuted: NRA President David Keene


You can pound your fist on the table that cops aren't allowed to grant special permission to speeders who are in labor, but that is the point I was trying to get you to see, in that the incident was indeed harmless. The aim of the gun law in question IS personal safety and David Gregory holding up a gun mag as a prop on a news show did not threaten anyone's personal safety.

Those of you who can't see past your partisan noses who assume I came to this thread to stand up for a network or a person are just dumb hacks. I never even knew who this guy was, I was merely responding to a story which I immediately thought was ridiculous on it's face..I laughed and stated my opinion, and all this thread has done is further prove the silliness of those who insist he should be harshly prosecuted.

IF the cops granted NBC and Gregory "permission" to break the law - when no life was in imminent danger, either - then I wonder why Metro PD is currently investigating?

Because some rabid ninnies from the blogosphere complained and forced them to...

So complaint or not, he should be allowed to break the law? I wonder if big mouth Hannity would get away with it without left wing "ninnies" complaining.

 

[kwc57]

Dave has spoken!

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

It was not NBC who did the action.. NBC is not a person... this Gregory guy did the action, and is responsible for his own actions (something leftists do not like to hear)

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

At what point has that fact been in contention?

 

[Ernie S.]

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all. We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

Oh, I think LaPierre would be very willing to testify.

Video is sure as hell evidence, unless there is a problem with chain of custody. That's not going to happen.

It is sure looking like a lot of folks want to excuse white guys in suits who break this law. Hmmmmm.

Oh I don't think so, it would be a conflict of interest for him. And for the NRA, which has been relentlessly pushing the case against such laws.

NRA president David Keene said Thursday that David Gregory should not be prosecuted over the gun magazine he showed on "Meet the Press."

...Keene appeared on CNN on Thursday. When asked if he believed Gregory should be prosecuted, he responded, "No, I don't think so."

He said that Gregory's actions showed that owning a magazine is "a silly felony." He continued, "I really think what David Gregory did while he was inadvertently flouting the law was illustrating in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are."

-- David Gregory Should Not be Prosecuted

The NRA may be a great many things, a great many of them evil, but they're not stupid.

And no I don't think video is evidence. Whatever he was holding looked to me like a section from a child's race car game. You can't prove what it was from a video. As for "chain of custody", where do you see a seizure? This idea wasn't even brought up until the show was over and everybody left. You're trying to recreate an incident from the past with nothing to go on but a video. And you have one witness, who's in no position to testify for the prosecution, and has an interest in the defense.

How's that for irony? The NRA could testify in David Gregory's defense. Such is the circus when the rabid go in pursuit of political prisoners.

You claim 25 years in broadcasting and state that LaPierre was the only witness. The bullshit is deep, possum boy.

 

[Ernie S.]

That point I was trying to get you to see by using the speeding incident as an example, was to show that sometimes an officer will allow you to break a law and there is no harm in him escorting you over the speed limit to the hospital...

Did you see the NRA President came out and said this whole thing is silly and Gregory should not be charged? BTW - The story also states we STILL don't know whether NBC was granted permission...

David Gregory Should Not Be Prosecuted: NRA President David Keene


You can pound your fist on the table that cops aren't allowed to grant special permission to speeders who are in labor, but that is the point I was trying to get you to see, in that the incident was indeed harmless. The aim of the gun law in question IS personal safety and David Gregory holding up a gun mag as a prop on a news show did not threaten anyone's personal safety.

Those of you who can't see past your partisan noses who assume I came to this thread to stand up for a network or a person are just dumb hacks. I never even knew who this guy was, I was merely responding to a story which I immediately thought was ridiculous on it's face..I laughed and stated my opinion, and all this thread has done is further prove the silliness of those who insist he should be harshly prosecuted.

IF the cops granted NBC and Gregory "permission" to break the law - when no life was in imminent danger, either - then I wonder why Metro PD is currently investigating?

Because some rabid ninnies from the blogosphere complained and forced them to...

Call up George Zimmerman and complain to him about that...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Typical of rw's that they are in favor of letting criminals, illegals and terrorists buy any guns they want but go all to pieces over a journalist holding an empty gun magazine.

 

[beretta304]

Typical of rw's that they are in favor of letting criminals, illegals and terrorists buy any guns they want but go all to pieces over a journalist holding an empty gun magazine.

 

[Ernie S.]

Typical of rw's that they are in favor of letting criminals, illegals and terrorists buy any guns they want but go all to pieces over a journalist holding an empty gun magazine.

Where has anyone on the right advocated "letting criminals, illegals and terrorists buy any guns they want"?

The bills the left propose don't even address criminals, illegals and terrorists. They seek to limit weapons and magazine capacities in weapons legally purchased.
It is already against the law for criminals, illegals and terrorists to own firearms. Another law only restricts the rights of citizens while doing nothing to address the problem other than to make the libs feel good about themselves and getting one step closer to total disarmament.

 

[lukelk]

yes he broke the law, but being a liberal socialist working for Pravda West, he is exempt.

which law did he break?