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

[Si modo]

And of curse you're the only one in this thread who's ever even been to the District ...

I never said that, either. You seem to have a habit of arguing with yourself.

Speculation nonetheless. This thread is a tiny bubble unnoticed by most of the District, let alone the country. To imagine that it's the stuff of riots is ludicrous navel-gazing.

Unnoticed? It has been in the WaPo every day, also in the Examiner, and of course, in the Times.

It has been on both the morning and evening local news programs as well...for several days.

Go on, tell me more about where I live.

Oh I know exactly where you live. I took pictures. Outside it's like

-- all nice and glisteny and prismy and floppy, but on the inside not so nice:

-- can you see me in the picture? Lower left, real small, with a yellow helmet.

What facts were those that you provided, again?

TIA.

 

[Pogo]

I never said that, either. You seem to have a habit of arguing with yourself.
Unnoticed? It has been in the WaPo every day, also in the Examiner, and of course, in the Times.

It has been on both the morning and evening local news programs as well...for several days.

Go on, tell me more about where I live.

Oh I know exactly where you live. I took pictures. Outside it's like

-- all nice and glisteny and prismy and floppy, but on the inside not so nice:

-- can you see me in the picture? Lower left, real small, with a yellow helmet.

What facts were those that you provided, again?

TIA.

I believe that was the fact that you made a claim you couldn't back up.
De nada.

 

[Si modo]

Oh I know exactly where you live. I took pictures. Outside it's like

-- all nice and glisteny and prismy and floppy, but on the inside not so nice:

-- can you see me in the picture? Lower left, real small, with a yellow helmet.

What facts were those that you provided, again?

TIA.

I believe that was the fact that you made a claim you couldn't back up.
De nada.

*sigh* Lying again.

It's in several links, but here you go....again.

"“Let’s widen the argument out a little bit,” Mr. Gregory said. “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets."

Mr. Gregory works for NBC, ya know. As I said, NBC has already said it was a magazine.

And, the fact they they asked the cops first if they could show one on the tube, denied that, and still did so will not help his/their situation.

Now, why do you want this man to get a pass on "allegedly" lol breaking the District's firearms laws?

 

[bripat9643]

y'all weren't very concerned about law when they outed a CIA agent.

gee... which was more serious?

No undercover agent was "outed," and no law was broken.

 

[Pogo]

What facts were those that you provided, again?

TIA.

I believe that was the fact that you made a claim you couldn't back up.
De nada.

*sigh* Lying again.

It's in several links, but here you go....again.

"“Let’s widen the argument out a little bit,” Mr. Gregory said. “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets."

Mr. Gregory works for NBC, ya know. As I said, NBC has already said it was a magazine.

And, the fact they they asked the cops first if they could show one on the tube, denied that, and still did so will not help his/their situation.

Now, why do you want this man to get a pass on "allegedly" lol breaking the District's firearms laws?

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

 

[Si modo]

I believe that was the fact that you made a claim you couldn't back up.
De nada.

*sigh* Lying again.

It's in several links, but here you go....again.

"“Let’s widen the argument out a little bit,” Mr. Gregory said. “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets."

Mr. Gregory works for NBC, ya know. As I said, NBC has already said it was a magazine.

And, the fact they they asked the cops first if they could show one on the tube, denied that, and still did so will not help his/their situation.

Now, why do you want this man to get a pass on "allegedly" lol breaking the District's firearms laws?

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

 

[Cowman]

Uhh... the gun I own is actual metal.

They make tons of airsoft guns that are called "full metal" every metal part on the real gun is metal on the airsoft gun. Same weight, same appearance.

Even right down to the same etchings and serial numbers like on the real guns, are on mine.

Learn a little something.

Some AK-47's are crafted in the exact same way as real AK-47's with real wood and real metal.

They're awesome.


EDIT: god, why'd you have to mess up the quote.

No no, you miscomprehend. I agreed with your post. See the "thanks"?

That was sarcasm on the other guy, who tried to say that the props are brightly colored and flatly declared what was on the screen was metal. Both are fallacies. That's what I was mocking.

Alright then. I've just read so many posts on other forums and other areas where people claim that replicas of magazines don't exist, and that they have to be colored brightly. False.

 

[paperview]

*sigh* Lying again.

It's in several links, but here you go....again.

"“Let’s widen the argument out a little bit,” Mr. Gregory said. “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets."

Mr. Gregory works for NBC, ya know. As I said, NBC has already said it was a magazine.

And, the fact they they asked the cops first if they could show one on the tube, denied that, and still did so will not help his/their situation.

Now, why do you want this man to get a pass on "allegedly" lol breaking the District's firearms laws?

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

We don't know where that mag is, but you do know, I hope, all he has to do is surrender it, and wa-la, no charge, no prosecution, nothing.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

We don't know where that mag is, but you do know, I hope, all he has to do is surrender it, and wa-la, no charge, no prosecution, nothing.

Really? Perhaps you could show me the code that specifies that.

TIA.

 

[paperview]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

http://mpdc.dc.gov/node/243962

 

[Pogo]

*sigh* Lying again.

It's in several links, but here you go....again.

"“Let’s widen the argument out a little bit,” Mr. Gregory said. “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets."

Mr. Gregory works for NBC, ya know. As I said, NBC has already said it was a magazine.

And, the fact they they asked the cops first if they could show one on the tube, denied that, and still did so will not help his/their situation.

Now, why do you want this man to get a pass on "allegedly" lol breaking the District's firearms laws?

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

It isn't illegal to ask the police for an opinion and then ignore that opinion -- moron. That was your position -- moron. It also isn't illegal to follow other advice from the same cop shop that conflicts with the first. Cops don't make the laws. We established that long ago.

And you still haven't shown where NBC said anything, let alone described the artifact.

Which reminds us, how's that search for the law that says you can't say "fuck you" to a cop coming along -- moron?
:lame2

Me I'm hoping something more newsworthy comes along so we can ditch this moronic junior high school story.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not "passing" anything. I'm looking for facts; all you have here is speculation.

I don't think a talking head going "here's a magazine" necessarily makes it real. I understand metaphor. If that's your evidence, that and the idea that "they asked the cops first", don't ever go into law. That ain't a case.

What I'm looking for (still, all day) is any documentation of this:

"NBC has already said it was a magazine"
Where did NBC say this? When? Who? I'm not aware NBC said anything.

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

It isn't illegal to ask the police for an opinion and then ignore that opinion -- moron. That was your position -- moron.

Liar. Since you have trouble understanding the written word, my position has always been that that little tidbit will not help his case.

It also isn't illegal to follow other advice from the same cop shop that conflicts with the first. Cops don't make the laws. We established that long ago.

Once again, I never said any of that. I don't know if you are confusing me with a different poster or voices in your head.

And you still haven't shown where NBC said anything, let alone described the artifact.

Liar. Try reading post #743.

Which reminds us, how's that search for the law that says you can't say "fuck you" to a cop coming along -- moron?
:lame2

Me I'm hoping something more newsworthy comes along so we can ditch this moronic junior high school story.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-416

 

[Pogo]

Asked and answered, moron.

As to the case, personally it looks like a mountain of evidence already exists. I've confidence that the Metro PD will find plenty more. And, I'm pretty sure there will be more than just Gregory as a plaintiff in this situation and more than just one code violation.

Yes, and asking the Metro PD if they can do something illegal, being told my the Metro PD 'of course not, moron' (paraphrased, of course), then still doing it will not be favorable to their case.

It isn't illegal to ask the police for an opinion and then ignore that opinion -- moron. That was your position -- moron.

Liar. Since you have trouble understanding the written word, my position has always been that that little tidbit will not help his case.

Once again, I never said any of that. I don't know if you are confusing me with a different poster or voices in your head.

And you still haven't shown where NBC said anything, let alone described the artifact.

Liar. Try reading post #743.

Which reminds us, how's that search for the law that says you can't say "fuck you" to a cop coming along -- moron?
:lame2

Me I'm hoping something more newsworthy comes along so we can ditch this moronic junior high school story.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-416

Read your 743, nothing there. Just your moronic “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets." statement by David Gregory. And thanks for that worthless pursuit, there's nine seconds I'll never get back.

I just handed your rhetorical ass to you.

Now, did I just literally hand you your own literal ass? Get it yet?

"David Gregory" is not the same thing as "NBC". Just as "Si Modo" is not the same thing as "All Morons Inc". What he says at some moment in an interview is not the same thing as what NBC says as a corporation.

Busted and bankrupt.

Pfft.

 

[Pogo]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

....aaaaand that is a wrap.

Si Modo will be crushed. Ever see a Bassethound cry? It's hard to tell actually.

Thanks for the rep, it's just common sense brought in to exorcise the House of Contrarianism though.

 

[Si modo]

It isn't illegal to ask the police for an opinion and then ignore that opinion -- moron. That was your position -- moron.

Liar. Since you have trouble understanding the written word, my position has always been that that little tidbit will not help his case.

Once again, I never said any of that. I don't know if you are confusing me with a different poster or voices in your head.

Liar. Try reading post #743.

Which reminds us, how's that search for the law that says you can't say "fuck you" to a cop coming along -- moron?
:lame2

Me I'm hoping something more newsworthy comes along so we can ditch this moronic junior high school story.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-416

Read your 743, nothing there. Just your moronic “So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets." statement by David Gregory. And thanks for that worthless pursuit, there's nine seconds I'll never get back.

I just handed your rhetorical ass to you.

Now, did I just literally hand you your own literal ass? Get it yet?

"David Gregory" is not the same thing as "NBC". Just as "Si Modo" is not the same thing as "All Morons Inc". What he says at some moment in an interview is not the same thing as what NBC says as a corporation.

Busted and bankrupt.

Pfft.

David Gregory works for NBC, retard.

 

[bripat9643]

....aaaaand that is a wrap.

Si Modo will be crushed. Ever see a Bassethound cry? It's hard to tell actually.

Thanks for the rep, it's just common sense brought in to exorcise the House of Contrarianism though.

Si Modo kicked your ass, fool. But that's no great accomplishment. Everyone kicks your ass.

 

[Si modo]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

Thanks you. However, that applies to the person who surrenders the weapon or other prohibited firearm accessories to be immune from prosecution for that surrender.

It does not excuse their previously being nabbed in possession of the prohibited firearm. And, I'm sure you'll note that it is a anonymous process.

 

[Too Tall]

touching one on TV is NOT the same as owning one you silly fools

The law does not use the word own, it uses the word possess. Holding the magazine up for display qualifies as possession.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

I don't think this protects someone who was not intending on surrendering their firearm.
Hell all a person has to do if caught is say I was going to turn it in.

For this prevision of the DC code Gregory would have to show that he was intending to turn it in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms
If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief of Police any firearm, destructive device or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this section with respect to the firearm, destructive device, or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person’s residence or place of business. Every firearm and destructive device to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view. No person who delivers and abandons a firearm, destructive device, or ammunition under this section, shall be required to furnish identification, photographs or fingerprints. No amount of money shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered and abandoned under this section.

D.C. Official Code § 7-2507.05 (a)) XI. Voluntary Surrender of Firearms

Firearm Registration General Requirements - Study Guide | mpdc

Thanks you. However, that applies to the person who surrenders the weapon or other prohibited firearm accessories to be immune from prosecution for that surrender.

It does not excuse their previously being nabbed in possession of the prohibited firearm. And, I'm sure you'll note that it is a anonymous process.

I just said that.