Jump to content

David Gregory Violates D.C. Gun Law on National TV


Scruit

Recommended Posts

Good for him, trying to point out that merely possessing something doesn't mean it will cause harm if your intentions are admirable. Isn't that what gun owners have been stating all along? You have a friend in the media that proves your point and you want him prosecuted for doing something which you believe should be legal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for him, trying to point out that merely possessing something doesn't mean it will cause harm if your intentions are admirable. Isn't that what gun owners have been stating all along? You have a friend in the media that proves your point and you want him prosecuted for doing something which you believe should be legal.

He wants laws enforced. I say enforce them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remember the DC mayor's name, but years ago the DC mayor shot a kid in his swimming pool. With an illegal handgun. Did he get prosecuted? No he did not, that I can remember.

So, the nobility can do what they want, but the peasants and serfs have to abide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought that was Carl Rowan, famous anti-gun crusader. Who owned a gun, it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan#Controversy

Jury deadlocked, not retried.

Got it, I confused this guy with the mayor, who at the time was facing charges of something like cocaine use and possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it, I confused this guy with the mayor, who at the time was facing charges of something like cocaine use and possession.

The one and only Marion Barry. He is a stellar example of how screwed up how people will believe everything in an election. Mr. Barry on top of his drug issues, has had issues with the IRS, illegally awarding contracts, etc., etc. and is still a active member of DC city council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. However considering he held it in his hand and said; "This is a 30 round magazine" if I was on the jury I'd need HIM to prove it was a prop, not the prosecution to prove it wasn't.

But that's not really how it works. You're making the assumption of guilt to prove innocence, not -- how it's written into law.

How do we prove all the food in restaurant adverts are real? Or that Sylvester Stallone really didn't kill all those people?

I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime. I'd rather have that law on the books if only for it to be used as an excuse to be able to tack on some additional consecutive time during sentencing if an extended magazine was used in the commission of a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not really how it works. You're making the assumption of guilt to prove innocence, not -- how it's written into law.

As a member of the jury I would consider him saying; "This is a 30 round magazine" as evidence of guilt. That is not an assumption, that is a confession. That is not "guilty until proven innocent".. That is him starting his trial assumed innocent, and this video and statement is what would convince me that he was guilty.

He would have the opportunity to refute that by providing evidence that the mag was a prop. But he's have to do more than produce a prop mag. He'd have to convince me that the one he was holding was a prop rather than him just going out and finding a prop/nonfunctional mag.

Hoisted by his own petard. So to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not really how it works. You're making the assumption of guilt to prove innocence, not -- how it's written into law.

How do we prove all the food in restaurant adverts are real? Or that Sylvester Stallone really didn't kill all those people?

I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime. I'd rather have that law on the books if only for it to be used as an excuse to be able to tack on some additional consecutive time during sentencing if an extended magazine was used in the commission of a crime.

So illegally using a firearm part for "dramatic manner" is ok but any other use is bad? I thought guns themselves were bad but its ok for him to have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime.

And if you were there, in possession of a high cap magazine and were caught with one, no matter what your excuse or activities, you'd be prosecuted for it.

This is about the hypocrisy of the law and the media, and the absurdity of it, not that what this guy was bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) It's real and he should be prosecuted as I would have been....typical of the media's "us" and "them" mentality.

Or....

B) It's fake and he loses credibility as a journalist. Lying on national TV to create a story. Of course he will get a pass by the zombified public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D.C. police investigating "Meet the Press" over gun prop

Apparently they called first and the police said no. Oops.

And they did it anyways, they must be above the law! I guess that's why its so easy for them to say stricter laws are needed they don't plan on following them anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/11/nbc-david-gregory-no-charge-displaying-ammunition-clip/1827673/

just thought you all should know. so those of us with spot free records can use them as key chains and not be charge, am i right?

What shit. If John Doe got pulled over with that in his back seat and nothing else he'd be charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust"

So is this now an argument in court? I would like to argue the ticket for driving 35 in a 25 down a deserted 4 lane road on WSU campus meets this definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...