December 28, 2012

"Gregory had no intent to commit a crime; he was committing journalism instead."

"Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for Gregory to be prosecuted?"

Asks Howard Kurtz, with amazing naivete. The implied argument is quite weird and perverse.

First, he's got this either/or premise: If you're doing one thing, you're not doing something else. If you're doing journalism, you can't also be doing something else. That might make sense if the crime in question had a required mental element that would be negated by the intent to "commit journalism," but it doesn't. Mere possession is enough. The most virtuous individuals with the best intentions get stuck with this law applying to them. If you don't like that, then you don't like this law. You've got an objection to the law, and yet, ironically, Gregory was arguing for more laws like that! That was the nature of the "journalism" he was "committing." He ought to be the first one prosecuted, not the last.

Second, Kurtz, a journalist himself, is mired the same sense of entitlement that people are objecting to in Gregory. He thinks journalists are special people who float above it all, who don't live in reality. You are the very people who are supposed to be observing reality, understanding it, and explaining it. But you don't even see that you are part of it. You have less awareness of it than the people you're getting paid to inform. Maybe you think you're just too important to have your time wasted by consequences that would befall ordinary people. You need to be free to continue to sit there mouthing outrage about the next terrible thing that befalls some ordinary person out there in the real world.

Third, Kurtz thinks he's caught others in hypocrisy. If gun owners want the government to leave them alone, why would they want Gregory to be prosecuted? It's like Kurtz wants us to laugh in his face. Yet he seems to think he's being quite clever. Why would he think that? Puzzling, isn't it? My only answer is that he does not believe in the rule of law. It doesn't occur to him that what gun owners who "want the government to leave them alone" want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment. Why should these people like it if one privileged, prominent man escapes prosecution? The laws remain, affecting everyone else, even as the oppressiveness of the laws is falsely minimized.

375 comments:

1 – 200 of 375   Newer›   Newest»
EMD said...

What passes for journalism is a crime.

EDH said...

And these are the people who accuse conservative "Tea Party-types" of living in a bubble.

Bruce Hayden said...

And, fourth, he did intentionally commit the crime - his staff apparently called up the D.C. police to ask if he could pull his stunt, and was told that it was illegal. Did it any way. About as open and shut a case of intent as you can find. Not that ignorance of the law is a real excuse, but sometimes you can get some leniency by credibly claiming ignorance. Not here.

MadisonMan said...

So could a journalist kill someone in the name of Journalism?

edutcher said...

To answer the question, because they're sick of the hypocrisy and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

X said...

Howard Kurtz is journalism's retarded Diogenes, looking for a biased man, never finding one.

Matthew Sablan said...

I -want- to parody journalists, they just make it so damn hard.

SteveR said...

They're not getting it, they're not getting it still, perhaps they never will.

Ann Althouse said...

"So could a journalist kill someone in the name of Journalism?"

I suppose, under Kurtz's theory, if you shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die, you didn't commit murder, but only watching dying.

garage mahal said...

Prosecute! One less GOP shilling tool on broadcast TV.

Have to take wins when you can get 'em.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Silly peasants! Laws are for controlling you little people, but don't apply to us in the nobility. We make the rules. You follow them.

It is similar to the underlying reason so many advocate socialism, even knowing its repeated failures: They don't expect to live under a socialist system ... they expect to run it.

X said...

intent has nothing to do with it, but he did intentionally commit the crime. why is Kurtz saying Gregory had no intent to commit this crime? does he think it was an accident?

Shouting Thomas said...

Prosecute! One less GOP shilling tool on broadcast TV.

Have to take wins when you can get 'em.


Yes, this does summarize your philosophy, garage.

Why do I find it odd that you take pride in it?

Levi Starks said...

Since when did a journalist ever want to be "left alone"?

Shouting Thomas said...

People who don’t like Gregory, or his network, or the media, or gun control are using his little stunt to express a bit of manufactured outrage, as though he were some kind of criminal.

You know, the kind of criminal who actually, really, really breaks the law!

Matthew Sablan said...

Let's take a few of the thoughts and show why Kurtz is wrong. First: "Let’s get real here. People who don’t like Gregory, or his network, or the media, or gun control are using his little stunt to express a bit of manufactured outrage, as though he were some kind of criminal."



O'Keefe called and would like to know where Kurtz was when he needed him. Oh, that's right. Kurtz doesn't like O'Keefe, his network, his media or what he stands for and doesn't seem too concerned with protecting him. As to the police probe being a waste of time: See above where we need to know how Gregory went about breaking this law. He may have done worse than just procure and own an illegal object.

Next: "Gregory had no intent to commit a crime; he was committing journalism instead." Intent is written into certain statutes; this one does not care about intent. Intent, like ignorance, is no excuse.

Finally: "Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for Gregory to be prosecuted?" Who would have guessed? Law-abiding gun owners like to see the law upheld and not used solely as a tool to oppress Kurtz's political enemies.

MadisonMan said...

if you shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die,

Thanks so much for putting that song in my head. (It replaces Big Spender which popped into the old ear canals this morning on the walk into work for some reason).

Tank said...

Alinsky.

Make them live by their own rules.

He did in fact knowingly and deliberately violate the law. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

Quayle said...

This logic was performed by a professional journalist on a closed mind and should not be tried at home.

Tank said...

PS Could Kurtz really be this stupid? Really?

YoungHegelian said...

In 1982, Dean Martin was charged with illegally carrying a pistol in L.A.

At his trial, the judge admitted to being a fan of his and gave him a slap on the wrist.

At the press conference afterwards, Martin said that he was carrying because the murder of John Lennon had scared him. He was asked by a reporter "Mr. Martin, do you think we should all be allowed to carry guns?". To which he replied, to laughs all around, "No, just me."

Unlike Kurtz, Dean Martin had enough of the comic left in him to see the absurdity of his own position.

harrogate said...

"what gun owners who 'want the government to leave them alone' want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment."

So, ALL laws and/or regulations on firearms in the United States need to be repealed and declared "null under the Second Amendment"? Or just some of them? Tell us, freedom fighter!

harrogate said...

"what gun owners who 'want the government to leave them alone' want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment."

So, ALL laws and/or regulations on firearms in the United States need to be repealed and declared "null under the Second Amendment"? Or just some of them? Tell us, freedom fighter!

Rustling Leaves said...

I give you permission to laugh in my face, I was almost 30 years old when I finally understood the rule of law. Sorry, I attended public schools.

I believe abortion is a hideous act for a person to commit, however I understand that under the law they are legal. I have a right to express my opinion of abortion, but I understand that I do not have a legal right to stop someone from having an abortion.

I understand the rule of law is a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but seriously shouldn't it be a requirement to understand such things if you are a highly influential journalist?

Matthew Sablan said...

Harrogate: Have you actually followed the NRA's position, and the willingness to support certain gun laws, etc.? I'm asking this because your flip answer is either an attempt at humor failing to land since it is delivered solely through text, or it is an attempt at insightful commentary failing to land due to ignorance of the actual reality out in the world.

edutcher said...

Tank said...

PS Could Kurtz really be this stupid? Really?

To ask the question is to answer it.

virgil xenophon said...

Bart Hall really sums up the generic
Weltanschauung of ALL wannabe proto-facists in our national Nomenklutura of our social and intellectual "bettors"--you know, those really smart people singularly possessed of "The Vision of The Anointed"; the self-anointed people who would run our lives for the sake our own good, ignorant troglodytes that we peons are..

harrogate said...

Matthew, my comment is aimed at Ann's syntax and the meaning that is indicates. It very much looks like she is saying what "gun owners who 'want the government to leave them alone' want" is to eliminate regulation.

My comment, much like the person who wrote it, doesn't give two shits about the overblown lobbyist organization known as NRA.

X said...

Second, Kurtz, a journalist himself, is mired the same sense of entitlement that people are objecting to in Gregory. He thinks journalists are special people

this is what was so idiotic about the objections to Citizens United. even if McCain Feingold was still the law of the land, what would stop BillionaireGlobalCorp from forming a de jure journalism division under the first amendment?

if there is a journalism exception to gun laws, that is huge loophole. Close The Journalism Gun Law Loophole.

Cedarford said...

The journalist advocate Kurtz's idea that journalists ought to get a pass on all gun laws if it is somehow related to doing their jobs is like a druggie advocate's idea that druggies should get a pass from the laws if their goal is transcendental mental insights or spiritual inspiration the drugs give them.

The Drill SGT said...

Bruce Hayden said...
And, fourth, he did intentionally commit the crime - his staff apparently called up the D.C.


and everbody at the network who 'possessed' the mag between the time in crossed the border into DC and left the district.

I thought, you know, these big MSM media places had lawyers who could you know, reason things through. I bet that the NBC lawyers are both in NYC and DC. both should be very familar with gun laws...

"what gun owners who 'want the government to leave them alone' want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment."


What this gun owner believes is that the government should do as I did when I commanded its troops.

"Make very few promises, but keep every promise you make"

meaning in this context; "pass very few gun laws but fully enforce every one".


YoungHegelian said...

@Harrowgate,

So, ALL laws and/or regulations on firearms in the United States need to be repealed and declared "null under the Second Amendment"?

Have you really not noticed that the gun laws that have come before the SCOTUS have not fared well? Also, cities like DC & Chicago, even AFTER having their gun bans overturned, have done essentially NOTHING to change their systems of issuing permits, thus denying potential gun-owners their rights clearly won before the SCOTUS.

Kind of like what the South did after they lost their cases in support of segregation before the Court, huh?

Cedarford said...

The journalist advocate Kurtz's idea that journalists ought to get a pass on all gun laws if it is somehow related to doing their jobs is like a druggie advocate's idea that druggies should get a pass from the laws if their goal is transcendental mental insights or spiritual inspiration the drugs give them.

harrogate said...

Also Matthew, you speak of the NRA's "willingness to support certain gun laws, etc." First of all, more out of interest in your own position than in the NRA's, I'd like to know what it is you mean by "certain gun laws." Of course you can tell me to look it up myself, but that wouldn't tell me much about what you find interesting or relevant, now would it.

As for the NRA's "willingness," I can only say, how generous of them. Because really, just like Grover, it is exactly like they are Congresspeople! They, not the broader citizenry, not the legislators, are the ones who need to be persuaded! Thank goodness they are so open minded.

Sorun said...

"he was committing journalism instead."

No, he was committing advocacy.

Zach said...

The argument that Gregory should not be prosecuted is seemingly clear cut: he had a single magazine with no gun, and obviously has no interest in committing a (second) crime with it.

The trouble is, almost nobody who owns a large magazine intends to use it to commit a crime. We have hundreds of millions of guns and magazines in this country, and almost none of them will ever be used to commit a crime.

The burden of gun control falls almost entirely (some would say, entirely) on innocent people who are no more dangerous than Gregory. They have not ever committed a crime, have no intention of committing a crime, and will never commit a crime in the future. Gregory is not the exception, he's the rule!

Matthew Sablan said...

Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted violent offenders and the mentally incompetent are probably the ones that you can rally the most people around without dissent, just as an example of laws that could reach broad cohesion. The NRA is no different than the ACLU, except different people dislike them.

Rusty said...

So, ALL laws and/or regulations on firearms in the United States need to be repealed and declared "null under the Second Amendment"? Or just some of them? Tell us, freedom fighter!

No. Just for the battle implements capable of being carried by a single militiaman.

harrogate said...

YoungHegelian, of course I have noticed that the Court tends towards very broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun rights in the US. I wonder though, based on Ann's post, if those gun owners "who want the government to leave them alone," are yet satisfied. For there remain laws and regs not yet nullified, not yet repealed. Ahh, so much work to be done in the name of sweet freedom!

cubanbob said...

Ann today you outdone yourself. You covered all the bases leaving nothing left to say. Just see harrogate's comment; spluterring drivel because even an intelligent commenter like him can't find anything to counter. And the Johnny Cash quote, touché.

phx said...

Okay fine. Wingers seem to think Gregory should be arrested and have the book thrown at him. Great. Yawn.

Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that.

X said...

my advice to anyone in DC or anywhere else who is in violation of a gun law: start a blog.

Gahrie said...

I have yet to see anyone fully explore the biggest worry I have about the issue of gun control:

It is precisely the same group of people who are arguing simultanously for strict gun control (if not repeal of the 2nd Amendment) and bigger government.

harrogate said...

"The NRA is no different than the ACLU, except different people dislike them."

Is that why whenever officials for the ACLU give press conferences, the whole fucking media waxes breathless and drinks in every word? Ah, it is also why the ACLU was the "go-to" source when the Patriot Act emerged, and remains the "go-to" every time efforts to kill it are defeated.

Yet, they are exactly the same. People who want to legalize pot are the same as the NRA too!

Matthew Sablan said...

"Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that."

-- Yet none of the suggested laws would change the mass shootings that people want to prevent. It's the standard case of DC-itis. Do anything because no one wants you to do nothing, but no one knows which something is the best, but everything can't be tried, so best to just do anything, even if it won't help.

Matthew Sablan said...

"People who want to legalize pot are the same as the NRA too!"

-- If there were an advocacy group for those folks, with a national level appeal, then yes, you could say there are similarities. The ACLU has many similarities to the NRA, though I admit, it is not a perfect 1-to-1 comparison.

harrogate said...

Matthew, and again, preventing crazy people and felons from legally obtaining guns is some very generous concessions indeed!

Paul said...

Ignorance is no excuse under the law.

Intent was NOT part of that law.

So he is guilty of breaking the law, just as anyone else.

He ain't God guys... Book'em Danno.

harrogate said...

Ahh, so we went from "no different" to "there are many similarities" lickity-split. Imagine that.

harrogate said...

There are also many similarities between my rec league basketball team and the Lakers.

garage mahal said...

Why do I find it odd that you take pride in it?

Schadenfreude? Guilty as charged! But either he broke the law or he didn't. Nothing I can do about it.

Gregory is the absolute worst sort of D+ elite beltway hack. You'd think the GOP would appreciate a lot of his "work" pressing GOP narratives that Tim Russert was so fond of.

TosaGuy said...

The vast majority of gun owners follow the law.

And then there are people like David Gregory who don't.

EMD said...

For there remain laws and regs not yet nullified, not yet repealed. Ahh, so much work to be done in the name of sweet freedom!

Perhaps you should address The Professor directly.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Matthew, and again, preventing crazy people and felons from legally obtaining guns is some very generous concessions indeed!"

-- No, those are actual, common-sense points where agreement is reached. If, instead of demonizing and appealing to absurdity, you focused on reaching actual compromise, you might find people willing to work on figuring out gun locks and other regulations. But, instead, you don't argue in good faith, so I see no real point in treating your ravings as argument.

TosaGuy said...

The vast majority of gun owners follow the law.

And then there are people like David Gregory who don't.

chrisnavin.com said...

David Gregory was bringing people the light they did not want.

You know, it's not about the 7-figure salary, the Georgetown row-house, the tailored suits and the personal driver. They don't fill a man. It's your duty to the American people, to get the truth out. To stand up for your beliefs. To cut through the fog. To speak up after a tragedy when the grief counselors won't do.

Maybe it's your wife, love, all you've been through together. Maybe it's your duties, your children. They're growing fast.

Maybe it was that feeling, years ago, you got one cool morning as the dawn broke and the first light scattered over the Potomac.

Where is that place? Who was I?

You walked straight across the mall with hardly a soul around. You glimpsed your footprints tracking in the frost-covered grass and followed the line back with your eye.

This isn't a dream. The monuments and museums are still here. This city is alive. It's full of people doing the nation's business. It's important, we're important, I'm important. We're all going somewhere. There's work to be done. I"m going to have to fight. There's purpose here.

And so power wrapped itself around you just a little bit...

virgil xenophon said...

PS: And of course, as with ALL such "progressive" impulses, they eventually--all of them--morph into totalist systems ("The Totalitarian Impulse") in which we will be "marched to virtue at bayonet-point." It ALWAYS comes to the bayonets--or their regulatory functional equivalents--but of course the implicit threat behind those regulations always IS the bayonet.

EMD said...

Okay fine. Wingers seem to think Gregory should be arrested and have the book thrown at him. Great. Yawn.

No. I would certainly charge him (since that is what they are bound to do under the law.) Prosecute? I'm sure DC has more dangerous elements to focus on.

YoungHegelian said...

@Harrowgate,

Well, how about we start with having our elected officials OBEY the SCOTUS rulings as they stand now?

You seem to want to make folks here out to be militiamen in potentia. But, I've asked you a question you have not answered: do you believe that DC & Chicago should be made to follow the SCOTUS rulings and liberalize their restrictive gun ownership rules?

Your waffling on this question explains much of why the gun-loving right has absolutely no trust in governmental good intentions. They know it's all about "Heads I win, tails you lose."

harrogate said...

I AM arguing in good faith. I am pointing out that preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious "no shit" position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion.

X said...

so on this issue harro wants the government to decide who can and who can't.

EMD said...

There are also many similarities between my rec league basketball team and the Lakers.

I'm sure the egos on each are comparable.

X said...

so far garage has declared Kurtz, Gregory, and Russert as right wing tools. nice try garage but you can't get to the left of Robert Cook. it's just not possible.

EMD said...

I am pointing out that preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious "no shit" position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion.

And yet, most of them don't legally obtain them anyways.

If you want to reduce gun violence, you have to legalize narcotics. Plain and simple.

TosaGuy said...

The reason why the NRA is powerful is not because of Wayne LaPierre and the late Charlton Heston, it is because of its 4.3 million members -- a number that probably has grown a few hundred thousand in the past few weeks.

Those 4.3 million have proven in many elections that they can each bring about 10 like-minded voters to the polls when the situation is warranted. Policians take on 43 million motivated voters at their own peril.

<---is not an NRA member.

Matthew Sablan said...

If you were arguing in good faith, you would have acknowledged that there are plenty of areas where pro-2nd amendment folks and others can reach agreement, as opposed to reducing them all to the equivalent of the confiscate and prosecute wing of the people who want more restrictive gun laws. Instead of dealing with your opponents like adults with respectable ideas, you treated them like ignorants unable to do anything but ape ridiculous, extremist positions.

You did not try to have an intelligent discussion; you chose to cut it off at the knees to score some cheap points for your side. If that is "good faith," I have a bridge to sell you.

Tim said...

This isn't surprising, in the least.

The root causes of Kurtz's myopia goes back to Walter Duranty.

YoungHegelian said...

@harrogate,

I am pointing out that preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious "no shit" position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion.

I'll take that as admission that you don't think SCOTUS rulings apply to you when you disagree with them. Please understand why the rest of us might regard that view with some horror.

Your side also owes a massive apology to all those folks around the country who continued to pray in public schools after it was banned.

SGT Ted said...

Kurtz is an idiot progressive who thinks that being forced to live by the rule of laws he adn David Gregory advocate others be subject to is some sort of "hypocrisy", when the hypocrisy on display by Gregory and himself to not be subject to the same laws, simply because they are stenographers for the Obama regime, is completely ignored.

Typical elitist ruling class mentality on display in this 5.56 magazine flap. Laws are for the proles and drones and teabaggers, not for the Ruling Class apparatchiks.

SMGalbraith said...

Mere possession is enough

Is that true? Doesn't there have to be intent, mens rea?

If I buy a TV from someone's yard sale and it turns out they stole it, am I culpable? I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Gregory's purpose here was not criminal. Sure it was grandstanding but the intent was not to commit a criminal act.

Prosecutors use discretion all the time. This is one case where no charges should be brought.

Brent said...

Gregory clearly broke the law, but I'm even more interested to find out how he got the magazine. Where was it purchased? Was it purchased legally or illegally? How was it transported? Who actually purchased and transported it? Who else knew about this?

It seems to me that there could be a lot more law breakers than just Gregory.

rhhardin said...

Beloved Gregor (youtube music) that sounded a lot better on a distant AM station, because the noise concealed a bad composer's choice for chord at once crital point, but is still nice.

virgil xenophon said...

And, by-the-by, ever noticed that when almost ANY other social malady is examined the VERY FIRST impulse of the left is to talk about "root causes" EXCEPT in cases involving guns and shootings such as the Newtown incident. Then? Root Causes? Crickets chirping...because that would involve some really tough sledding involving tussles with the medical profession, the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry and the educational academy...far, FAR easier to look for those lost car-keys under the corner street-lamp where the "light is so much better" than in the dark alley where one actually lost them..

EMD said...

If I buy a TV from someone's yard sale and it turns out they stole it, am I culpable? I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Ignorance would be a defense in your case As for Gregory, ignorance is no defense.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If I buy a TV from someone's yard sale and it turns out they stole it, am I culpable? I'm pretty sure I'm not."

-- That's different, as most states actually have clauses written in to protect those who unknowingly come to own stolen property.

"Gregory's purpose here was not criminal. Sure it was grandstanding but the intent was not to commit a criminal act. Prosecutors use discretion all the time. This is one case where no charges should be brought."

-- So, how much should someone be allowed to openly flout the law? He knew it was illegal, was told by the MPD not to do it, and then did it anyway. Not only that, but he involved his staff and people on his network in committing the crime. If Gregory is -not- charged, why should I listen to the police? Were I a bit more important, maybe I wouldn't have to, right?

Part of why charges should be brought are because not only was it illegal, it was brazen, and he was specifically warned to -not- do this thing. Warnings carry no weight when they can be ignored with impunity.

SGT Ted said...

And Gregory was engaged in an anti-gun propaganda stunt, not "journalism".

phx said...

Big tempest in a teapot. There are what, eight pictures of Gregory on this site right now and this is the third post on his legal problems?

All the clamoring to stick it to Gregory won't change by a hair's breadth the fact that there's a new movement afoot that cannot make the NRA happy.

X said...

he not only possessed the illegal magazine, he brandished it as well, which may be illegal in DC.

Big Mike said...

Okay, I think I see why you're such an effective professor, Professor.

@MadMan, your question at 9:16 is perfect. @Professor, your response is priceless.

Lem said...

You have less awareness of it that the people you're getting paid to inform.

Well said.

Maybe you think you're just too important to have your time wasted by consequences that would befall ordinary people.

The lawsuits against president Clinton where allowed to proceed for a very good reason.
And it fucking still escapes them... they are so contemptuous and condescending.

X said...

phx, don't be surprised if a movement to take rights from the people you don't like results in putting rights you are more in favor of on the line as well.

Brent said...

"All the clamoring to stick it to Gregory won't change by a hair's breadth the fact that there's a new movement afoot that cannot make the NRA happy."

- This may or may not be true, but the fact remains that Gregory broke the law, others at NBC may have broken the law, and as far as we know the law provides no exceptions for 'journalistic grandstanding', 'demagoguery', or 'general jackassery'

Levi Starks said...

"wingers" dont see the point of "tightening" gun laws if you're not going to enforce the laws already on the books.
When we pass law upon law, and then enforce them only when political whim dictates it, It gives the impression that we are living under a tyranny, not a nation of laws.

Cedarford said...

SMGalbraith said...
Mere possession is enough

Is that true? Doesn't there have to be intent, mens rea?

If I buy a TV from someone's yard sale and it turns out they stole it, am I culpable? I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Gregory's purpose here was not criminal. Sure it was grandstanding but the intent was not to commit a criminal act.


=================
Your logic breaks down on your notion that breaking a law should only "count" if there was intent to do worse crime related to the law-breaking.
Like someone caught with a loaded gun trying to get on a flight demanding he not be charged because he had absolutely no intent of using that gun on the airplane. And cops believe him, that he didn't plan to use the weapon...but still charge him.

=============
That said, it could be that Gregory is not the one in hot water if he is just the stupid Talking Head he is reading a script a producer crafted..."Build the confrontation with LaPierre up, David...then brandish the evil 30 round murder weapon clip I had a NBC flunk buy for me in Virginia".

Just brandishing the gun clip someone else owned and had possession of - is not a crime.

EMD said...

All the clamoring to stick it to Gregory won't change by a hair's breadth the fact that there's a new movement afoot that cannot make the NRA happy.

Polling and gun sales indicate the opposite.

Just because the same voices are louder doesn't mean there are more of them.

SGT Ted said...

If 30 round mags are banned, there is simply no excuse to have one.

Gregory the Obama bootlicker could have easily shown a picture of one.

Yes, this is also about making anti-gunners live by the rules they have advocated, more specifically, live under the LAWS they openly advocate and vote for and support. Equality under the law doesn't have a "leftwing journalist" exception.

Note the kind of worldview that the Progressives here and in the media actually demonstrate with their actions: if you have the correct politics, the law does NOT apply to you.

This is why Progressivism (a European authoritarian ideology to begin with) is merely liberal fascism waving the Stars and Stripes.

Big Mike said...

All the clamoring to stick it to Gregory won't change by a hair's breadth the fact that there's a new movement afoot that cannot make the NRA happy.

Actually, the NRA primarily exists to fight bills like the one that idiot Feinstein has just put in the hopper. I imagine it will collect millions in contributions from gun owners.

If anyone is going to be worried, it ought to be Mark Warner and Jay Rockefeller. Voting in favor of Feinstein's bill will turn their seats from "pretty safe" to "tossup" in rapid order.

Oh, and between Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi, thanks heaps California. If the "Big One" hits anytime soon don't look to the flyover states to send you a nickel in relief funds.

EMD said...

Big tempest in a teapot.

I just want him (or whomever was in actual "possession" of the clip) charged, to illustrate that no man is above the law.

phx said...

phx, don't be surprised if a movement to take rights from the people you don't like results in putting rights you are more in favor of on the line as well.

I like most of you guys just fine. Nothing personal about it at all.

And I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines, and 2) It's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons.

Sober discussion. That you guys would rather discuss how we should bring the law full force on Gregory weakens your position, IMO.

Jay said...

He thinks journalists are special people who float above it all, who don't live in reality.

Even worse, he thinks "journalism" consists of arguing for leftist policy preferences.

Levi Starks said...

The logic here escapes me.
You cannot intentionally do something, knowing it is a direct violation of law, and then use as a defense the argument that I did not intend to violate the law..

Pogo said...

The kudzu of state and federal laws, too numerous to follow and so plentiful that one can be accused at any moment, variably enforced according to politics, whim, and avarice, have made even me, a staunch conservative supposedly enamored of the police and courts, suspicious of them and no longer on their side.

The laws are all bullshit, every one of them. The Gregory non-prosecution proves that there are two sets of laws, one for the elite and the other for we feudal subjects. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Jay said...

phx said...
And I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines,


You seem to be under some delusion you understand firearms.

You don't. You don't own one and are frankly, stupid.

Michael K said...

"BTW I could tell you a dozen stories of dumb tourists and wildlife from Kenya to Alaska."

Were you born clueless or did you just lose your sense of irony ?

cryptical said...

X said...
he not only possessed the illegal magazine, he brandished it as well, which may be illegal in DC.


He brandished a high capacity assault magazine with malice aforethought.

Jay said...

it's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons.

HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA

YES, THAT piece of silliness is sober folks.

Really. It is.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons."

-- Aren't revolvers considered semi-automatic?

Cedarford said...

X said...
he not only possessed the illegal magazine, he brandished it as well, which may be illegal in DC
===========
Brush up on law. Merely touching the possession of another person does not mean you also posessed it.
When a court clerk hands over a bag of heroin seized in a drug raid as evidence, for the defense lawyer to examine, neither are chargable as having "possessed heroin" by handling it or by "brandishing it".

Bruce Hayden said...

Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that.

Maybe, maybe not. One this is fairly certain, and that is that Feinstein's new proposed AWB isn't likely to become law. More draconian than the Clinton era AWB, but several years after Heller. Despite all your best efforts, public sentiment has shifted markedly against gun laws, at least nationally, since the Clinton ban was enacted.

AllenS said...

phx said...
Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that.

Go ahead. Tell me how the laws are going to be tightened up. Will it be illegal to possess a 30 round magazine in DC? And, if you are caught with one, will you be prosecuted?

John said...

To all here:

Which side are you on? It is time to stand up and be counted.

I had let my NRA membership lapse 10-15 years ago. I just renewed it this morning.

I also joined the Gun Owners of America.

FWIW: I do not own a gun and have no desire to own one. I have not handled a gun since I carried a 45 while working for Uncle back in 1974.

What I do want, and what is in danger, is the right to own a gun.

That is why I joined NRA/GOA.

John Henry

SGT Ted said...

X, phx, harrogate et al, merely reveal their politically authoritarianism and eiltism.

If you have the correct leftist views, the law doesn't matter.

Notice also the elevation and worship of leftwing "intentions" over actual conduct. Since Gregories "intention" was to attack the NRA and civil rights that involve firearms, it is completly ok for him to break laws that would get Wayne LaPierre thrown in jail. Because his politics are correct.

Laws are for NRA members and other retrograde, counter-revolutionary forces, not Good Progressive Vanguard Citizen Party Members.

I love it when the totalitarian, anti-civil liberty mentality of the left is revealed.

SMGalbraith said...

Your logic breaks down on your notion that breaking a law should only "count" if there was intent to do worse crime related to the law-breaking

No, my logic is that, according to the laws, there must be guilty intent - a criminal mind - behind an act. Not "worse crime", ANY crime.

There are reports that NBC/MTP was told by DC police that it was okay to have the clip. If Gregory was told that it was okay to show the clip his intent was not criminal in nature.

Mere possession of an illegal item, in this case, isn't sufficient.

Jay said...

phx said...
t's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons


Note:
CHICAGO -- Chicago has logged its 500th homicide of 2012.


Note: It is virtually impossible to legally purchase and carry a semi-automatic firearm in the city of Chicago.

Also note, the use of semi-automatic rifles in homicides is statistically insignifiant in America.

Clown.

Jay said...

phx said...
Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that.


Really?

Wanna bet, clown?

X said...

Brush up on law. Merely touching the possession of another person does not mean you also posessed it.
When a court clerk hands over a bag of heroin seized in a drug raid as evidence, for the defense lawyer to examine, neither are chargable as having "possessed heroin" by handling it or by "brandishing it".


I know it seems that way, but Gregory is not actually employed by the government and this wasn't a government hearing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Repeating what I said in yesterday's topic on this.

If you don't apply the laws equally to all.....Why should anyone, anywhere, at any time ever obey ANY laws?

There comes a breaking point where law abiding citizens cannot help but to see the gross hypocrisy, where some are above the law. If some are above the law, then the laws are meaningless and why would any person obey or care about complying?

gerry said...

Well said.

Via Instapundit.

John said...

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=nranews

($35 per year)

http://gunowners.co/membership

($20 per year)

John Henry

X said...

SGT Ted, you have me mixed up with some left wing X. I'm libertarian.

SMGalbraith said...

If Gregory/MTP were told that they couldn't show or possess the clip and they still did so, THAT would be a crime since the intent was, in part, to break the laws.

But again, if they were told by the police/ATF that it wasn't a crime then they had no intent to break the law.

Mere possession isn't sufficient.

SGT Ted said...

What this also demostrates that what Progressives actually want is a class based society, with themselves at the top exempt fromt he laws they propse for everyone else. The ones who post here demostrate it quite clearly with their excuse making.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Mere possession isn't sufficient."

-- Actually, it is. Just like mere possession of some kinds of guns is a crime, possession of some kinds of drugs is a crime, possession of some kinds of things used to smoke drugs is a crime.

cryptical said...

phx said...

1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines


Thanks for offering to allow me to exercise my rights, so long as I can come up with an argument that satisfies you.

Jay said...

phx said...
Gun laws are still going to be tightened up further, IMO. No getting around that.


Hey stupid shit:
Connecticut already has an AWB, waiting periods, gun registration, background checks and all the rest. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Yet a bunch of school children were murdered by a lunatic who was seeing a psychologist.

You are somehow under the delusion "gun laws" would do anything to prevent something like this.

What do you think that says about your intellect?

John said...

Anyone ever heard of mayors against illegal guns? www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org

I hadn't until yesterday. Then someone linked to a survey they had bought. It showed that an overwhelming majority of NRA members disagreed with the NRA stand on gun control.

I did a Whois and it turns out to be part of the New York City government.

Surprise, surprise.

John Henry

Jay said...

SMGalbraith said...

No, my logic is that, according to the laws, there must be guilty intent - a criminal mind - behind an act. Not "worse crime", ANY crime


How about I plant a baggie of cocaine in your car console and we get a state trooper to pull you over and find it there and see how it all turns out for you?

DADvocate said...

No, my logic is that, according to the laws, there must be guilty intent - a criminal mind - behind an act. Not "worse crime", ANY crime.

According to the laws, you're wrong. You can be breaking a law and not know you're breaking a law and still be guilty. Ignorance of the law is not an allowable defense under the law. My attorney sister tauoght me that.

My son and his friend dumped some cnstruction scraps in a spot where that used to be OK. But, now it's not. I ended up paying over $500 to clear up my son's fines. He didn't know he was breaking the law and he had no intent to break the law. He was just trying to help a friend.

Levi Starks said...

Laws have one purpose, to restrict or encourage human behavior.
The bill of rights also has a purpose, to limit the scope of the laws which our fellow citizens and government may enact in an attempt to control us.
In the case of gun control the question becomes when do laws designed to protect others from me cross the line and become laws that prevent me from protecting myself.

YoungHegelian said...

@SMG,

Mere possession isn't sufficient.

Oh, yes, it is.

You have no idea what a royal fucking pain-in-the-ass the District is when it comes to guns. In spite of Heller.

SGT Ted said...

oops X I mistakenly included you with the prog elite classists who post here. My apologies.

Brent said...

And with regard to the argument that there must be criminal intent for a crime to be committed (i.e., possession is not sufficient), I thought that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

phx said...

Maybe, maybe not. One this is fairly certain, and that is that Feinstein's new proposed AWB isn't likely to become law. More draconian than the Clinton era AWB, but several years after Heller. Despite all your best efforts, public sentiment has shifted markedly against gun laws, at least nationally, since the Clinton ban was enacted.

You can be sure I'm making zero effort myself, other than posting my little posts here or shooting the shit at the barbershop. Like 90% of you I imagine.

Nevertheless it seems like very good sense to keep the discussion front and center now.

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to large capacity magazines. As I haven't heard one it's okay with me if that shut that deal down tomorrow. That doesn't seem draconian to me at all.

DADvocate said...

John - Mayors Against Guns is Michael Bloomberg's baby. He's even sent out people to make illegal purchases in other states and/or bring guns illegally into New York to try to prove this "point" that the entire shouold live according to the rules of Bloomberg. Bloomberg wants to be dictator more than Obama does.

cubanbob said...

I am pointing out that preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious "no shit" position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion.

Harrow those laws are ready on the books. Lanza was barred from legally buying a gun and Clinton's assault weapons ban did nothing to stop the Columbine massacre.

X said...

thanks sarge. just don't want my brand sullied.

MisterBuddwing said...

Funny, the things you remember.

I remember President George H.W. Bush holding up a plastic bag of crack during an Oval Office speech many moons ago.

Crime, or no crime?

(BTW, get well soon, Mr. President.)

cubanbob said...

phx said...

1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines


Northridge CA, 1994. Could have been useful for a law abiding gun owner at the time. Like the cops who had to commandeer a gun store to get the needed fire power to take the robber-killers down.

Brent said...

"I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to large capacity magazines."

I can think of a couple reasons:

1. The bad guys might have them
2. Any situation (natural disaster, etc.) where normal law and order breaks down

Anyway, why is the burden of proof not on you to demonstrate that getting rid of high capacity magazines will make us safer. I haven't seen any evidence that it will.

TosaGuy said...

"1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines, and 2) It's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons."

The general philosophy with regard Bill of Rights issues should be (and is for most of us) that the onus to make the argument is on those who want to diminish and reduce rights, not on those who defend the right.

Defenders do have a responsiblity to express clearly and cogently their refutations of those who desire to infringe on rights.

EMD said...

Mayors Against Guns is Michael Bloomberg's baby

And yet his security force carries guns. Hmmm ...

X said...

Funny, the things you remember

I think the chief law enforcement officer is allowed to handle evidence.

I know it's hard to believe, but Gregory is not actually a government employee.

Bruce Hayden said...

Is that true? Doesn't there have to be intent, mens rea?

Been a long time since the last time I had to study for the bar exam, but there are essentially three different types of laws, in regard to intent or mens rea: specific intent; general intent; and strict liability. First degree murder typically requires specific intent. You need to have intended to kill or seriously injure someone. But, manslaughter, and maybe even some types of second degree murder, are more general intent. You merely needed to intentionally have pulled the trigger. And, speeding, for example, is typically strict liability - it doesn't matter if you intentionally were speeding, or just accidentally caught a tailwind on a steep downslope (which I unsuccessfully argued some 40 years ago).

My reading of the statute makes it sound like a strict liability crime. But, even if not, there was at least general intent. Here is the relevant section of 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.

Did he have such a device in the District? Apparently yes. Was it attached to a weapon? Irrelevant. The purpose for having the device is completely irrelevant.

In any case, most of these gun laws are strict liability laws, and are interpreted thusly. Thus, accidentally and unintentionally bringing an unlicensed gun, or "high capacity magazine" into the District is a crime.

We have seen the egregious side of such strict liability application of these laws with people flying through NYC airports with checked firearms. Their flight is canceled and rescheduled for the next day, and they have to pick up their checked luggage. The minute they pick up their checked luggage, they are subject to, and have been, arrested.

MisterBuddwing said...

Oh, right. When the President does it, it's not a crime. (Who said that?)

SGT Ted said...

I haven't heard one good argument as to how banning 30 round mags would have stopped the Conn. shooting, seeing as how he shot all the kids with pistols with standard magazines.

I haven't heard one good argument why we should allow dangerously violent crazy people who don't take their meds walk around amongst us.

I haven't heard anybody bent on gun bans explain to me why I should surrender my rights when crazy lunatics aren't required to take their meds as a condition of remaining amongst us.

It's time to turn this issue where it needs to be addressed: The alleged "rights" of dangerous kooks to walk around not taking their medication and the responsibility the medical community and the ACLU bear for the death and destruction left in their wake.

EMD said...

Anyway, why is the burden of proof not on you to demonstrate that getting rid of high capacity magazines will make us safer. I haven't seen any evidence that it will.

I will look this up, but it would be interesting to see how many crimes are committed with high-capacity magazines and rifles like the AR-15 compared to the average hand gun.

Nonapod said...

I believe if he broke the law he should be charged so. If he didn't then he shouldn't. But nobody should be above the law. I'm not sure what's so hard for some people to understand about that.

I would it expect it to be no different if he had brandished any item that had laws against its possession, such as a crack rock, full heroin needle, or a brick of C4 explosive.



harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

But this doesn't mean the laws can't make a positive difference.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other ...

MisterBuddwing said...

I also remember a TV interview in which Jack Anderson reached into his pocket, pulled out an unloaded pistol and handed it to Sen. Bob Dole to demonstrate how easy it was to get a gun past Capitol Hill security.

I suppose Anderson committed a crime by carrying and producing the gun, but that Sen. Dole did not commit a crime by accepting it.

harrogate said...

"Harrow those laws are ready on the books. Lanza was barred from legally buying a gun and Clinton's assault weapons ban did nothing to stop the Columbine massacre."


That only makes my point further . Why would Matthew or anyone else cite this piece of obviousness as an example of NRA accepting "certain gun laws"? Like they deserve recognition of some kind for this?

And note, I never said any gun laws would prevent atrocities from ever happening . Indeed I doubt anyone thinks that. But this doesn't mean the laws can't make a positive difference.


TosaGuy said...

"But this doesn't mean the laws can't make a positive difference."

I haven't heard anyone express how banning 30-round magazines would make a positive difference. We just hear "people don't need that." That is not a valid argument.

It is up to those who want to infringe on rights to make the argument to the public on why it should happen.

harrogate said...

EMD writes:

"Hope in one hand and shit in the other ..."

You seem to believe that if a law cannot prevent something from ever happening, then it is a useless law. But surely that is not what you think.

phx said...

I will look this up, but it would be interesting to see how many crimes are committed with high-capacity magazines and rifles like the AR-15 compared to the average hand gun.

IMO you can't just count numbers of crimes. There's a qualitative difference between a holdup and a mass murder.

I also think you can't compare only numbers of casualties. There's a difference between what 20 people murdered in a variety of incidents over a period of time and 20 people suddenly killed in a community like Newton for instance. I think almost all those 27,000 residents are completely devastated, PTSD candidates, will never be the same. Much different situation from 20 ordinary homicides.

chickelit said...

Big Mike said...

Oh, and between Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi, thanks heaps California. If the "Big One" hits anytime soon don't look to the flyover states to send you a nickel in relief funds.

I never voted for those boobs. That's like saying I should withhold natural disaster relief to Wisconsin because Tammy Baldwin won.

Just withhold it for the majority. ;)

Coketown said...

I don't care about Howard Kurtz. David Gregory should be arrested for that hair-do, if nothing else.

I'm mostly intrigued by the left's insistence on making conservatism the ideology of anarchy. If you favor lower taxes and limited government then...you...are against policemen and roads being built! And if...you...favor liberalizing gun laws then you...must not want any laws about anything for anyone!

His argument, such as it is, could be grafted onto anything. Someone gets arrested in Compton for trafficking heroin, let's call the NRA and ask for a statement. "Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for _______________ to be prosecuted?"

X said...

under Mr. Buddwing's jurisprudence, a cop is guilty of marijuana possession for securing evidence and journalists are the equivalent of government agents.

TosaGuy said...

When has simply the argument of "people don't need that" been acceptable for any other regulation of rights?

I am asking this question in earnest to the law professionals here.

EMD said...

You seem to believe that if a law cannot prevent something from ever happening, then it is a useless law. But surely that is not what you think.


You have failed to demonstrate exactly how banning a certain capacity magazine will benefit society.

Should we ban violent video games? What about certain books?



EMD said...

When has simply the argument of "people don't need that" been acceptable for any other regulation of rights?

Refined uranium?

Nonapod said...

You seem to believe that if a law cannot prevent something from ever happening, then it is a useless law. But surely that is not what you think.

Conversely you seem to be under the impression that we should just have laws whether they actually serve a purpose or not, or whether they effective or not.

Shouting Thomas said...

You seem to believe that if a law cannot prevent something from ever happening, then it is a useless law. But surely that is not what you think.

Huh?

Surely, you can think more clearly than this!

You want to "prevent things from happening."

How do you know what's going to happen? How can you be so sure that your law is going to fix it? Have you thought through all those long term "unintended" consequences? Have you considered whether laws already exist to do what you would like done? Have you considered how hard it will be to get rid of that law if it's counter-productive?

EMD said...

Much different situation from 20 ordinary homicides.

Yeah, those families don't grieve.

harrogate said...

Sgt Ted, you are very good at straw men, so good that I suggest you set up a kiosk of them at your next county fair.

My comments are in response to Ann's "explanation" of what gun owners who "want the government to leave them alone" really truly and for serious, "want."

Your little Mark Levin "statist" delusions are fun to behold though. By all means keep your ridiculous comments coming.

SMGalbraith said...

But, even if not, there was at least general intent.

Bruce, if Gregory was told by the DC police that it wasn't illegal, how was there intent? He believed that he wasn't breaking the law. His intent was not to break the law (why did they ask the police first if they wanted to break the law?).

The police may have been wrong (apparently they were). But Gregory didn't know he was committing a crime.

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe a little more on intent. By the wording of the law, you would violate the section I cited if you borrowed someone's car, and they had left such a magazine in the trunk. Legally, you would possess the magazine because you controlled the car, and the magazine was in the car - even if you had no knowledge of it. Ditto if an empty magazine accidentally and unknowingly fell into your gym bag, and you took the bag into the District, etc.

I do seem to remember though some Democratic Senator (I think) from maybe Virginia getting popped for supposedly accidentally carrying a firearm into the District. Never was convicted though - and wonder why he wasn't immune if going to or from Congress.

MisterBuddwing said...

under Mr. Buddwing's jurisprudence, a cop is guilty of marijuana possession for securing evidence and journalists are the equivalent of government agents.

Funny, I can't find any place that I said all that.

Hunter said...

phx said...

And I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines

Because banning them would be costly and ineffective and would inconvenience law-abiding people while not having any effect on crime.

, and 2) It's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons.


Whenever someone says this, it's a fairly strong hint they don't understand the term "semi-automatic" or that it's inclusive of basically every gun other than a shotgun, revolver, or bolt-action rifle. In other words, you are suggesting you would like to ban the vast majority of guns that people use for self-defense. Granted, this may just be a bit of unintentional honesty.

Brent said...

phx said...

I think almost all those 27,000 residents are completely devastated, PTSD candidates, will never be the same. Much different situation from 20 ordinary homicides.


-Two responses:

Do you think it matters if the killer used an automatic rifle or had 3 or 4 revolvers?

I wonder if they are devastated enough to consider posting an armed guard or training a couple of teachers to carry guns. The only sure way to stop someone from doing something like this is to make their head into a canoe.

phx said...

Yeah, those families don't grieve.

Now, that's a reckless misreading of what I said. I specificially said the difference was the entire community of Newton grieves, as opposed to just the families.

EMD said...

Bruce, if Gregory was told by the DC police that it wasn't illegal, how was there intent?

But he WAS told by the DC police that it was illegal.

TosaGuy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

I specificially said the difference was the entire community of Newton grieves, as opposed to just the families.

But you want to apply and create laws based on the emotional outcomes of events, which is fairly ridiculous.

TosaGuy said...

EMD,

Has it been used for limitations on speech, religious expression, freedom of the press, limitations to search and seizure?

I am not anti-regulation. But my point of it is the responsiblity of the infringer make a well-developed and persuasive argument beyond "people don't need that" still stands.

Bruce Hayden said...

I suppose Anderson committed a crime by carrying and producing the gun, but that Sen. Dole did not commit a crime by accepting it.

Couple of things there. First, not clear what the gun laws in DC were then. But maybe as importantly, Dole was probably Constitutionally immune from arrest.

X said...

SMG, the initial reports say he was told it WAS ILLEGAL:

The department spokeswoman, Tisha Gant, said the police told NBC they could not use the magazine, since possessing a large capacity ammunition device is illegal in the District of Columbia.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/25/washington-d-c-police-investigating-whether-nbc-moderator-violated-law/

AJ Lynch said...

Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"

Jay said...

SMGalbraith said...
But, even if not, there was at least general intent.

Bruce, if Gregory was told by the DC police that it wasn't illegal, how was there intent?


He wasn't told by DC police anything of the sort.

Jay said...

I think almost all those 27,000 residents are completely devastated, PTSD candidates, will never be the same. Much different situation from 20 ordinary homicides.

Who says such silly, idiotic things?

harrogate said...

Shouting Thomas with a series of good questions"

"How do you know what's going to happen? How can you be so sure that your law is going to fix it?"

These questions can rarely if ever be answered with dead certainty, and I agree that all legislators should make the gamest possible attempt to answer them when they propose laws. Or start wars. Or alter tax codes. Etc. But the lack of dead certainty does not, and ought not, lead to total paralysis. Except in the minds of extremists.

"Have you thought through all those long term 'unintended' consequences?"

These are always worth thinking about. But tell me, what horrible unintended consequences have emerged from laws against US citizens legally obtaining and using machine guns, tanks, etc?

"Have you considered whether laws already exist to do what you would like done? Have you considered how hard it will be to get rid of that law if it's counter-productive?"

Again, personally, yes I think of these questions often. The Patriot Act and the Bush tax cuts are great examples to the point, in my view.

These are things we can and should debate. That's what is happening with respect to arguing over kinds of weapons and ammo, accessibility, etc. There is nothing wrong with, unconstitutional, or "statist" about having those debates and deriving legislation from them.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce, if Gregory was told by the DC police that it wasn't illegal, how was there intent? He believed that he wasn't breaking the law. His intent was not to break the law (why did they ask the police first if they wanted to break the law?).

First, my understanding was just the opposite - that his people had asked the DC police, they said it was illegal, and he did it anyway.

Nevertheless, read the statute (above). There is no good faith exception. There is no provision in the statute that says that if the police tell you that it is ok, then it is legal. Now, if the police can be shown to have been intentionally deceitful, he might have an entrapment defense. Of course, that would be assuming that neither Gregory nor his network had their own counsel...

EMD said...

I specificially said the difference was the entire community of Newton grieves, as opposed to just the families.

Entire communities grieve over a whole host of tragedies. What we rarely do as a society is base law off those anomalous tragedies.

I say rarely because 9/11 certainly impacted our laws to the detriment of freedom. (Homeland Security, TSA, Patriot Act)




EMD said...

Has it been used for limitations on speech, religious expression, freedom of the press, limitations to search and seizure?

I was just trying to be funny. I have no real idea.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If I buy a TV from someone's yard sale and it turns out they stole it, am I culpable? I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Stupid comparison.

Possessing a TV is not in and of itself illegal.

Possessing the item that Gregory was brandishing, IS in and of itself illegal. So if you bought a gun or other item at a garage sale that has been made to be illegal in your state, even if you didn't know that it was illegal...Yes...you have broken the law. And so did the garage sale owner too.

Either no one is punished or BOTH of you are. THIS is the reason that if they decided to ask everyone to register their unregistered guns, the old 22 that Grandpa owned or the handgun that you somehow acquired. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Because some people are above the law, you would be a complete moron to comply with the law.

Jay said...

harrogate said...
These are things we can and should debate. That's what is happening with respect to arguing over kinds of weapons and ammo, accessibility, etc


Connecticut already has an AWB, waiting periods, gun registration, background checks and all the rest. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

So what, exactly, are you suggesting needs more "debate"?

Jay said...

But Gregory didn't know he was committing a crime.

This is not at all relevant.

TosaGuy said...

"But Gregory didn't know he was committing a crime."

If that excuse will work for the average guy who possesses a 30-roung mag without "malicisous intent" and is arrested for that in DC, then David Gregory should not be charged.

If it won't work for the average guy then it should not work for David Gregory.

Personally, I don't think Gregory should be charged, but I would hope that he would learn from this and acknowledge that some gun laws are very ineffective and are more playing gotcha with the law-abiding than stopping anything.

But I don't think that will happen.

Jay said...

TosaGuy said...
I haven't heard anyone express how banning 30-round magazines would make a positive difference. We just hear "people don't need that." That is not a valid argument


Of course it isn't valid. The "argument" is being made by someone who does not own a firearm.

When you have someone who doesn't understand that 4 or 5 ten round magazines (or a shotgun) can be even deadlier, they just go for something that sounds scary.

Brent said...

harrogate said...

These are things we can and should debate. That's what is happening with respect to arguing over kinds of weapons and ammo, accessibility, etc. There is nothing wrong with, unconstitutional, or "statist" about having those debates and deriving legislation from them.

-I agree, but you should also accept the possibility that the result of the debate may be to NOT derive any legislation, or perhaps (shriek!) repeal gun control laws that already exist

phx said...

Entire communities grieve over a whole host of tragedies. What we rarely do as a society is base law off those anomalous tragedies.

Yeah EMD, your line of reasoning seems suspect to me here. Take more patience for me to work out why (or why not) than I have right now. I'll bet if you think that over you will probably come up with more "exeptions" than 911however.

We (or I) would have to think about the way different stakeholders respond to 20 "normal" homicides in a community over a period of time, and 20 killed in a random mass shooting.

traditionalguy said...

Once more, the Professor nailed it.

Rusty said...

harrogate said...
Matthew, and again, preventing crazy people and felons from legally obtaining guns is some very generous concessions indeed!


How are you going to do it? What is going to be the mechanism?

EMD said...

different stakeholders respond to 20 "normal" homicides in a community over a period of time, and 20 killed in a random mass shooting.

Does the law differentiate as to the type of homicide?

(I'm not arguing about first-degree, second-degree, manslaughter, etc.)

EMD said...

Also ... I concoct a bomb out of over-the-counter goods, and kill 29 people in a school, devastating the community.

What is the bomb-control remedy?

Or is that horrible crime somehow different?


EMD said...

I don't agree with Cornel West on gun control, nor much else, but I do agree with him here:

“We can’t just shed tears for those on the vanilla side of town. They are precious, but they are no less or more precious than our poor brothers and sisters on Indian reservations (who are killing each other) or be they black or brown or what have you,”

Shouting Thomas said...

We (or I) would have to think about the way different stakeholders respond to 20 "normal" homicides in a community over a period of time, and 20 killed in a random mass shooting.

phx, I read an article the day after the shootings in Newtown in the NYT.

Turns out the Newtown is a hotbed of gun enthusiasts who love target practice and hunting. The town has been embroiled for some time in an internal controversy over the scope of target practice and hunting within the orbit of the town.

So, "different stakeholders" might react quite differently than you expect.

phx said...

Also ... I concoct a bomb out of over-the-counter goods, and kill 29 people in a school, devastating the community.

Bombs are illegal right? Bushwhackers with large capacity magazines are not. That's what we should be talking about IMO.

Maguro said...

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to Tarantino movies.

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to Snoop Dogg CDs.

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to Double Whoppers with cheese.

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to crucifixes in jard of urine.

EMD said...

Bombs are illegal right? Bushwhackers with large capacity magazines are not. That's what we should be talking about IMO.

Several ingredients to make the bombs are legal.

I asked if we should ban those ingredients because they could be used to blow up a school and cause an amazing amount of communal grief.

Also, name for me the number of non-mentally deranged Bushwhackers who shoot up schools on a regular basis.

jr565 said...

Phx said we should have a discussion about people getting their hands on semi automatic weapons. Phx, most guns are in fact semi automatic weapons.

"The vast majority of modern guns sold and collected in the US are semiautomatic, which means they fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger, but automatically reload between shots. That's in contrast to full-automatic weapons, as well as single-shot guns that require the operator to "cock" the gun or hand-feed ammunition between shots. (There are a variety of sporting weapons that are single shot, such as lever-action, bolt-action, and breech-loading rifles, pump-action shotguns, and many revolvers."'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/semi-automatic-gun-assault-weapon-definitions

Old Dad said...

phx,

"Bushwhackers with large capacity magazines are not [illegal]."

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You are clueless.

phx said...

Shouting Thomas you may be right about that point - I didn't read or hear anything of that article.

On the other hand, I'll bet the nature and scope of that "internal controversy" has changed considerably since December 14.

Jay said...

Old Dad said...

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You are clueless.


Note: there are far more ignorant people than phx making gun policy in America.

Scary, huh?

sydney said...

The only person who is going to prosecuted for this crime is the peon staffer who brought the clip in for Gregory to use on the air.

TosaGuy said...

NBC news reports that Lanza left the AR-15 in the car and did not use it in the shooting.

So how would have banning AR-15s and 30-round mags prevented this tragedy?

ricpic said...

What's the problem? This is Gregory's big chance to be a martyr for the cause. He should be salivating at the prospect of a martyr's imprisonment and hero status for the rest of his progressive life.

EMD said...

NBC news reports that Lanza left the AR-15 in the car and did not use it in the shooting.

So how would have banning AR-15s and 30-round mags prevented this tragedy?


Exactly.

Brent said...

Getting back to the original point of Ann's post, I haven't heard a good argument for why David Gregory should not be prosecuted. There is ample evidence that he knowingly broke the law (ignorance of the law is not an excuse anyway). We also know there are several examples of people being heavily fined or even going to jail for relatively minor gun related offenses like this.

phx said...

First of all, I haven't said we should ban any weapons that are now legal, semi-autos or otherwise. I said I favor the discussion. I also said I did favor banning large cap magazines. If someone persuades me there's a good reason not to ban them I'm listening.

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.

I'm just a voter who's not making a claim to expertise on any of the issues that confront us.

If anyone has a problem with that too fucking bad. My vote counts as much as yours, and if I want to vote for the worse junkyard dog who can't stand gun owners just for that reason, I will.

I never said I wasn't willing to hear other people's arguments however, esp. those who know the issues well.

Jay said...

NBC news reports that Lanza left the AR-15 in the car and did not use it in the shooting.

So what?
The world wont' be safe for the children until we get those Bushwackers with the 30 capacity magazines off the streets!!!!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 375   Newer› Newest»