home

David Gregory Investigated for Possessing Ammunition Magazine

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:13:26 PM EST
Tags: gun control (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The top news story of the day seems to be that DC police are investigating NBC's David Gregory for a show and tell of a high capacity ammunition clip magazine on Meet the Press. Apparently, NBC asked for permission to show the magazine and was denied. Under DC law, such magazines are illegal to possess.

On a related topic, this November, 2012 Congressional Research Service Report explains our current federal gun laws and recent legislative efforts to change them.

USA Today has released the results of a new poll conducted with Gallup on Americans' views on gun control.

< A Merry Christmas To All | Kennedy Center Honors David Letterman >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    David Gregory Investigated for Possessing Ammunition Magazine | 202 comments (202 topical)
    I Looked at the Video (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by msaroff on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:06:04 AM EST
    And I am not deeply knowledgeable on the subject, but it is possible that he just had a metal shell without the guts.

    I could not tell from that angle.

    Well he said it was. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    Do you think he would lie about that?

    Perhaps it is true that "gun control" is more about control than about guns.  After all, any black teenager in DC holding a similar metal or plastic box with a spring in it would be arrested on the spot.

    If Gregory were holding a bag of heroine on that broadcast is there any honest claim that he was not in posession?

    Parent

    Case in point... (4.67 / 3) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    of one the unintended consequences of more gun and/or ammo "control"...a journalist possessing an illegal clip for educational purposes only now has John Law on his arse.  I feel so much safer now...lol.

    Wonder why NBC asked for permission in the first place, if they were only gonna air the segment anyway?  Dumb and Dumber.  

    Perhaps it was a setup :) (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:52:10 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    soon dirty cops won't have to carry crack vials in the glovey for the ol' plant job...a longclip will do.

    Parent
    Oh for gawd's sake. (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    Do you believe LAPD messed w/the blood samples of O.J. Simpson's blood?  

    Parent
    Peter, I should think you (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    would defer to kdog, whose opinion I solicited.

    Parent
    Did you really? If you were sincerely soliciting (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    KDog's opinion, then I apologize.  Sure didn't seem that way to me. To the contrary, it seemed clear you were snarkily accusing KDog of absurd paranoia, to think that a police officer would ever plant evidence.  And using the O.J. murder investigation as a paradigm example of baseless accusation against the police.  I thought your remark was way off base and un-called-for, on both counts.  Please advise if I misinterpreted you.

    Parent
    I am quite certain Kdog and I are (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    capable of acknowledging we have sharply contrasting viewpoints when we generalize re law enforcement.

    Parent
    Sincerely... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:24:15 AM EST
    busting my chops...and I appreciate it.  Oculus has license Pete, but thank you!

    The question isn't whether OJ was framed, the question is whether OJ or anybody else could be framed...and the answer is oh hell yes.  

    Parent

    I was refering to NBC (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:04:16 PM EST
    setting up the situation. I'm a tad jaded when it comes to media . . .  ;)

    Parent
    I gotcha... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:22:09 AM EST
    NBC ridding themselves of an undesirable when just cause ain't there, same way the local PD would.  

    The plant job, oldest trick in the book.

    Parent

    J: (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    It is a Magazine, not a clip.  A clip holds several rounds of ammunition until they are loaded in to the internal magazine of a rifle.  Ala a M1 Garand, or Mosin Nagant, etc.  He is holding a detachable magazine.  

    thanks, fixed now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:38:30 PM EST


    Parent
    It seems like a stretch (4.50 / 2) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    to claim that Meet the Press host David Gregory illegally  "possessed" or was in "possession" of a magazine in the context of the law  rather than for purposes of a television show illustration.  Gregory's "possession" would appear to be no more applicable to the law than the show's prop man who handed the magazine to him.  Now, if they were investigating Gregory for his claim to being a good journalist, there may be a case to be made.

    Clearly, he possessed it. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:27:09 AM EST
      That's not really even a debatable proposition. If you have something in your hand as he did you are obviouasly  exercising dominion and control at that moment. His words obviously tend to prove he knowingly possessed it.

      Finally, although this might be hyper-technical,  the prosecution does not have to "disprove" justification to establish an element of an offense. "Justification" would be an affirmative defense for  which the defendant would have the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, only then does the prosecution have a burden of proof with regard to the issue.

      It's likely a tempest in a teapot and none of this will ever play out in court, but if we are going to analyze it in legal terms we should be accurate.

    Parent

    Not "clearly" at all (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    It's likely a tempest in a teapot and none of this will ever play out in court, but if we are going to analyze it in legal terms we should be accurate.

    I don't know if there's any case law defining "possession" under the DC gun statutes, but any lawyer will tell you that "possession" in legal terms is not the same as "possession" used in the colloquial sense.  "Possession" can mean many, very different things in a civil or criminal case than what people generally refer to in general usage.  In fact, the Supreme Court has gone as far as to note that "there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than possession" (National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead).

    I don't know if Gregory "possessed" the magazine for purposes of the statute in question, but it is certainly "debatable", and I'm certain it will be debated if it the investigation ever makes it that far.

    Parent

    No, it's not debatable by serious people. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:53:15 AM EST
     He's on a recorded video possessing it. Legal possession of contraband can be in certain contexts be a more complicated legal issue. It's not at all complicated when there is irrefutable evidence that the person was exercising dominion and control in the most direct manner possible. there is no serious argument that at the time captured on the video he is exercising dominion and control over the item.

      Knowledge and intent are not serious issues because he says he know what the item is.

    Parent

    Sure, it is (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    No, it's not debatable by serious people. He's on a recorded video possessing it.

    I think NBC's lawyers would call themselves "serious people".

    Legal possession of contraband can be in certain contexts be a more complicated legal issue.

    My point exactly.

    Parent

    Where has any lawyer (none / 0) (#72)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    for NBS or Gregory attempted to argue that "possession" is not established when a person he intentionally holds something in his hand exercising sole and exclusive control over it while expressly stating he knows exactly what it is?

    Parent
    Try reading my prior post n/t (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:04:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I see no prior post (none / 0) (#76)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:17:18 AM EST
     you or anyone else made where a lawyer for NBC or or Gregory make an argument he did not possess the item.

      Peter G makes a good point about likely strong affirmative defenses (excuse/justification and/or de mimnimis), but as I have explained affirmative defenses do not operate to negate an essential element of an offense. Affirmative defense operate to allow for acquttal in cases where the elements of an offense hve been established.

    Parent

    That's because I never said ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    ... they did.  OTOH - if you feel free to define "serious people", I'll feel free to point out an obvious argument for Gregory's attorneys.

    BTW - Peter G. points out that the "Main characteristics of "possession" in this context are knowing and intentional control, direct or indirect ("actual" or "constructive"), without legal justification or excuse."  IOW, if someone "possesses" a prohibited item (in the colloquial sense), it does not amount to "possession" (for purposes of this criminal statute) if it is justified or excused.  Whether this amounts to merely an affirmative defense which not operate to negate an essential element of an offense or is a condition of the "possession" element is debateable by serious people.  Either way, if Gregory's use of the magazine is justified (i.e. PeterG's 1st Amendment journalistic purpose) or otherwise excused (i.e. mistake of law, etc.), the issue of whether he was in criminal "possession" of the magazine for purposes of this statute is certainly debatable ...

    ... particularly by "serious people".

    Parent

    And as I explained (none / 0) (#79)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:44:35 AM EST
     Peter's comment while a decent shorthand was not technically accurate. Affirmative defenses do NOT negate the essential elements of an offense. Thety make the conduct not criminal despite the establishment of the essential elements.

      He is a serious person and I'm sure if he sees this he will acknowledge his post was not meant to be misconstrued the way you are doing.

    Parent

    Their lawyers haven't spoken at all (none / 0) (#109)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    So that question is pretty irrelevant to establishing whether possession occurred.

    I'd be very surprised if they are not intending to argue this should push come to serve. For now, they are wisely lying low to see what happens. No need to tick off the prosecutor by trying to one-up him/her with a media circus.

    Parent

    Yes it's totally irrelevant (none / 0) (#115)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    and totally unnecessary. I'm not the one who made the pointlerss comment about NBC's lawyers. I just pointed out they had not made the ridiculous argument YMan was making

      For the umpteenth time:

     There is no debatable argument that Mr. Gregory did not possess the item he is shown possessing in the video!.

    It's in his freaking hand for God's sake! Obviously he and he alone had the ability to control it at thae time and he had actual possession of it.

      There are other issues involved , but you have to be dense beyond belief not to undestand he possessed the item.

    Parent

    Ohhhhhh, ... the ITEM ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    There is no debatable argument that Mr. Gregory did not possess the item he is shown possessing in the video!.

    ... he was holding in his hand, as opposed to what I actually said, which was that whether Gregory "possessed" the magazine for purposes of the statute in question is debatable.  If, for example, Gregory had a fake "magazine" or a legal magazine (i.e. not high capacity), his attorneys could easily argue that he did not have the knowledge/intent required to have "possession" as required under the statute.  Unless, of course, they want to charge him with "possession of an item".

    BTW - Does the use of an exclamation point and bold make a statement more true?

    Parent

    for the purpose (none / 0) (#127)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    of ANY STATUTE dealing with possession of ANYTHING, he is possessing the item which he is clearly holding in his freaking hand!!!!!!!

      Evidently emphasis necessary to penetrate your skull does not exist.

      Possession is a WORD with a meaning. A person holding something in his hand possess that something.

      OTHER elements of an offense (or an affirmative defense) might come into play even when possession has been inarguably established, but that is entirely different than making the STUPID argument a person does not possess what he holds in his hand.

      For example, I might lack intent to possess something I do possess. Example, I have something in my hand by mistake because I accidentally picked up your bag with your contraband in it. I might lack knowledge about what I possess because you lied to me about what it is and told me it was baking soda when it was really cocaine.I might have an excuse for possessing it, such as i grabbed it from you to keep you from shooting someon with a gun.

      But, in all those examples and the example of Gregory "possession" is not debatable.

    Parent

    "Not debateable"? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    I think you've been debating it.

    Seriously.

     

    Parent

    Color me dense beyond belief (none / 0) (#124)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Got a cite defining possession for the purpose of D.C. firearms laws? Possession is a complex legal subject. Stack up all the legal writings ever on the nature of possession and you'd have a mighty high stack. But it's clearly not just holding something in your hand, else every cop that ever did a drug bust would follow the arrestees intno the pokey.

    But back to the lawyer thing, I'm a little confused: were you pointing out that his lawyers haven't made that statement privately? If so, I'm wondering where you came by that knowledge.

    If, as I suspect, you're only pointing out that they haven't made the argument publicly, I don't think you're really saying anything meaningful since they haven't said anything at all publicly.

    Parent

    yes, emphasis added (none / 0) (#128)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    The term "possess" means to exercise authority, dominion or control over something.
    It is not necessarily the same as legal ownership. The law recognizes different kinds
    of possession.
    [Possession includes both actual and constructive possession. A person who has
    direct physical control of something on or around his person is then in actual
    possession of it    . A person who is not in actual possession, but who has both the
    power and the intention to exercise control over something is in constructive
    possession of it. Whenever I use the term "possession" in these instructions, I mean
    actual as well as constructive possession.]

    Parent
    I don't think that actually helps much (none / 0) (#133)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    (1) You don't cite your source. Is that from D.C. caselaw? If not, then it doesn't determine the answer to this question, although it can certainly be helpful.

    (2) But here's the main thing. The bolded part doesn't define "possession," it defines "actual possession." That's crystal clear if you read the sentence right before the bolded part, which separates possession into "actual possession" and "constructive possession."

    The D.C. code in question says "possession," not "actual possession."

    Peter G provided a link above with a helpful discussion of types of possession that is useful here. The link at http://law.jrank.org/pages/9296/Possession.html starts out by saying:

    "The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than possession" (National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S. Ct. 209, 58 L. Ed. 504 [1914]). Depending on how and when it is used, the term possession has a variety of possible meanings. As a result, possession, or lack of possession, is often the subject of controversy in civil cases involving real and personal property and criminal cases involving drugs and weapons."

    On that same page is a link to the discussion of "actual possession" at http://law.jrank.org/pages/9292/Possession-Actual-Possession.html, which states that actual possession "is by necessity very limited" and courts use other definitions of possession.

    Parent

    again (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:54:42 PM EST
     It's pointless to waste my time and everyone else's responding to people incapable of understanding basic concepts. That's from DC pattern jury instructions. Look it up on LExis if you doubt me. If you don't understand that it proves my point you are simply hopeless,

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#158)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    All you needed to tell me was that it was from D.C. jury instructions. That is indeed dispositive.

    If you said that previously, I missed it. Thanks agai.

    Parent

    for god's sake (none / 0) (#146)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:39:57 PM EST
     you link to a pagre clearly defining possession EXACTLY as i have explained it to ad nauseum and are still artguing as if it makes my point rather than your point?

      Incredible! Read your own link:

      Actual possession is what most of us think of as possession--that is, having physical custody or control of an object" (United States v. Nenadich, 689 F.Supp. 285 [S.D. N.Y. 1988]). Actual possession, also sometimes called possession in fact, is used to describe immediate physical contact. For example, a person wearing a watch has actual possession of the watch. Likewise, if you have your wallet in your jacket pocket, you have actual possession of your wallet. This type of possession, however, is by necessity very limited.

      Before you embarrass yourself further by arguing the "very limited" helps you, read it again and it might dawn on you that is limited to exactly what we are talking about-- such as a man holding an itenm IN HIS FREAKING HAND!!!!!!!!!

    Parent

    He's on video... (none / 0) (#179)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    ...holding something that "looks" like a high capacity magazine.

    How would one go into court and prove an irrefutable chain of evidence that the magazine introduced at trial was the same object?

    DG could have put his fingerprints on lots of magazines in some other jurisdiction where they are legal.

    Just because he said it was a high capacity magazine does not guarantee that he was telling the truth and that it wasn't something from the prop department.  After all, Fox News has already established in court that news outfits can legally lie.

    Parent

    That is true (none / 0) (#180)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:05:42 AM EST
       and I addressed it elsewhere in this thread. Maybe he lied (which is not a crime) and it was not really a high capacity clip. The question of fact though would concern the nature of the item he possessed not whether he possessed the item.

      As for how it could be proven. People with personal knowledge of what it was could testify to that fact providing direct evidence of what it was. Additionally, there may be a paper trail which would provide circumstantial evidence that the item was in fact a high capacity clip. If for example there is a record a production assistant for NBC purchased a high capacity clip that evidence could be introduced and the purchaser could be brought to cort to testify about what he did with it after purchasing it.

    Parent

    Prop man too... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Eddpsair on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    Care, custody, control or management....

    As I sad above, anyone who came into contact with it under committed a crime.  It is as illegal as cocaine in DC.  

    It is contraband.  if he held up a baggie of real cocaine would that be an offense?  Yes, and for the prop man who handed it to him....

    DC made their law on hi capacity magazines pretty broad and pretty airtight.  

    Parent

    Well, Gregory et al. may be (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    charged with a crime, but there are a few more steps in the criminal justice system before we can say, with certitude, that they committed a crime.

    Parent
    What makes you say anyone with contact? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Trickster on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:41:59 PM EST
    "Contact" isn't the money word in the statute, it's "possess." What does "possess" mean in this context? A fair legal question, but I strongly suspect it's more restrictive than "came into contact with."

    Parent
    Main characteristics of "possession" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    in this context are knowing and intentional control, direct or indirect ("actual" or "constructive"), without legal justification or excuse. I would consider the First Amendment journalistic purpose to be a justification.  In addition, the violation, if any, is de minimis, so the investigation is likely to be quietly and quickly dropped.

    Parent
    That sounds quite reasonable (none / 0) (#37)
    by Trickster on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    But you didn't get it from that link you provided. What is your source? Are you a lawyer who has dealt with this?

    I ask because this question has got me looking around a bit. I noticed that the pertinent D.C. code section doesn't define "possess," nor does 26 U.S.C. s 5845, the definitions section for the chapter of the USC that illegalizes certain weapon types.

    Parent

    Yes, I am, but as for the link (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    trying going forward and back a few pages from the page I linked, also.  The on-line edition of that (highly reputable) encyclopedia of criminal justice (to which I contributed two entries, years ago) puts only a few paragraphs of the article on each webpage.  The Code section in question here is the D.C. Code, not the U.S. Code, so section 5845 and other provisions in title 18 and title 26 are not directly pertinent.

    Parent
    Somebody probably "possessed" it (none / 0) (#24)
    by Trickster on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    I doubt it was Gregory.

    I found the definitions for the code and "possess" is NOT defined, so the definition will come from analogous case law.

    Typically, to "possess" something under the law means more than simply holding it in your hand and/or showing it to somebody. Some relationship similar to ownership has to happen.

    Black's Law Dictionary Online definition of possession [http://thelawdictionary.org/....]:

    "The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of any-thing which may be the subject of property, for one's use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one's place and name. That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other persons."

    The Legal Dictionary online definition of possession [http://legal-dictionary.thefre...]:

    "Possession" is "[t]he ownership, control, or occupancy of a thing, most frequently land or Personal Property, by a person."

    Here, it's true that somebody most likely ultimately "possessed" the clip, leading it to be available for Meet the Press, and it's quite possible that some unknown person (probably NBC would be my best guess) broke the law thereby--but I highly doubt that Gregory owned or controlled that clip. I imagine that it came from the prop department; he held it up and talked about it, then never saw it again.

    To find out who, exactly, "possessed" the clip would require an investigation of some sort. Exactly how much of its resources do you think the DCPD should put into getting to the bottom of this terrible crime?


    Parent

    Media loves Media coverage of Media... (4.50 / 2) (#46)
    by Addison on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:36:04 PM EST
    ...anyway: NBC broke the law, Gregory is likely protected under the first amendment somehow (NBC, despite being lawbreakers, has good lawyers), and all of this is a distraction.

    and so it goes (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    ...anyway: Bank CEO'S broke the law, Bankers are likely protected under the first amendment of politics ("pay to play") somehow (Goldman Sachs, despite being lawbreakers, has good lawyers), and all of this is a distraction.

    all allegedly, of course

    Parent

    You're making up laws. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:05:29 AM EST


    Parent
    Nope, just piggy backing (none / 0) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:00:52 PM EST
    And exercising poetic license

    Parent
    Good Gravy... (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    ...so he's in trouble for showing one when the rest of the country can own them with actual live ammunition, and the guns they fit, legally.

    Sometimes I get why Christians think the end of the world is near, this is so stooopid, that something has to be going on bigger than all of us, humans can't be this idiotic without some invisible hand.
    ----------------------

    I am really interested in the posters continued use of FoxNews links, is this coincidence, or has the curator of a liberal blog decided FoxNews is reliable source material ?

    I Googled it, it's not a FoxNews exclusive, yet FoxNews is the link used.

    Puzzling & troubling.

    You can't own them in CA. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by redwolf on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    The cops run random checks at shooting ranges and pull people over coming over the boarder from Nevada looking for such magazines. If the laws don't apply to the elites then why should the common folks respect them?

    Parent
    Actually, it's legal for a CA citizen to own a mag (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    over 10 rounds, but not legal to "import, sell, give, trade, or lend" one.

    It is illegal to import, sell, give, trade, or lend a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition, except for fixed tubular magazines for lever-action rifles and .22 caliber rifles; however, the possession of such magazines is legal.


    Parent
    That's nice, here's how the law actually works: (none / 0) (#45)
    by redwolf on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:32:41 PM EST
    If you buy one in Nevada, the cops will pull you over just across the border and you will be arrested even if the cops don't have anyway of telling the difference between a non imported magazine and an imported magazine.  Hell they will pull you over even if you simply park in a gun store parking lot in Nevada(Yes the state of California pays cops to cruise around writing down any CA license plates in the parking lot of a Nevada gun shop).  If they find one at a range they will seize it and ask you to prove that it was a pre-ban magazine.  If you can't prove it, then you're going to jail for importing the magazine.

    The law as written is unenforceable.  The law as enforced is guilty until proven innocent.

    Parent

    Well, I have no direct experience with this law (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    and no dog in whatever point you're trying to make, but here's some other's CA experience with this subject, and here's more.

    Parent
    So You are For It... (none / 0) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    ...in DC applied against Gregory and against it in CA applied to... people like yourself.

    This is why discussing anything with the right is impossible, they can't figure out what they want, just grunt and point, 'Gregory bad' because this week he had been branded the dreaded L by the right.

    You want him prosecuted for a law you disagree with, just because you think he is a liberal, which I would argue he is not.  Either you like the law or you don't, quit changing your view on it depending who is being held accountable.

    I think it's all a bunch of BS and I find it wildly unbelievable that people would go to a spot know for cops confiscating magazines, to buy magazines.  Are gun owners in California that stupid or is your tale more folklore to make a point about how stupid a law is that you want a liberal prosecuted for.

    Parent

    Really? (3.00 / 5) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    DC has the laws you would favor but you don't think
    David Gregory should have to follow them because why?  Because he wanted to confront Wayne La Pierre in a self righteous snit fit?
    Cooler heads will prevail eventually...my worry is I am not sure we are going to be able to find any on either side.  
    The media sucks, Gregory has just exposed himself as another liberal jackass unable to separate his personal feelings from his job.

    BTW, I am a liberal.  I expect more from my side.

    Parent

    Oh, please (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    You could care less about enforcing DC's gun laws.  You're simply pi$$ed at Gregory because you don't like his question about whether a ban of high-capacity magazines would reduce carnage in these kind of mass shootings.  Gregory is a "liberal jacka$$" for merely holding up a high-capacity magazine and asking the question, while you have not one word of criticism for LaPierre who has made some of the most ridiculous, offensive statements of any leader of any national organization?

    Wow.

    Parent

    now you are a mind reader (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:54:22 PM EST
    and know my mind better than I do...or I am just a liar.  There is something you should know about me, if you are going to respond to me online. I always say exactly what I mean.  It gets me in trouble all the time.  So I get to be taken at face value.  If you can't do that, please don't bother me with your BS.
    The criticism is for Gregory because he has a forum in which he could do some good and instead he blows it by grandstanding.  Seriously, the effing hyperbole about LaPierre would be funny if it weren't so damn sad.  We need cooler minds on the right.  I hate to tell you this kid, we need cooler minds on the left too.  So far pretty much everything I have read or heard from the left has sounded like borderline hysterics and not the least bit smarter than the borderline hysterics I hear from the gun lovers on the right.
    You don't know me.  If you are going to make shit up in your head about me, at least be smart enough to keep it to yourself.

    Parent
    You have not cornered the market on (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:43:59 PM EST
    saying what you mean; there are plenty of people who comment here who manage to say what they mean, but don't do it with the hostility, anger, confrontation and derision you bring to almost everything you say.

    To the point where people don't so much want to engage you in dialogue as they want to tell you to...well, I'm sure it's something you hear a lot, if this is how you "say what you mean" in your non-internet life.

    You talk about the left needing cooler heads, but yours seems to be constantly on fire.

    Yeah, I can be caustic and sarcastic and condescending and angry, but that's a place I usually get to as a last resort, or with those who have proven themselves dishonest and disingenuous and trollish. - it's not something I usually hit people with right out of the gate.

    David Gregory is a complete tool - I doubt there is a thinking being who doesn't know that - and I'd love for someone to investigate him for impersonating a journalist, but that's never going to happen.

    Large capacity magazines absolutely should be outlawed, and if more attention ends up being drawn to that discussion because of this so-called investigation, I'm okay with that.

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:50:46 AM EST
    Anne,

    You got snarky with me right off the bat and went from zero to ad hominiem in nothing flat.  Go check our exchange a few days ago.  

    Parent

    For someone who just started commenting here (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:02:46 AM EST
    a few short months ago -- a conservative posting on a liberal site, no less -- you sure do have a high and mighty attitude towards other longtime commenters. You also have a habit of hijacking threads and demanding a whole lot of attention.

    Maybe you should check your attitude before spouting off as if you own the place. You might get a better reception.

    Parent

    And, in case you didn't notice, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    Anne wasn't even responding to you. She was responding to Teresa.

    Parent
    Practice what you preach (none / 0) (#92)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    Shoe,

    Practice what you preach.  Also read my post.  I was talking about an an attack out of the blue by Anne a few days ago on me on an earlier thread.

    For the record, Jeralyn owns this site, not you, no matter how much squatters rights you claim.  

    I will abide by her rules and any failure to do so will be an oversight.  

    I started coming here about 10 months ago during the GZ/TM shooting because I found it the best site on the net covering the issue.  

    I don't comment much on many subjects because they don't interest me, or I don't have an opinion nor any particular expertise.

    If you think the amount of white noise you add to the cosmos makes your comments more relevant, I disagree.  If you think the fact you have been posting here longer than me makes your logic more sound, you are in for disappointment.

    This isn't a football game, it is about those kids, not your team or my team.  

    I attack arguments, not people..until they attack me ad hominiem or outside the discussion.  

    Parent

    Unlike you, I have no misconceptions (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    about my "relevance" here or anywhere else. The self-love is all in your corner. I was merely pointing out that you are a hijacker and an attention getter, which is so obvious it really isn't necessary to debate.

    Parent
    Hijacker? (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    Define hijacker?  LOL!!

    You OWN this site?

    Or are you just trying to shout down someone who disagrees with you without attacking their argument.

    Ad hominiem attacks are a classic fallacy of logic.  

    Attention getting?  Please.  

    It seems you are demanding an echo chamber of people who agree with you or you will attack them.

    Parent

    Made up claims and nuttiness (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    When did I say I "owned" this site? Hmmm?

    You really do come off as unhinged.

    Parent

    Capable (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    Shoe,

    Are you capable of addressing the issues or are you just here to annoy?  

    I don't think I have had one exchange with you where you didn't include personal attacks.

    Parent

    Instead of whining, (none / 0) (#151)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    how about answering the question about why you think Social Security--which isn't part of the deficit problem--should be included in the deficit talks.

    Parent
    yeah.... and Anne was responding to me (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    when I was talking to someone else.  It happens around here.  Isn't this all getting kind of silly? Seems to me Edd is welcome here until Jeralyn says otherwise.

    Parent
    Well, duh. (none / 0) (#134)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:50:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#145)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    Thanks Teresa....

    I never met anyone from PA I didn't like...  :-) But I have spent most of the time in Pittsburgh at a bar an buddy owned.  :-)

    Parent

    This is hilarious...I mentioned that (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    your conservative was showing based on your calling $5 billion for armed guards "chump change" even as you had expressed your "concern" over the cost of safety net programs, and that qualified as an ad hominem attack?

    Too funny.

    Parent

    Safety net? (1.50 / 2) (#118)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    I never expressed any concern over the cost of a safety net program...

    That was the person who posted above me.  

    Parent

    Your statement is inaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    I posted above you in that thread and you, not I, made the comment on the cost of the safety net programs:

    Straw man (1.50 / 2) (#100)
    by Eddpsair on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 12:06:18 AM CST
    MO,

    You make the call... Where would you cut?

    If you completely terminated all US Government functions except for SS and entitlemts...  Disband the military, shut down the FBI the EPA the DOT and the DOE... All of it, we are still in the red 20 cents on the dollar.
    And the new taxes proposed will fund our government for a couple of weeks...  
    Even if you confiscate all wealth over 1 million like France at 75%, the numbers don't work.
    So entitlements will be cut.   Which ones do you want to cut if you were in charge.  



    Parent
    Safety net (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    Safety net is not part of my vernacular.  It was your term.  I never used it.

    So don't apply it to me.

    I call those programs entitlements, not safety nets.

    5billion is eraser dust.  It is chump change.

    Entitlements add up to trillions annually.  

    This is a national debate about kids being safer in school.  As opposed to some of the solutions, armed guards are probably the cheapest.

    Parent

    Responses (none / 0) (#150)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    MO,

    You old tactical expert on holsters and such (those are the thingys that hold pistols)!

    I have been berated by your fellow sophisticates for not addressing their rebuttals from a few days ago.

    What about your challenge that I provide proof to you a couple of days ago on several issues.....

    You never responded to several posts.   I took the time to give you the appropriate freeze frame time references to the video you provided, a deep look ithe organizational structure of your "experts" from Bethlehem PD off their own web site and corrected your misunderstanding of the 1 hour "training" for CCW.

    There are things you can challenge me on and be right, or at least debatable.   But shooting and tactics are probably not your strong suit....

    Parent

    I asked for a link that proved (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    that the holster was the type you claimed it was.

    You failed to provide any proof to substantiate your claim.

    I requested that you provide a link that substantiated your claim that the Bethlehem Police Department had a substandard training program.

    Once again you failed to provide any proof. Rather you listed the size of the department and stated your opinion that because it was a small town department it could not provide adequate training.

    When you provide the requested links we can discuss this further.

    Parent

    Denial (none / 0) (#176)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:32:53 AM EST
    Mo,

    That is some serious denial.   I didn't need a link, Yours proved all my points if you weren't being intentionally obtuse.

    I will play with your game one more time.

    You don't even know what I am talking about half the time and want me to prove it to you....   LOL.  

    These terms are common knowledge for anyone with any tactical firearms experience and even every rookie cop.  

    Anyone who wants to deconstruct an active shooter scenario should have a working knowledge of the subject matter.

    You don't.

    Your silly, state motto, which thou frequently parrot when you are out of your depth "show me" "show me" would be like me asking one of you attorneys to prove what a litany of legal terms meant because I was too ignorant to understand them...  Hey Mo, what is prima facia? I don't believe you, give me a link.  I have never heard of Nexus Lexis...give me a link because i dont believe you.  What about malum prohibitum, give me a link because I think he was the bad guy in "Duke Nukem".

    That is how you sound in my world....

    If you don't know what "high ride" means, if you don't know what "level 2" means, If you don't know what "Kyldex" is, if you don't know what "2 o'clock position" means, if you don't know what "forward cant" is and if you don't know what the "ready position" is, ...then perhaps you shouldn't purport that you know what a realistic active shooter simulation is either.

     Its not my job to educate you on what you don't know... Too much work.  But feel free to google those terms and educate yourself.....I am open to ANY rebuttal you think you have based on your research, but waste your time rookie, not mine.

    I know Jeralyn does not like long links and I don't know how to do the short ones.

    Do you know how to use google when someone spots you the proper word combination?  You seem to struggle with that.  or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

    So here are your "links", Mo.... Put this into google....and push the "images button"....   High ride holster.     Level 2 retention holster.  Forward cant holster.  Then use a normal web search for: Kyldex holster   composite holster.   Images for 2 o'clock holster position.   Can you handle that without someone giving you a link?  

    Then cross index with the cites i gave you off your silly little video.  

    BETHLEHEM PD, your heroes.  And your insistence that if Diane Sawyer uses them, they must be almost Navy Seal like....

    Wrong.

    Google them and check their website.  I gave you the details to do that. You do the two extra mouse clicks and see if you can prove me wrong.

    Yeah, buddy, Bethlehem PD, they run with the big dogs....they are real bad Po Po outfit.  

    According to their crime stats....THEY HAVE HANDLED ONE MURDER IN THE LAST 3 YEARS.

    That's a clue.... Very little experiance with murder....you know, the stuff they were TEACHING about on TV...

    Bethlehem doesnt even have a full time training department.
    They do show 3 part timers as their training department whose collateral duty with the traffic division....which writes tickets...they are very proud of their volume of tickets.... Check it out.  It is on their site...

    Clue number 2.... Municipal ticket writers...not real tactical.  

    One of their big police initiatives is underage drinking.

    Clue number 3.....   Underage drinking....the only active shooters they see are doing tequila shots.

    They have three motorcycles and service a town of 75k including two colleges and a seminary.  I am sure they are very proficient at making those parking meters downtown pay off like slot machines.

    They have officers assigned to school crossing guards and bicycle registration.

    Crossing guards??   Bicycle registration??....   Yep active shooters beware. The Po Po  stay frosty putting little lisences on bicycles.

    They can field about 30 officers per shift....minus school crossing guard and bicycle registration officers of course....LOL!!

    There has never been a school shooting in Bethlehem.  Google it for yourself.

    As a department, there is no evidence they have ANY practical experiance at what they were demonstrating for ABC.

    Clue 4.....

    They don't have full time SWAT.  In fact none of their specialized units  are professional cadre, they are just too small.

    Clue 5.....  Not full time professionals, then not in my weightclass.

    They don't even have air support.

    Clue 6....  Not a major police force

    Thier crime lab vehicle was donated.  

    Minimum In service reqirements for PA are only 60% of ours....

    60%...What was the subject here again, training expertise?

     And it seems full time Penn SP training staff does some of their training for them....  (hint, those would be guys like me)  And there were no professional PSP instructors in the video....just the part timers who may or may not be even be state certified.   Very odd, don't you think?. :-)

    Finally, They have had one officer killed in almost a century....traffic accident.

    Not a real dangerous place......even to be a cop.

    Oh yeah, Mo, they are gonna come down and teach us a thing or two about how to handle an active shooter.  You think your kindergarten cops are gonna teach something new to a full time special ops with a training budget (just special ops) that is larger than their entire departments operating budget(I got that on their web site too).....

    They are Mayberry.... Even still they are probably honest enough to say how rigged and unrealistic that video was if you asked them.  

    We are one of the top special ops teams in the country and the cartels keep us on our toes....we don't do bicycle registrations.

    Parent

    Your long rant proves nothing other (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:04:27 AM EST
    than you know how to talk about guns. I'm sure that every NRA lobbyist is well versed enough to sound credible while they disburse their disinformation.

    Your long rant proves only that the police department is the type found in cities that size. It once again does not prove that the training provided by their department is substandard. You also have not proven that there were no professional PSP instructors in the video. That is just your assumption.

    From all indications you will be successful in getting your NRA security programs complete with armed guards into many of our schools. The money that could go to providing a better education will be diverted into the NRA coffers.

    BTW, do you think that your gun lobbyists are going to provide quality training to Utah teachers in six hours using plastic guns.

    Parent

    False Premis (none / 0) (#194)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    Mo,

    For the millionth time, I am not a. NRA member.  I have no lobbyists.

    Another in an unending line of false assumptions from you.  

    And Shoe accuses me of BS..... Funny.  

    It is time YOU proved something beyond how intentionally obtuse you can be.  You certainly win that one.  All the facts are there... Dispute them and send me a link....or even a google word string...

    Parent

    For the very last time (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    No confirmed facts were ever provided in any of your comments to me or to anyone else.

    If you can easily prove your data is correct, provide the links to support it.

    No supportive links = no validity.

    Bye now. I done.

    Parent

    As MOBlue has so kindly pointed out, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    you were the one who deemed it inevitable that the safety net programs would have to be cut, and in the next breath/comment advised that $5 billion for armed guards in every school was "chump change."

    Had you made the argument - as others did - that if there was $5 billion to be found, it might best be spent on things like teachers, or asked, as others did, why we would think about spending billions on armed guards when safety net programs were on the chopping block, I wouldn't have called out your right wing BS.

    Parent

    In addition, (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    he failed to respond directly to my point that SS needn't be part of any deficit discussion, since it isn't part of the budget and doesn't contribute to the deficit. Instead, the diversion response was to ask if I thought the 2% payroll tax cut should be continued. To which I answered "no."

    Parent
    Be patient with me... :-) (none / 0) (#140)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    Shoe,

    I am obviously not as addicted to this site as you are....

    I don't check back that far....Sorry....  I am much more interested in this thread.

    Happy to oblige now.

    My position...EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE.

    My SS, My Military Pension, your Medicare and Medicade.  Defense spending, unemployment....

    Please excuse me for not responding sooner.... I have so many tolerant people here trying to shout me down, you may have to wait in line for me to get to your less than interesting comments...

    Parent

    "Back that far" (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:47:50 PM EST
    Yeah, I think your question to me on the payroll tax cut was from aaalllll the waaayyyyy baaccckkkk to two days ago.

    Sorry to hear you have short term memory issues.

    Now please explain to us, once and for all, why everything including Social Security needs to be "on the table" for the deficit talks, when Social Security isn't part of the budget and doesn't contribute to the budget deficit. Because, amid all your bluster and diversionary tactics, you still haven't answered that basic question.

    Parent

    SS (1.67 / 3) (#153)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    I thought the answer I gave you that day was sufficient.

    I have no further response.  Did you not read it?  

    You play gotcha games and ignore the overriding point.

    Do you want me to say you were technically correct about one facet of the larger conversation.  Okay

    But it served only as a distractor.  

    I did not know then that was your only purpose in addressing me...


    Parent

    No, actually you didn't answer the question (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    Instead, you offered up some wishy-washy pablum about how it's all government spending, so it should be on the table. Except it isn't. And then there was that diversionary silliness about how we don't have budgets, and haven't had budgets for years! so nothing is part of the budget.

    But, in the service of accuracy, let's go to the relevant comment thread:

    Well, since Social Security (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:53:39 AM EST
    isn't part of the budget, it's not contributing to the budget deficit. (Did you know that?) Therefore, it doesn't need to be cut.
    Your premise is a false premise.

    Try again.

    Parent | Reply to This

    Budget (none / 0) (#118)
    by Eddpsair on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:39:57 PM EST
    Shoe,
    "Part of the budget" is a misnomer since we haven't had one in years.  If you want to play technicalities, NOTHING is part of the budget since we don't have one.

    So let's call it what it is.... government spending.   Now can you answer the WHOLE question without acting like SS is the only factor I was talking about?

    Just curious, do you want to keep the payroll tax down?  I don't.  That is how we fund SS.  

    Parent | Reply to This |  1 2  3  4  5

    To which I answered, "no," that, like you, I wanted the payroll tax cut discontinued. To which you did not respond at all.

    There. Glad the whole thing has been cleared up with facts and quotes about what really transpired.

    And yet... you still didn't answer the question about why SS should be included...well, not logically, anyway.

    Parent

    Shoe (none / 0) (#178)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:13:08 AM EST
    I don't care.   You are are not as mesmerizing as you think.  :-)
    It doesn't make you a clever little boy.  :-)

    "No" on the payroll tax worked for me.   Did you want a response?  I am glad you want that tax cut discontinued.  I already gave you my position.  We were in agreement on an issue.

    Did you need a hug or something?

    Did I miss it, or did you ever answer the larger question, or just the SS one? Not that I really care..it's almost rhetorical to me.  

    I am not real interested in that thread... That is why I don't check it....  

    You wouldn't like my solution for the econmy and I would not like yours.   I am pretty sure we are both going to hate what happens in the long run.  

    On this "gun" thread I thought I might actually find some consensus since everyone wants action.  I thought there could be common ground.  I know guns better than most people even among Marines and Cops.  I am "pro gun" to an extent but not an NRA member and have been shot at enough to want to look at some solutions to the problem of these school shooters.

    Guys like MO don't understand the first thing about even the mechanical and technical aspects of firearms which is essential to the legislation.  That is how it was circumvented last time.   He was out of his depth in our discussion, which I started after watching him lambast others with that silly video that he didn't have a clue about.   I saw it back in 2009 so it wasn't news to me.  

    I am very objective on tactical scenarios.  I am recovering and on sick leave but I will be developing some for special ops training after New Years.  If that had been pretty good, or average I would have given credit where it was due.   But it was laughably awful.  

    So I go through "Fort Apache" with being attacked ad hominiem rather than arguments and respond in kind.   This is why my side always says, to heck with it, there is no dealing with those people.  and nothing gets done.

    It will take consensus.  Guns have been flying off the shelves for 4 years.  The left says there are 30 million gun owners.   Doesn't seem right to me....   The value of the weapons out there would mean that the average gun owner would have $100k in weapons and they don't....  So that means there are more out there then many pundits think.  

    Parent

    You are obviously a very, very (none / 0) (#184)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    bitter, angry man. The tone and context of your comments shows that clearly. In which case, you are the last person on earth who should be permitted to have a gun.

    As to the rest, well, you got caught in your b.s. and couldn't handle it. And now I'm bored with you. I'll let others waste their time with you if they choose.

    Parent

    Guns (none / 0) (#191)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    Shoe,

    BS, seriously?

    You and a couple of your buddies decide you want an echo chamber and systematically harrass me in attempt to run me off while I am trying to listen and discuss issues with some of the serious intellects here.  By the way, you are not one of them.

    Again, you each started the ad hominiem on me.  I was focused on arguments.

    Take a look in the mirror, Shoe... People like you are the cause of the gridlock.   Why in the heck should someone like me lean across the aisle to seek consensus with a bunch of pseudo intellectual cyber bullies like you and your two
    little  sidekicks?  Do you seriously think we can get anything effective passed without some cooperation.?

    You send rediculos straw man emails to me as fast as your three little sets of fingers can type.   And yours are the least interesting and thier sole intent is harassment and distractions.

    Anytime you want to come up with a serious idea instead of your little gotcha games, let me know.

    Parent

    Just Saying... (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly specify a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities including public discussions.

    Seems like you are taking liberties with your implied profession or you are breaking federal law, probably several if you posting from a government facility.

    The policy is HERE.

    It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship. In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply:


    Parent
    Military (none / 0) (#192)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    Scott...

    Are you addressing me? I am retired Military.  Currently on sick leave  from my state job.  Sitting in my kitchen.  

    Does that clear it up?  

    Parent

    And you are also (none / 0) (#199)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:50:39 PM EST
    Going into schools and stopping gunmen with your gun?  Are you like some kind of SOCOM law enforcement officer getting flown into the school shooting situations?

    It's kind of an a$$hole way of asking, but I do recall you telling me that you were doing that and I ignored you because the statement road blazing hot into ridiculousness.

    Parent

    MO (1.50 / 2) (#141)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    It is called prioritization.

    It is called best use of resources.

    So is it YOUR position that we should not enact any legislation vis a vis the CT shooting because there would be a cost?

    If so, why are you talking about solutions.

    Parent

    You and I both know that it is (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    not my position that we should not enact any legislation vis a vis the CT shooting because there would be a cost?

    You and I both know that we disagree on what the solution should be.

    You set up these scenarios whereby you make false statements about how if people do not agree with you they do not care about the children who were gunned down in CT and then you whine about how people are attacking you. Boy, do you have playing the victim down pat.

    Parent

    Caring (none / 0) (#167)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    MO,

    I never said you or anyone else had to agree with my solutions.  I said if people didn't stop demonizing the other side, they weren't serious about trying to solve the problem and were using the kids death to forward their own agendas.

    Now if that fits you, then i don't know what to tell you.

    Parent

    It isn't a question of demonizing, it's a (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:24:12 PM EST
    matter of fundamentally disagreeing on what policies and approaches are best, and rejecting the idea of having armed guards in the schools is in no way "using" anyone's death to advance an agenda.

    I know what the 2nd Amendment says, but I fundamentally disagree with it being interpreted to allow ownership of weapons the singular purpose of which is to kill people.  I fundamentally disagree with laws that allow people to own weapons with no oversight or regulation.  I fundamentally disagree with having to share public space with people who are carrying weapons on a concealed basis.

    In my opinion, there are many things that could have prevented what happened at Newtown, but an armed guard in the school isn't one of them.  I'm not willing to use these people's deaths as a means of militarizing our school system because I don't think it's the answer.  It's no different than using the events of 9/11 as a means of making further incursions on privacy and freedom: none of what we've lost has made us safer.

    I can assure you that many of us are dead serious about wanting the killing to stop, and just as resolved not to let people like you manipulate the arguments so that you can end up being the only ones who are "thinking of the children."

    That crap's just not going to sell here.

    Parent

    You are IMO using the kids death to (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    forward your agenda. The only way you want to solve the problem is to arm people in the schools.

    Well from the looks of it you will get what you want in more than one state. As we speak, a Utah leading gun lobby is providing teachers with six hours of training with plastic guns to prepare them to shoot it out with people dressed in body armor and armed with Bushmaster rifles with large capacity magazines. Of course the teachers are only to start shooting it out after they have shown the assailant their weapon and shouted stop. What could possibly go wrong when they have been so well trained.

    Parent

    Demonstrably false (none / 0) (#188)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    Mo,

    Demonstrably false premis....

    Check my posts

    I have NEVER  said arming the schools was the "only" solution.

    Quite the opposite. I have ALWAYS said this is a multi faceted solution and gun control is part of it.  

    It seems to have no major issues where it has been tried.

    And your Heroes, all those ex Navy Seals at Bethlehem PD.... Don't look now but they guard their schools, at least part time.  :-).

    It isn't a radical concept.  

    But gun control, mental health, video gaming..... We need to look at that too.  That has ALWAYS been my stance.  

    The President has that right....let's see if the politicians follow through.  

    Parent

    Utah (none / 0) (#189)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Mo,

    And you can fact check this, but Utah has had teachers armed with CCWs for a while.  With no apparent issues that I have seen.

     Larry Corriea claims to have taught 126 teachers to shoot in Utah, just on his own to get their CCW.  He provides the service free to teachers and military.

    (you can look him up but you won't like him...pretty partisan)

    Parent

    Guns at Utah schools (none / 0) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    An 11-year-old student may face charges after he said his parents encouraged him to bring a gun to school for protection.

    Fox Salt Lake City reports that the boy said his parents' suggestion came after the devastating Sandy Hook Elementary shooting on Friday.

    The student allegedly pulled the .22-caliber pistol out of his backpack during recess Monday morning and pointed it at one of his classmates.

    "He pulled out a gun and he put it to my head -- me and my friend -- (and) said he was going to kill us," Isabelle Rios told KSL. "I told him I was going to tell, but he said, `If you tell, I'm going to kill you.'"



    Parent
    11 year old. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    Mo,

    I wasn't aware they had 11 year old teachers in Utah....

    We were discussing armed teachers, no?

    Parent

    Condesention (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    Anne,

    I thought the philosophy you subscribed to was "if just one life is saved, it is worth it".  

    Did I misjudge?  

    Suddenly the first thing you want to talk about with solutions for kids being murdered in their class rooms is the cost!?!?!

    I have to find an offset for a relatively cheap program that saves lives and provides jobs before you will consider it???  

    Tell Karl Rove we all said "hello" :-)


    Parent

    Good Lord...let me make this (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    easier for you.

    I do not believe putting armed guards in every school in America is the answer to preventing mass killings at schools; it is not, in my opinion, a good use of funds - not when school districts have cut teacher positions, cut teacher pay and teacher benefits.

    You were the one who brought up the cost as being chump change - apparently, you would rather put armed guards in schools than restore money to child and maternal nutrition programs, after-school programs, parent education.  You would rather take more dollars out of the pockets of seniors in order to militarize the schools.  You would rather more people went without health care in order to put men or women with guns in schools.

    It starts with one armed guard the first year.  Then, it has to be two, because the number of hours a guard is required is more than one person can handle.  Then it's three guards - one to patrol outside when the children are playing or at the beginning and end of the school day.  Then, it's about paying them more to attract better guards.  Meanwhile, student-teacher ratios continue to go up because more teacher positions have to be cut, and soon, there is no art or music or gym teacher.  Then, when there's no money for more guards, it's letting the teachers be armed.

    Soon, there is no difference between the local elementary school and the local prison.

    No, sorry - I'm sick of every aspect of our lives being turned on its head in the name of safety and security.  Guns are not the answer to everything; in fact, guns are a significant part of the problem.

    Know what would go a long way to reducing crime and mass killings?  Full employment, a decent standard of living, mental and physical health care without judgment.  You want to invest in guns and weapons and "security;" I want this country to really give a damn about the people who live here - and that means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not on my table - for starters.

    As for your Karl Rove comment, you can just bite me; for someone who says he has been here for 10 months, your powers of observation and your understanding of those who comment here are woefully inadequate.

    Parent

    Armed guards (none / 0) (#175)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:41:47 AM EST
    Anne,

    I got it, that slippery slope you see going from putting security in schools will cause a complete Orwellian police state.  Soon the guards will outnumber the students... It MUST end that way...

    Okay, you disagree.  Why the histrionics?  I was asked to justify, I gave my reasons.  You disagree.  Okay, let's look for some common ground.

    You need to read more of what I write.   In your second to last paragraph we have common ground.  Now we need to figure out a road map.

    To use your vernacular, "Good Lord", you are so comdesending...  You truly believe anyone who does not share your ideology doesn't really care....

    As for the Karl Rove comment.... Again "Good Lord" ....At least 10 months is long enough for me to see you don't understand sarcasm.  Don't worry, no one will mistake you for a Karl Rove crony, no matter how many times you demand the monetary offsets be defined before we can "save even one childs life".  

    Now let me turn your own laser like focus on money that you hit me with, back at you.  

    The programs you describe are appealing.  I am not kidding about that........BUT, Please define, in the exact manner you demanded of me, what the cost was and where the offsets are to pay for them....  You don't allow ideas from me without me providing the offsets, so how about you play by your own rules?  

    If you think entitlements are not going to change in some manner....means based, kick the age up, etc, then you are in for a disappointment.  What you are saying is that it is okay to screw with my entitlements from getting shot at and blown up by a IED but nobody better touch your rice bowl.   Yes...I see how you care so much more than me...

    I am willing to put my entitlements on the table for the greater good, you aren't.  

    Like the President said....nobody is going to get exactly what they want...everybody is going to have to give a little.

    And for the record, when I came off active duty, I worked for HUD for a year back in the 90s and took on the second toughest property in the 10th largest city....I got hired because I was a 32 year old bada$$ Marine combat vet that cared.

    I went into that job as a pretty right wing guy.  I learned that NEITHER ideology was correct for attacking the root causes of poverty and inner city crime.  I authored a 110 page plan and was awarded a 1/4 million federal grant for drug elimination.  And one of the cornerstones was....wait for it........NUTRITION, especially prenatal nutrition for the young mothers and babies that housing project was producing.

    Wow...how did someone without your enlightened point of view ever come up with that...or the computers, or the recreation facilities, or the free lunches, or the faith based worship centers.... And yes, upgraded security that reduced the crime rate in the area...without going all Orwellian.  

    So please stop trying to label me.  You keep failing at it.

    Parent

    Well, one thing's for sure, Edd: (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    whatever your political leanings are, what we've learned from your lengthy and frequent comments is that there is nothing you won't distort in order to have the argument you want, apparently in the misguided belief that you can "win" that way.

    There's nothing wrong with spirited and passionate debate, but when it's done as dishonestly as you do it, it's not worth anyone's time to engage.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#186)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    Dishonesty?   :-)    I'm sure you think so.  That doesn't make you correct?

     There is no winning an argument with you, Anne.  :-)

    You have been so focused on is constantly be telling me how much more you care then I do... First because of my economics, then because of ideology....neither of which you defined correctly.  

    But the important thing for me to remember is that you are just a better person than me.   You said it so often.  It must be true.

    Try not to fall into the pool while admiring your shining reflection of goodness., and light.  

    What a delightfully tolerant individual.  :-)  

    I may disagree with your ideas, but I can't prove them wrong any more than you can prove mine.  

    Have a great day.


    Parent

    The "10 months" claim is not accurate (none / 0) (#185)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    anyway. His first comment here was 6/26/12.

    Parent
    Great research (none / 0) (#187)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    Shoe,

    Great  research.   I just don't care enough to check.  I was  dealing from memory and an estimate.  This was not the only site I was following that story on.

    But this site was definitely the best.  Great analysis on both sides.   I was hoping for more of that on this issue.  

    I am sure your data is correct if you say so.  My time here observing predates that.  But honestly, only by a week or so max...not much.

    If I was a liar I would say I was following it for months as not a member, now wouldn't I?  But that isn't the case.

    So I will happily stipulate to whatever data you can find in the record.  

    Do I not qualify for a gold membership card now?   So sad.  I thought I had enough points.  

    Here is a clue...if you said, "it was only 5 months and on July 25th",  I wouldn't fact check you.   Because it is irrelevant.  

    YOU are the one who seems to believes that time on this site gives "member privileges".

    Was it correct that it was about GZ/TM discussion thread?  

    You left that part out....  :-) :-).  Why?  

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#116)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    You made the conservative perjorative... I have never said I am conservative.. You didn't attack the idea, just the person.

    You seem to immediately want to label me.  Why?  

    How about a little math then....since math tends to be non partisan....

    School shooting is national news, but you think it is not worth even sixth tenths of one percent of the proposed new stimulus spending?  Seriously? .006?  

    The media has probably made that much off of it with exclusives.  Gun stores have made that much off of it with histeria.

    It creates jobs...  You should love it.  

    That is eraser dust to the federal budget in in my book.  It even stimulates the economy more than bad investments.  

    What is the downside?  Kids are safer.  Nobody is saying that is all we will do. I don't care if you love La Pierre or think he is the devil incarnate.  Dissing an idea strictly because of the source is another of those....wait for it...classic fallacies of logic...

    This takes a multifaceted approach.  No one solution will work.  How about taking an honest look at ideas without prejudging their origin.

    For the record, I am not an NRA member and I think La Pierre is an extremist.

    Parent

    Extremist..as if it had anything (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    to do with ideology..

    What Lapierre is is a cynical pimp for the gun manufacturers and for the sociopathic first commandment of conservatism: business's only responsibility is to the shareholdres.

    Parent

    gee anne (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    maybe I will get all pissy and give you a meaningless low rating.  = )

    My comment speaks for itself. I don't think it really calls for discussion.

    Parent

    "Get" all pissy? As if that wasn't your (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    usual attitude?

    I  might have to give you a "5" just for the unintentional humor you provided with that comment...

    Parent

    You forgot to actually deny it (4.43 / 7) (#30)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    I don't need to be a mindreader ... just read your post(s).  Unless, of course, you want to acknowledge that enforcement of DC's strict gun control laws is important to you.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe you just want our nation's gun laws to be rigorously and strictly enforced, rather than have that "liberal jack@ss" Gregory nailed for his "self-righteous snit fit".

    Heh.

    BTW - What "hyperbole" about LaPieere?  He has, in fact, made some of the most ridiculous, outrageous statements of any leader of any national organization.  He compared ATF agents to Nazi stormtroopers.  He accused President Clinton of allowing violence and murders to occur in order to pass gun control laws.  But you're upset because a reporter asked him a question while holding up a high-capacity magazine.


    Parent

    La Pierre (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    I absolutely agree, Yman.  But I don't think I have heard anyone here defend him, even those leaning to the right.  

    In my posts I have made it clear that I believe that both extremes knowingly lie and distort to try to move the center in an "ends justify the means" philosophy.

    Parent

    Well, most people here (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    have a problem with the "both sides" meme. One half of the political stage is dominated by, and completely controlled by, its extreme element. While the other half's extreme element is a mere memory of a Party that used to stand for something.

    I would appreciate some examples where liberals,

    "knowingly lie and distort to try to move the center in an "ends justify the means" philosophy."

    Parent

    Simple (none / 0) (#168)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:30:15 PM EST
    NY,

    I already did.

    One example...Brady Policy Center was taken to task by my states police for distorting our states statistics.  And we are by law a non political organization.  But we are the stat keepers...sort of like FBI keeps the nationally.

    I am not defending NRA, but if you think Brdy Policy is not intentionally distorting statement too, well, there isn't much left to say to you.  

    I actually read both of them.... Do you?  

    Parent

    No, ... you didn't (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:01:12 PM EST
    1.  Your only prior mention of the Brady Center was to compare their "talking points" to the NRA.  No actual statements, no links, no specifics ... nothing.

    2.  Notwithstanding your self-proclaimed "technical expertise at spotting parsed statistics", all you've provided is your claim that that they were "taken to task" by some police organization.  What statistics are you claiming that they lied about or intentionally distorted?  If your state police "took them to task for distorting our state's statistics", where is the statement from your state police?  Link?


    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#174)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:36:49 AM EST
    Yman,

    I know Jeralyn does not like the long links, and I have not had the time or inclination to learn how to provide links here..... and again, this place is not my full time job....

    I can Direct you to the May 1998 Brady Policy article ref CHL holders with weapons related offenses.

    I can't find the exact response from my agency.  But there are others that use the FBI UCR do do similar rebuttals.  They came up on the same google search.

    The BPCV data is contained in a link in that May 1998 article.  At the bottom of the linked report is a footnote.  The footnote  is a 1 paragraph disclaimer that says that my agency did not release names and that they had trouble navigating the state law's privacy issues involved.  That was state law... We didn't write it.

    The short version is they sort of just made up their statistics and assuming the worst possible case for every arrest or revocation.   They claimed CHL violence exceeded the average, when examination of the data showed fluctuations, but  a median rate of 1/10 the general population.  

    Any arrest was categorized as a "weapons violation" by BPCV, to include things like DWI.  

    Revocations for "failure to pay child support" we're listed as probable family violence.  Note...CHLs in my state are linked to things like child support, property taxes, and other strictly civil areas where a person might owe money, as well as the family violence and high misdemeanor arrests.  

    Because it was a two pronged process, denials of license were called revocations over the years by BPCV....even though no license had ever been issued.  

    I was assigned a few background checks during part of that time their report covered.

    And the thing is, the jury was still out back then with us as an agency because CCW was a new program and we were not sure what the results would be.  So we were objective.  Now, the majority feel it is a very good program.  The stats seem pretty conclusive that in our geographic area, it reduces violent crime.  My Old partner had a CCW come to his aid when fighting someone he was attempting to arrest.  He was not for the law initially.  

    BPCV continued to do this for years.  But there is data out there that I found going to 2005 that disputes them...  Pattontexas has an easy PDF.  I was trying to stay away from anything that was obviously partisan but that is difficult in this debate.

    Bottom line,  Brady PCV ignored the statistic keepers corrections to their assessments for 5 years.... There was a change to the law...

    The rebuttals using UCR go out to 2005.   I figured 9 years was enough data...

    Best I can do for you...  

    Parent

    Not even close (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    I Googled it ... nothing.

    Maybe you're talking about the VPC study as opposed to a Brady study?  I found a rebuttal piece to a VPC study on Prattontexas re: CHL holder crime rates, but that was discussing an August 2000 study.  Maybe you meant the VPC study from Jan. 2008 - "License to Kill: Arrests Involving Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders"?  Assuming that is the one:

    1.  It was a VPC study, not Brady.

    2.  I have no idea what problems (if any) Texas DPS had with the study or what you mean by they "took them to task", assuming they did critique the study.  I (and you) haven't been able to find it.  Hard to judge/respond to something that's not there.

    3.  I also have no idea what you mean by the footnote indicating your agency "had trouble navigating the state's privacy laws"?  Does that mean the data is incomplete?  Does it mean the data that that VPC used is incomplete, or that the data used when DPS "took them to task" is incomplete?

    4. I did find an article on Politifact discussing the issue of crimes committed by CHL holders in Texas.  They were trying to validate a claim by a politician who said you were more likely to get struck by lightning than shot by a CHL holder in Texas.  Long story short, they weren't able to do so, because DPS doesn't keep statistics re: shooting by CHL holders.  According to the article, no state or federal entity does.  It also mentions a VPC study which claimed that the arrest rate for CHL holders for weapons-related offenses was 66 percent higher than the state's population aged 21 and older.  Maybe this is the claim you think is a distortion?

    Again - hard to know without the actual study or (at the very least) whatever response was issued by your agency.

    5)  You also claimed that:

    "The left says there are 30 million gun owners.   Doesn't seem right to me....   The value of the weapons out there would mean that the average gun owner would have $100k in weapons and they don't....  So that means there are more out there then many pundits think."

    As you know, there is no national or state registry of firearms, so all numbers are estimates.  That being said, if we use "the left's" number of 30 million gun owners, as well as the Civilian Small Arms Survey of 2007 stats (270,000,000 civilian guns), that means that gun owners have an average of nine guns each.  Your claim of "$100K in weapons" would mean the average value of a gun is $11,000+.

    BTW - Inserting a link is very easy.

    1.  Type in whatever word(s) you want to use as the "name" of the link (i.e. "Link")
    2.  Copy the url/web address by highlighting it and right-clicking on the copy command.
    3.  Highlight the name of your link by left-clicking and dragging the cursor across the name.
    4.  Click on the "link" box above the comment box (looks like a chain link).
    5.  In the box that pops up, right-click and paste the url/web address of the link.  Click "OK".


    Parent
    Yman (none / 0) (#197)
    by Eddpsair on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    Thanks,

    Great post.  

    And I appreciate the Link tutorial.

    Like I said I was hesitant to use the pattontexas because it looked too partisan.   But it was late and I was having trouble finding the exact reference.  

    You may have missed that pattontexas subtly used UCR national data instead of the Texas population.  I considered that a foul becuse he did not show apples to apples and the Brady study said it did.  Again, I included it reluctantly... I wanted to give full disclosure on the inaccuracy I found in it.  

    I need to run an errand and will get back to you later.  I must have written up the "footnote" issue with lack of clarity, I'll try to explain that a little better quickly.

    (On your number 3,) the footnote said Texas laws prevented the Brady researcher from getting the level of detail they wanted.

    Our hands were tied.  But we were mostly operating without preconceptions.  There was not enough data out there to be sure how it would turn out.  So I think we were being objective in our analysis.

    The net result of the lack of transparency to the Brady research seemed, at the time, to be a case where they were assuming the worst.  They also seemed to be focusing on any statistical spikes over a short period where 4 or 5 incidents in a 6 month reporting block could skyrocket the stats tempoarily.   The population of CCW was in its initial stages and not a huge "study group" at that time.

    Tell you what....   I know a guy, long since retired, who I believe was one of the authors of the rebuttal.   I'll send him an email and see if he has a copy of it...

    Thanks for the patience.  I will try to give a thoughtful address to all your issues.

    Gotta go.

    Parent

    "But both sides do it!" (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    False equivalencies.

    First of all, I never said that anyone here defended LaPierre.  I pointed out that TheresainPa was attacking Gregory for merely holding the magazine while asking the question of whether high-capacity magazines should be banned, without one word of criticism for LaPierre's ridiculous rhetoric.

    More importantly, your comparisons of the extremes are faulty ("both extremes lie and distort").  "Distort" is a vague term and that can be applied to almost any statement that you don't like.  If you want to talk about lies and conspiracy theories, however, they're mainstream on the Right on this issue.  Moreover, there's no equivalent gun control organization when it comes to the NRA's rhetoric and hyperbole ...

    ... and if you think there is, I's love to see it.

    Parent

    Brady (none / 0) (#171)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:09:34 PM EST
    Yman,

    False eqivalencies in your opinion.  How close of an eqivalency do you want from Brady Policy Center for Violence and the NRA?   Is membership size your issue with that comparison or is it you think only one of them is willing to let the end justify the means.

    I am centrist leaning right.  Or perhaps right leaning centrist.  

    This country is pretty close to 50/50 most of the time.  If you strictly vilify one side as being monsters: "lies and conspiracies being mainstream on the Right", doesnt that mean you think half the country are sociopaths... .??

    If I was discussing this with people on the right, who believe your side is naieve, living in denial and bad at math, I try to define what I see is the good about my blue friends.  Even if I disagree with them strongly, I don't say they and their half of the country is evil.

    You won't get a ban.  You are told there are 4 million NRA members and only 30 million gun owners.  Really?   Do the math.  

    How are only 30 million people spread out over the entire USA, whom you assume are all rabid conspiracy theory types....  How are these dumb crazy rednecks able to clean house time and time again on congress with only the budget of a little more than one big labor union?  Unions concentrate in just a few states to wield that same power.

    Do ya think it may be possible somebody is not telling you how large the gun owning population really is?  I mean 10% is nothing to sneeze at, but many many gun owners keep that information a low profile.  

    If you take some of the stats floating around on the number of guns out there, assign a reasonable average value to them, and divide that number by 30 million, you have a class of people who you are assigning $100k per person in firearms possessed.  Does that sound reasonable?  

    I contend that the number of people you are negotiating with is larger than you think.  

    I would like to see some progress.  So how about you quit vilifying, them...and me... and say, "what does your side think will work." and see if you can find any common ground.

    That is why I am here....

    You are a smart guy Yman.   I disagree with you on many issues but I thought you were smart enough to see the folly of the gridlock the vilifying will create.  

    I thought if I went to some of the more intellectual left wing who understand law, and have a background in negotiating I might be able to find some common ground.....

    Parent

    Is it reading comprehension? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    Logic?  ... or just an intentional misrepresentation of what I said?

    This country is pretty close to 50/50 most of the time.  If you strictly vilify one side as being monsters: "lies and conspiracies being mainstream on the Right", doesnt that mean you think half the country are sociopaths... .??

    Uhhhmmm, ...no.  It doesn't.  It means exactly what I said ... nothing more, nothing less.  To refresh your recollection, here's what I actually said:


    If you want to talk about lies and conspiracy theories, however, they're mainstream on the Right on this issue (guns).

    "Mainstream" does not "all", or even a majority.  The "Right" does not even mean all Republicans or those who vote Republican - the 50% you're referring to.  "Mainstream" means exactly what the dictionary says it means - "belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group."  

    Go to any conservative website and you'll find conspiracy theories and lies about guns.  In the comments section you'll find them by the hundreds/thousands.  Organizations like the NRA feed these conspiracy theories by making false claims like this one...

    ... or this one (Obama supports plan to ban deer hunting ammo)

    ... or this one.

    ... or this one (Obama plans to ban use of firarms for home defense)

    A conservative Congressman openly pushes crazy conspiracy theories about the U.N. coming for our guns.  Conservative Republican Senate candidates push similar crazy theories, claiming Obama and HC are seeking treaties to ban the use of U.S. firearms.  Let's not even discuss the crazy gun conspiracy emails I see posted to Facebook on a weekly basis, like this one (UN treaty will force ban/confiscation of all guns in U.S.) - or this one (Obama introducing bill to require list of guns on your tax return).  We also probably shouldn't get into the mainstream conservative websites that push vile, ridiculous theories like World Net Daily was just doing today, suggesting the Sandy hook shooting was staged to allow the passage of gun control laws.

    I could list faaaaaaaaaarrrr more examples, but by now you should be getting the point.  False/crazy conspiracy theories are mainstream on the Right - not just commenters on websites, but conservative news sites, national gun organizations (NRA, GOA) and even conservative/Republican officials.

    If I was discussing this with people on the right, who believe your side is naieve, living in denial and bad at math, I try to define what I see is the good about my blue friends.  Even if I disagree with them strongly, I don't say they and their half of the country is evil.

    Good thing I never said that, I guess.  See my answer above to see what I actually said.


    How are only 30 million people spread out over the entire USA, whom you assume are all rabid conspiracy theory types....  How are these dumb crazy rednecks able to clean house time and time again on congress with only the budget of a little more than one big labor union?

    You want to point out exactly where I said that?  For someone who claims to be concerned about distortions and lies, you sure do like to make stuff up.

    BTW - Since you're just making things up about the number of gun owners that I believe exist, the (false) idea that I think they're all crazy rednecks, and that I "won't get a ban" (despite the fact that I never said I wanted a ban), this might be a good time to point out that I'm a gun owner.

    Next time you're complaining about "distortions" from "both sides", maybe you should look in the mirror.


    Parent

    What does that mean to you? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    BTW, I am a liberal.

    Because you keep on saying it.

    Parent

    a photo (none / 0) (#22)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    A photo would have worked

    Parent
    yup (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:55:14 PM EST
    that's just what I thought.  But then that would not have been nearly as dramatic.

    Parent
    No Teresa, It's Stooopid.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    ...because unless they have the actual magazine, how are they going to prove the one he had wasn't a prop.  It's a total waste of resources.

    And for the record, I made no comment on the law, but thanks for your interpretation of what I was thinking, which as usual, was completely off base.

    This is what I love about the right, Gregory who apparently is a liberal today, never mind his actual views, is chastised as a liberal when he dares to question anything or anyone on the right.

    Pretty sure the only people who consider Gregory liberal, are people on the right, people incapable of actual observation, certainly no liberal considers him one of their own, I don't.  Maybe 10 years ago when he was all over the Bush fiasco, but since he's levitated right.

    Parent

    It's probably not worth the effort (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:09:52 PM EST
     but they could "prove" it by:  presenting testimony from other people who know it was  (assuming it was) a 30 round magazine. Perhaps, there might also be a paper trail depending when, where and by whom it was purchased etc.

      "Proof" merely means admissible evidence the finder of fact (and the judge  on a motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds of insufficient evidence ) find establishes a fact beyonsd a resonable doubt.

     

    Parent

    I would think NBC is on very strong grounds (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    under the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1970 (right of civilian actor to wear a military uniform while performing a play on stage) and in 1971 (right to publish classified documents that it was illegal to possess).  Just to cite the first two precedents that came to mind.

    Thanks for the precedents (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    At first blush it seems an obvious first amendment case.  

    Parent
    fortunately for mr. gregory, it's (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    the DC Police doing the investigating, he'll be dead, buried and dust, before they reach a conclusion.

    And Really... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    ...what is the fine exactly for owning an empty forbidden clip used as a prop in DC ?

    Peter mentions cases below, but this is probably in the speeding arena of legal trouble, more of a nuisance of having to appear in court than any sort of meaningful trouble.

    But good luck to the DC cops in proving the magazine wasn't a prop for TV that they tossed in the garbage after the show.

    Parent

    Fine of up to $1,000 and 1 year in the (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    hoosegow. That, I have read, is the penalty for having the empty clip.

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#14)
    by Eddpsair on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    Ummm..is it really a "prop" if it is functional part of a prohibited weapon?  

    So, I guess you are saying that the second amendment has reasonable limitations codified in DC's law, due to an undeniable public safety aspect.... and that is Constitutional....  BUT, those same exact limitations cannot be applied to the first amendment...because that would be....unconstitutional?  
    Ok...  

    Anthrax as a prop?....U238?....Sarin?...An unloaded assault weapon?....

    Gregory is a law abiding citizen with the best intentions.  Now he is a criminal for momentarily possessing an inanimate object that by itself is incapable of inflicting any particular injury...  

    Additionally,

    The DC police are going to wonder who the actual owner is since it most likely isn't DG.'s.   How did it get there? Who transported it?  Where did it cross state lines?...  

    Parent

    In point of fact, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    Eddpsair, he is not a criminal until he is found guilty by a court of law.  He hasn't even been charged and arrested yet.  Let's not convict people until they are actually convicted.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#54)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:21:21 AM EST
    Correct Zorba, I was playing off cliche of making people criminals via possessing something that was just malum prohibitum...  I should have been more specific...  

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    Understood, Eddpsair.
    I just don't like labeling people as "criminals" or assuming that they are guilty, unless they have been through the entire judicial process.
       

    Parent
    that word, you keep using that word. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:00:41 PM EST
    Now he is a criminal for momentarily possessing an inanimate object that by itself is incapable of inflicting any particular injury...

    i do not believe it means what you think it means.

    possession, in standard legal brief, requires dominion & control, whether it be over tangible/ intangible property, or employee's. absent mr. gregory's ownership of the item in question, he would not be said to have established the required dominion & control over it, necessary to also establish possession. no doubt, the actual ownership is that of the network.

    further, it's not even clear this falls under the DC criminal statutes. i'm also guessing no city prosecutor is going to want to take on the phalanx of attorneys they'll be confronted with, should they be foolish enough to push this forward. one of the advantages of being able to mount a strong legal defense, using other people's money.

    Parent

    Perhaps you need to review (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:14:51 AM EST
    Perhaps you need to review that application vis a vis "contraband".  Stop trying to treat it his like it was an item in civil contract law.  

    Again, if it was cocaine and he waved it on TV saying that "this should be legalized", that would meet the elements in any state in the country and most of the world for "possession.". Argue the constitutional precedent if you like, but not the definition of the application of the law for "possession".   DC jails are full of people who met the same standard as Gregory for "possession".

    I am amazed at the verbal gymnastics people are resorting to here.  Clawing and clinging to technicalities.

    I don't think Gregory should go to jail, but....

    DC has a zero tolerance of those magazines.  NBC was reportedly informed of that and did it anyway.  if Gregory didn't "possess" then open the jail cells and let out the other "possession" cases.  

    If someone believes that the press has a constitutional right to supersede DC law and possess a prohibited portion of a deadly weapon under the protections of the first amendment, perhaps we need to wonder if the law is unconstitutional under the second amendment also since it obviously infringes on that.

    But that doesn't fit agendas.  

    I'm just asking for balance and fairness....  Set a standard for the Constitution and apply it equally to the document.  Living breathing...fine....  Original intent...whatever....  But don't say one part is etched in stone while another is living and breathing and freely open to infringement and interpretation at the municipal level.......

    I want the law applied EQUALLY to both sides.  

    But MOSTLY, for just a little while, I want the hyperbole and lies to be disavowed regardless of whose agenda they support so we can find some consensus to move forward. We owe that to those kids.  

    If you don't agree with that, then don't try to sell me that you care about their deaths.  

    Parent

    What "lies"? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:12:54 AM EST
    But MOSTLY, for just a little while, I want the hyperbole and lies to be disavowed regardless of whose agenda they support so we can find some consensus to move forward. We owe that to those kids.

    What "hyperbole"?


    I'm just asking for balance and fairness....  Set a standard for the Constitution and apply it equally to the document.  Living breathing...fine....  Original intent...whatever....  But don't say one part is etched in stone while another is living and breathing and freely open to infringement and interpretation at the municipal level.......

    No idea what this is supposed to mean.  No rights under the Constitution are absolute.  Just because the Second Amendment protects someone's right to "bear arms" doesn't mean that DC can't outlaw certain types of weapons and/or their accessories, or that doing so makes it "freely open to infringement and interpretation at the municipal level".

    Parent

    If the Constitution is living....breathing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    Then it is forever possible that We the People would come to face a weapon being created that we would prohibit or ban.  Since this is also a representative democracy I would expect some discussions of all temperatures to take place in arriving at such prohibition or banning.

    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#83)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    It was easier for the founding fathers to look at a Brown Bess and visualize a musket that fired 30 times without reloading; then to look at a Guttenberg printing press and imagine world wide electronic news.

    You are (I assume) in favor of applying the same basic principles of the freedom of sppech and press to CNN that the printing press of the 1700s enjoyed....

    So am I.  

    I believe in applying the same principles to the entire document.  And the same methods of change.

    Even the authors included mechanisms for changing it....so yeah, obviously it has the capacity to change.  

    Put your straw man away.  I called for consistency in application.

    Don't make the mistake of assuming I think the second amendment is extra sacred.   It isn't.  

    Don't make the mistake of assuming I don't want to see some change.

    I have been shot at by assault rifles by armed criminals, some of whom later committed suicide to avoid capture....  Have you?

    I respond to school shootings.  Do you?

    This is not just a theoretical exercise for me.  It effects me and those I work with on a personal level that you don't fathom.

    As the Washington Post said last week, the 1994 law did absolutely nothing.  I have known that since 1995.  I would like to see something that is practical, that works and has a chance of passing congress.  A divided congress.

    If you think I am here trolling, then you have identified yourself as someone who has no ability to reach across the aisle.

    Parent

    Hey, what happened to (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Your offering of a living Constitution?  Now you are backtracking.  You can't have a living Constitution that is set in stone.  You're just toying with words now, attempting to appear more reasoned than you really are.

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#91)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    Not backtracking at all.  

    How is asking for a consistent application of some standard, regardless of "original intent" to a more progressive view of "living breathing " backtracking?

    That is just silly.

    I apologize for the lengthiness of my posts, it comes from combining multiple responses into one post...but you really need to read the whole thing before you comment.  Otherwise you will continue to be non sequitur.

    Parent

    If you are asking for the same standards (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    to be applied from the creation of the Constitution up to today and forever into the future, that is not a living Constitution, that is original intent.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:09:18 PM EST
    Sigh...

    No, That would be absurd.  

    But there is this little thingy called "precedent" that I would like to get a bit more attention here.  

    Pick a standard, Tacy... Then apply it equally TODAY.  Now. In this discussion.  At least theoretically, that is how justice is supposed to work in a democracy.  

    We can debate the proper standard when we pick one, but some people are all over the map claiming certain portions are sacred to them while others are rubbish.  They claim existence of a legal force field around thier favorite parts while making other portions subject to simple plurality.  

    People on both sides make this mistake,  just on different parts.  

    I think that is wrong.  I think that the rule of law demands consistent application.  

    Parent

    So it's a living Constitution (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    on a ventilator?  Look, if your gun is screwing up my domestic tranquility (which it is getting very close to doing daily anymore) my living Constitution might have to tend to this matter.

    Parent
    Hyperbole (none / 0) (#90)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Yman,

    Part of the reply, ref the Constitution, is a post or two below, but here i will address "lies and hypebole".

    By that I mean:

    NRA talking points vs Brady Policy Center talking points.

    Fox News Exclusives vs Mother Jones.

    Ed Shultz vs Sean Hannity.

    Both sides agenda have driven bomb throwers and talking points.  

    Both extremes knowingly engage in lies to convince people in the middle and NEITHER side is without sin.  Both justify distortions in the name of their higher agenda.  

    I don't cite Fox News.   People here attack anyone who does.   That isn't the reason I don't cite it.  I try to avoid bias and I agree they often are.  But I see almost no filter of equally biased posts coming from the other side.  Those posts are equally flawed, intentionaly distorted but often defended here like it was written by Moses.

    Numbers are numbers.  Assumptions are just assumptions.  There arelenty of "laboratories" out there to cite but they need to be cited objectively...

    I read both sides extensively (NRA and Brady) and have for the last 20 years when the subject became very personal to me.... I see the logical and factual flaws in both. The thing is, I have the technical expertise to know when I am being fed parsed statistics on this particular subject.  

    So I don't buy biased talking points just because there is a link provided.  That doesn't make them any truer...  

    Overstating and exaggerating positions bogs down debate.  Attacking the other side ad hominiem is counterproductive when you need consensus.  

    See the rest of my post below so I can avoid some redundancy.

    Parent

    You provided no examples (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    False equivalencies claiming "both sides do it!" are designed to do one of two things:

    1.  Dismiss legitimate criticism of someone's lies or rhetoric by claiming "They do it, too!", or

    2.  Make the writer sound like an objective, neutral party.

    Either way, ... it's not remotely convincing.

    BTW - Apart from (possibly) an argument re: analysis of a scientific study involving modeling/methodology issues, you don't need particular "technical expertise" to spot "parsed statistics".  But since you don't even mention what "parsed statistics"/links you're referring to, it's simply another distraction.

    Parent

    Re: Written by Moses (none / 0) (#182)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:26:23 AM EST
    Technically the writing was done by someone else and he just handled distribution.

    I was a paperboy for several years.

    They never let me write a single editorial and never sent me out to cover any news stories.

    Parent

    Possession (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    Again, if it was cocaine and he waved it on TV saying that "this should be legalized", that would meet the elements in any state in the country and most of the world for "possession."

    Really? People who get busted with a bag of coke in their cars fairly routinely plead that it wasn't their coke. If they have a good lawyer and some proper supporting facts, they can't be convicted of possession.

    I remember the Tuscaloosa Police Department officer who came to my high school when I was a junior and showed us bags of various drugs. I hope that dastardly criminal turned himself in after the presentation.

    Parent

    Coke (none / 0) (#138)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    I'll bet that cop at your school didn't ask the Chief if he could check some contraband out for the presentation, get told "No" like NBC did and do it anyways...ya think?

    The dope was still in police custody.  The case had likely been disposed of, and awaiting destruction so the chain of custody was no longer needed to be pristine for the court case....

    The fact that some people plead out or some cops don't investigate we'll or push the line and get suppresses has absolutely nothing to do do with David Gregory.

    Parent

    Applying the law is now... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by sj on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    ... the equivalent of "Clawing and clinging to technicalities."

    Interesting.  

    OK, not really.  It's actually boring.  I've been away awhile but reading the thread from start to finish it's clear that shoephone's absolutely right about the thread hijacking you do. chatter chatter chatter.

    Jeebus.

    Parent

    Props (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    I think you missed the point.

    Unless they seized the actual magazine, there is no way to prove it is what they think it is, no ?  

    Anthrax is the perfect example, I go on TV and claim I have a pile of anthrax.  At some point they will need to prove I didn't lie for ratings, that the white stuff on set was actually Anthrax and not a prop.

    How does one differential between a movie prop and the real McCoy on TV ?  They can't, so unless Gregory confesses, this is a waste of time.

    Parent

    Interesting point. If the mag had a block (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    or stop installed in it, such that the capacity of the mag was reduced to legal limits, which, apparently, is not too uncommonly done, the mag would not be illegal.

    Parent
    Investigation (none / 0) (#104)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    Comcur...

    But that is why they are investigating.  And a confession by Gregory is not the only means....

    Parent

    It's Not.... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    ...but it's a time waster.  There is no way they will convict Gregory of this crime.  No one is talking to the cops with the network lawyers.

    Even if LaPierre brought a Bushmaster on TV, it's a time waster that serves no public purpose.  No one was in danger and what they have to prove without the actual item, far exceeds the benefit the public will receive.

    It is interesting to see the people who normally hate these kinds of laws, championing them.  I would think for this one, they would want to see it go away, might get a lot of other districts thinking these magazines should be illegal.

    I don't care on way or another, we are so saturated, that even if guns were made illegal, the violence would not stop.  So a magazine or this or that kind of weapon isn't going to change a GD thing.

    I really wish they would start going after the legal owners of these illegal weapons, civilly.  Get gun owners, like myself, to realize gun ownership id more than bragging rights and that owing 100 of them comes with some consequences whould they fall into un-friendly hands, like say your unstable kid.  We hold owners of dogs more responsible, and they have actual minds, but we don't hold gun owners responsible.  It's a shame and it's why the illegal gun market is saturated with what were once legal guns; there is no real consequences of owning a gun.

    Parent

    Considering NBC's lawyers (none / 0) (#111)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    It's the only means that costs less than 5 figures at a minimum. Nobody lawyers up like a mega-media corp.

    Parent
    Now, that could be an issue (none / 0) (#77)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:34:20 AM EST
     Gregory could  have had a facsimile made that just looked like a high capacity clip or an actual clip could have been obtained outside of DC and damaged so as to render it permanently inoperable prior to it being brought into DC.

      But, there can be no serious argument that the item, whatever it may have been, was "possessed" by Gregory in the video.

    Parent

    Interesting - it's "possession" ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    ... either way.  You previously acknowledged - as is often the case in criminal cases - that knowledge/intent may be a condition of criminal "possession" for purposes of this statute:

    Knowledge and intent are not serious issues because he says he know what the item is.

    Now, you're saying that, even if Gregory used a facsimile/fake/not real magazine, he was "in possession" of, well, ... something.  Of course, it wouldn't be "possession" for purposes of this statute (as I originally pointed out), because this statute would not apply to a fake magazine.

    Sounds like "serious people" could debate this ...

    Parent

    Serious people (none / 0) (#82)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:05:38 AM EST
     could debate whether the conduct is criminal or whether it should be pursued in any event. People who wish to be considered srious cannot display the profound inability to understand that you exhibit.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    That isn't a serious answer.

    Parent
    Goodbye! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:34:08 AM EST
     It's boring conversing with someone so obtuse.

    Parent
    Don't you mean "debating"? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    Seriously.

    Parent
    I assumed that it was a prop. (4.00 / 2) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    But this brouhaha plays into the whole "media as hypocrites" theme. Sorta like people bitching about how those supposedly independent and honest national media folks often make millions of dollars each year, send their kids to schools that have plenty of armed guards, and even may be married to someone in the political/economic megastructure.  Times have changed, and this isn't the media world of Ed Murrow and co. But I guess that it's always good to keep up appearances.

    Best post (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    So far.

    Parent
    Breitbart's site behind this investigation (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Hypercube on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    It was Breitbart's site which initiated the investigation I read somewhere.

    I could be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    But a web site can't initiate an investigation. It can call for one, but it can't initiate one.

    Parent
    true enough. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    But a web site can't initiate an investigation. It can call for one, but it can't initiate one.

    an individual can certainly file a complaint, or make the authorities aware of a situation, but the police/prosecutor's office/DOJ, etc, would actually be the ones to initiate any formal investigation. much as i enjoy the prospect of david gregory being hoist on his own petard, this fails the constitutional test.

    my guess: they announce that they've completed their "investigation", and found no grounds for going any further. case closed.

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    Next you'll be saying a gun can't shoot anyone.  Then where would we be?

    Parent
    Ha - "Guns don't kill people" (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:34:17 PM EST
    People with guns kill people.

    Parent
    Gallup: 51% still oppose assault rifle ban (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:52:07 PM EST
    but 92% support gun show background checks.

    But Gallup (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    was proven to be the worst polling outfit in the country this year with an average error of over 7% in their election polling. So what does a Gallup poll really mean anymore?

    Parent
    Pretty Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    ...92% could be viewed as majority, even with a errors in polling.

    Parent
    There are background (none / 0) (#55)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:42:19 AM EST
    checks at gunshows.  

    Parent
    The meaning was obvious (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:44 AM EST
    People support background checks of all purchasers at all gun shows, not just purchases from firearms dealers, or certain types of guns, or in one of the 7 states that requires background checks of all sales at gun shows.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:42:17 AM EST
    What are the certain types of guns at gun shows that don't require background checks?  

    Parent
    Not sure why it's funny, but ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:52:39 AM EST
    ... the answer is long guns in four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania).

    Just making sure you weren't (unintentionally, of course) misleading anyone with your statement that "there are background checks at gun shows".

    Parent

    lol, yman (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:51:34 AM EST
    you're like the Javert of anti gun rangers.  You are just so sure you are going to catch someone in a lie.  I'd love to put you in a room with my friend who is always bitching about "gun grabbers" and see who screams the soonest and the loudest.
    The both of you have it all figured out.

    Parent
    False equivalency (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:02:32 AM EST
    You keep comparing gun control advocates to gun rights advocates, claiming that they're both tto extreme.  Problem is, the "gun grabbers" are frequently making up ridiculous stories involving conspiracy theories and Obama/U.N. coming for their guns.

    I use facts.

    See the difference?

    BTW - You never did answer my question.  If the Founders intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to modern weapons which hadn't even been conceived or invented yet, why stop at semi-automatics?  Do I have a right to own a machine gun?  .50 caliber sniper rifle?  Depleted uranium armor-piercing bullets?  RPGs?  Anthrax?  Nuclear weapons? ...

    Parent

    Founding Fathers (none / 0) (#97)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    While I have agreed with most of your thread, just as a point of logic,

    I pointed out earleir that it was easier for the founding fathers, (many inventors and some owned artillery)  to look at a Brown Bess and imagine a musket that fires 30 times without reloading then to look at a Guttenberg Printing press and imagine modern electronic world wide news.

    If you brought them to modern day times in a time machine, which would you think would astound them more?  

    I am not trying to be contrary, but I just think that you could apply your argument to other parts of the Constitution more readily but still not think that was good reason to change it.  This is what I mean when I ask that we approach the document with consistency.

    That does not mean I don't think there are appropriate arguments.  

    Nukes and artillery and bombs are already barred from private ownership.  TRUE assault rifles (the actual definition) are available, but restricted since 1934. I am not aware of any crime ever having been committed by one that was privately owned in 80 years....

    I think the 1934 law (which was deemed constitional) holds PART of the answer for the future of this debate.  

    Parent

    On the founding fathers (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    I would like to see us approach the 2nd Amendment discussion with a frank acknowledgment that the idea of "resisting tyranny" with firearms is 100% outdated.

    The founding fathers had an accurate vision of a populace armed with muskets and rifles that could quickly rally and form into an organized militia that could actively and possibly even successfully resist a tyrannical government. Something similar to that actually went down during the 1775-1783 period.

    But in 2012? The government has nuclear weapons, laser-targeted rocket barrages, and drones firing smart bombs/missiles. We're supposed to resist that with rifles how exactly?

    The only "resistance" that actually occurs is armed standoffs like Waco. That never, ever turns out well.

    Parent

    Trickster (none / 0) (#135)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    In the spirit of peace,

    Come on down to my neck of the woods.  We can have lunch in one of the cities designated as one of the safest cities in America.  It has a ton of gun stores.  

    I'll walk you over to the international bridge and you can take a vacation on the other side where private ownership of weapons and ammo is strictly forbidden.  It is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.  Lots of people pass back and forth between the two and work in one while living in the other.  

    They share people, culture, geography, water sources and even the weather....

    Do you think the cartels stay on their side of the border to the extent they do because of freedom of the press?  They kill journalists on their side of the border with impunity.  Any that oppose them. Do you think they do it because of law enforcement...  Not really.... They shoot theirs down in the street.

    So while I am not saying your post is completely wrong and has no merit, I am saying that the question is not as settled as you seem to think.  There are many factors in the examples that are thrown out here with cities and countries used as examples.... Guns are not the only factor..... Sometimes they help, sometimes they don't...

    Parent

    I enjoy El Paso (none / 0) (#165)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    I've even been to Juarez a couple of times--although I don't think I'd go there now. And I'd love to do lunch in your neighborhood . . . umm, next time I'm there.

    You're right, there are many factors involved in the violence in Juarez (if that's where you're talking about). Most of them boil down to the fact that the government has allowed itself to be overpowered and outmatched by a criminal cartel it is unable and/or unwilling to defeat.

    However, regardless of Mexico's restrictive gun laws, it's obvious enough that guns are part and parcel of the Mexican crime/murder problem. And for purposes of this discussion, it's worthy of note that Mexico shares a long and non-sealed border with the nation that owns more guns than any other nation in the world. According to a DOJ official speaking in November 2011, 70% of the 94,000 guns confiscated from Mexican drug cartels in the preceding five years came from the U.S.

    Parent

    No idea (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    I pointed out earleir that it was easier for the founding fathers, (many inventors and some owned artillery)  to look at a Brown Bess and imagine a musket that fires 30 times without reloading then to look at a Guttenberg Printing press and imagine modern electronic world wide news.

    If you brought them to modern day times in a time machine, which would you think would astound them more?

    Your opinion of which they would find more astounding is irrelevant, although even your analogy is wrong.  You're comparing advances in arms technology but stop at semi-automatic guns (technology that is over a century old) with current speech/press technology.  A better analogy would be whether the would be more amazed by modern, world-wide news or a remote-controlled, Predator drone/Hellfire missiles, or stealth fighter jets ... or maybe ICBMs.  Either way, ... not relevant.

    Nukes and artillery and bombs are already barred from private ownership.  TRUE assault rifles (the actual definition) are available, but restricted since 1934. I am not aware of any crime ever having been committed by one that was privately owned in 80 years....

    That's my very point.  If 2nd Amendment activists want to argue that the "right to bear arms" evolved beyond the technology that existed at the time the Amendment was enacted, why does it stop with technology that's over 150 years old (semi-automatic guns)?  Why not missiles?  Why not nuclear weapons?  Why not cluster bombs?  At the very least, why not machine guns (technology that's also 150 years old)?

    Parent

    Hard to agree (none / 0) (#132)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    Yman,

    Because as I clearly said, those items (ICBMs is your example) were outlawed for civilian ownership in1934.

    What part of me agreeing with you on that being a good thing do you fail to understand?

    Did you start writing a negative response before reading the entire post?  

    If you wish to disagree with the anaolgy, that is not real important to the larger picture here (I said that when I wrote it), but you didn't make your point.   ICBMs or any of your other examples are most definitely NOT protected by the second amendment.but world wide electronic news still is in its most technical advancements (their nuclear bombs and ICBMs...not trying to reference James Bond from The World is Not Enough) are fully protected with no restrictions.  

    That was my very very small point..

    You are a smart guy.  I thought I was giving you the key to argue effectively with us gun owners on our own terms.

    You missed the reference...

    Parent

    Not an answer (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:16:20 PM EST
    I'll spell it out very clearly so you don't have to try to come up with any more diversionary questions.

    The definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment is either limited to weapons of the Founding Father's era (i.e. muskets, swords, etc.) or has evolved to include newer weapons.  For those who argue the latter (as I presume you would), why does this evolution stop with semi-automatic guns - technology that is over 150 years old?  If the rationale is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from oppressive governments, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" apply to weapons on par with the government's weapons - missiles, nuclear, machine guns, etc.

    OTOH - If I'm mistaken - and you agree with the premise that the definition of "arms" is based on the Founder's definition of "arms" at that time, then I agree you should be entitled to keep all the swords and muskets you'd like.


    You are a smart guy.  I thought I was giving you the key to argue effectively with us gun owners on our own terms.

    You missed the reference...

    I "missed" nothing, because you gave nothing ... including an answer.

    BTW - Speech/"world wide electronic news" is most certainly not "fully protected with no restrictions".

    Parent

    Don't know how I can resist tyranny without nukes (none / 0) (#166)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    I'm not talking tactical, either. . . .

    Parent
    Of course there (none / 0) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:04:19 AM EST
    are background checks at gun shows.  I think a lot of people are trying to mislead here.  It is private sales everywhere, not just at gunshows.  Private sales at Peete's coffee- no background checks.  Private sales at Joe's Crabshack- no background check.  Private sales at your house- no background checks.  It is evident people are after the assembly of people at gunshows, using the canard of no background checks.

    Parent
    Pleaze... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    ...I will put up a large sum of cash guaranteeing that I can buy weapon here in Texas at a gun show without showing an ID.  

    Acting like there aren't run-arounds or that gun owners are the most law abiding people is getting so old.  Guns don't become illegal by people who don't own them, every illegal gun in the country has a legal gun owner to thank for it's status.  Don't forget that.

    The point in the poll is people want some sort of accountability by gun owners, not NRA talking points about what should happen, instead of what actually happens.

    Parent

    It's not just a canard (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Trickster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    Significant amount of weapons are sold at gun shows, and there is a tendency for said weapons to be of the deadlier, higher-tech variety.

    And unlike "private sales at your house," they would be relatively easy to regulate.

    And they should be regulated. That's totally obvious to me.

    Parent

    Regulate (none / 0) (#121)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    Trickster,

    I agree that background checks at gun shows are desirable and would support that.  But, I don't think you are correct in saying that the weapons sold are the are deadlier higher tech variety.

    Most of what is sold is handguns....

    I don't dispute that you can get an AR 15 there, because you can, but you can buy them as readily in the stores.  So the proper paperwork and checks are administered....just like in the stores.  

    If there is a "spike" of any type of weapons sold at Gun Shows that is statistically different from a store, it would be antiques and collectables because they aren't available in stores.  

    Parent

    Of course there are SOME ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    ... background checks on some transactions at gun shows.  No one is claiming otherwise.  You were responding to Mr. Natural's statement that 92% of people support background checks at gun shows.  Of course, the statement was referring to support for closing the "gun show loophole", which permits the sale of guns without background checks in a large majority of  states when either: 1) the seller is not a firearms dealer, or 2) the gun is a long gun, or both.  A poll about changing the law to require background checks that are already required makes no sense.

    I think a lot of people are trying to mislead here.

    Not sure who you think is "trying to mislead here", but maybe you should re-read the posts.  The poll was referring to closing a loophole that permits people to buy guns at gun shows without undergoing a background check.  The fact that private sales are also permitted without background checks outside of gun shows is a red herring.  No one is arguing that the background check requirement shouldn't be required for other private sales.  OTOH, if you're worried discrimination against gun show buyers and want to extend the background check requirement to all private gun sales, that's an excellent idea.

    It is evident people are after the assembly of people at gunshows, using the canard of no background checks.

    "It is evident"?

    No, ... it's not.  Check the forums at Redstate, Free Republic, or almost any gun website, and you'll find thousands of posts re: kooky conspiracy theories about what they believe is "evident".  Like your theory, they rely sheer speculation, opinion and conjecture, with no facts or data to back them up.

    Parent

    The gunshow loophole is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    the canard.  I can do the same thing with a private sale anywhere.  It is identified that way to to after gunshows and the people at them.  

    Parent
    Add one more false claim ... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    ... to the list:

    The gunshow loophole is the canard.  I can do the same thing with a private sale anywhere.

    No, you can't.  California, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia require background checks for all gun transfers, through dealers or otherwise.  Maryland requires them for all handguns and assault weapons.  Connecticut and Pennsylvania require them for all handgun transfers.

    BTW - Gun shows are often targeted because (next to straw purchasers) the ATF has found that they are the second-leading source of illegally diverted guns in the country.  But if you prefer to call it the "private sale loophole", that'll work.  Better yet, we should require background checks for all firearms transfers, including the 40% or so that are between private parties.

    Parent

    excellent (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:16:46 AM EST
    then you would think that is what would happen.  Experience tells us though, that the lowly majority rarely drives what politicians actually legislate.

    Close the gun show loop hole.  Make people who want guns and permits take gun safety classes.  Make them take classes on how to use the things too. Gun shops are selling out everything they have like crazy the last few weeks.  There are going to be a lot of people out there who have no idea what they are doing handling dangerous weapons. Not good.

    Parent

    At the end of the day, one fact remains. (none / 0) (#89)
    by EL seattle on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    David Gregory is no Henry Fonda.

    Was That Jack Klugman Sitting ? (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    I loved Quincy MD.
    ----------------------

    The funny thing about all this brewha is Gregory's prop served no real purpose.  The difference between legal and illegal magazines was not going to be some defining moment in journalism.

    Maybe if he had brought empty casings and dumped them out on the table vs the few a normal clip would hold.  Seems like I might have saw that on Law & Order.

    Parent

    Yep, that's Jack. (none / 0) (#119)
    by EL seattle on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    12 Angry Men is a terrific film, with one of the best casts ever. I think it was Sidney Lumet's first feature film, too.

    Parent
    Loophole? (none / 0) (#200)
    by bobmark on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:24:16 PM EST
    Firearms purchased from an FFL dealer at a gun show follow the same rules as those purchased at a gun shop.

    2nd Amendment (none / 0) (#201)
    by bobmark on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    'That's my very point.  If 2nd Amendment activists want to argue that the "right to bear arms" evolved beyond the technology that existed at the time the Amendment was enacted, why does it stop with technology that's over 150 years old (semi-automatic guns)?  Why not missiles?  Why not nuclear weapons?  Why not cluster bombs?  At the very least, why not machine guns (technology that's also 150 years old)?'

    Court case over the years have roughly resulted in individually operated and solid firing arms being considered citizens arms, while crew served and shell firing are arms of the state. The second amendment is usually viewed as ptotecting the citizens right to rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Missiles use a shell warhead, clusterbombs are also shells, and are properly state arms. Machine guns are solid firing but come from a lineage on the state side flowing back through the hand cranked Gatling and Nordenfelt guns, with breech and muzzleloading volley guns before that.

    2nd Amendment pt.2 (none / 0) (#202)
    by bobmark on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:48:57 PM EST
    Two items cross over the individual operation and solid firing/crew operated and shell firing, namly hand grenades, an indiviually operated shell and submachine guns, an individually operated machine gun. With grenades, we treat them as other shells, as a state arm. With submachine guns we seperate the self-loading form from the automatic function of a machine gun.

    David Gregory Investigated for Possessing Ammunition Magazine | 202 comments (202 topical)