Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[Mad American]

...The phrase "seems to be" was meant to show that while not definite at this time, the appearance of being in the act of turning the other check is occurring...

On what basis, because a few thousand hypocritical gun nuts think so?

A complaint was made, the police investigated and turned the evidence over to the prosecutor who has said nothing. That's all we know.

Not exactly. We also know that 105 average citizens were arrested/charged for "possession" of large capacity magazines. Gregory is obviously "in possession" and that was shown on nationwide television. So to O'really's post, what must be proven? There is video evidence of possession of an illegal item. Should be pretty cut and dried.

[Mad American]

...So getting a conviction on a gun violation apparently isn't all that easy, and my guess is they've got more significant crimes to pursue than some news guy obviously intending no harm...

Good point. We don't know whether he owns the magazine and lives in DC, or whether it was borrowed from a non-DC resident without the accompanying gun and ammo solely for the purpose of educating the public.

Doesn't matter. It is illegal to possess, have on one's person, a large capacity magazine. Presence or absence of ammunition is not a factor. It is illegal to posses the MAGAZINE.

Get caught with a gram of cocaine in you pocket, tell the police that it isn't yours, and see how far that will get you.

[O Really]

So to O'really's post, what must be proven? There is video evidence of possession of an illegal item. Should be pretty cut and dried.

Very little is "cut and dried" in criminal matters. I don't know what is required, but there's obviously more to it than just the existence of the vid. Maybe you could ask the gun lawyer I linked to.

I'm guessing there's some reference to "willful" or something like that. For example, in § 7-2508.07. Penalties; mandatory release condition.

(a) Any knowing violation by a gun offender of this subchapter or of rules or regulations established pursuant to this subchapter, including knowingly failing to register, verify, or update information in the manner and within the time periods provided for in this subchapter, shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of not more than 12 months, or both.

So prosecution could claim that Gregory's asking the DC police and getting a "no" could be willful; on the other hand, Gregory's getting conflicting information after asking more than one source could be claimed by the defense to indicate no intent to violate.

[Sometime Lefty]

Get caught with a gram of cocaine in you pocket, tell the police that it isn't yours, and see how far that will get you.

Without possession of the actual magazine how does the prosecuter prove it WAS real?

[Mad American]

Then why the need to attempt to get "permission" if the mag was fake or "disabled"? The two of you are reaching. O'really has the only reasonable scenario. However, I'm prone to lean more towards the case that once denied by WDCPD moving forward was a willful and knowing violation.

[O Really]

Then why the need to attempt to get "permission" if the mag was fake or "disabled"? The two of you are reaching. O'really has the only reasonable scenario. However, I'm prone to lean more towards the case that once denied by WDCPD moving forward was a willful and knowing violation.

They aren't reaching in regard to potential defence. If you're the prosecutor, you'll have to consider things aren't always as they seem. So maybe he had a real magazine, asked the cops, got a "no" and then used a model or a unworkable one. Not saying that's what happened, but if you're the prosecutor you'd have to show it didn't. If you're a DC taxpayer, how much of your taxes do you want to spend on this when the courts are backed up like pollution in the Anacostia.

[Sometime Lefty]

I saw Arnold with a nuclear bomb in a movie, why wasn't he prosecuted?

[Leo Lyons]

Damn! Homie got a twin? Vrede, what's with you and your repeating what they've written?

[Leo Lyons]

(the druggie advocates are already pissed over that!)


I asked Grandma what she was afraid of, and she said, "Not a damn thing!"

[Leo Lyons]

Is that all you've got - simplistic, paranoid and inaccurate cartoons?

So you don't see any truth in those "cartoons", as you call them? I was attempting to make a few points in regards to the constant pissing back and forth from the "I know more than you do" mindsets that constantly plague every thread.

The only paranoia I've seen is in the screaming in the streets because half-baked idiots are running around shooting people, and the cry is "ban guns, ban guns!" Well, look at the first photo I posted above and think about what it says. Then look at these:









And we could add to this list, assault french fries, assault hamburgers, assault 16 oz. soft drinks, assault pizza, assault homogenized milk, assault passenger airplanes, assault salt, geeze, it just goes on and on!

I don't expect you or your lib friends to agree with any of the messages of the photos because of your simplistic, paranoid and inaccurate attitudes, but I still have to ask, because nobody has replied with a clear answer to this question:

"If guns are outlawed, who will own the guns?"

[rstrong]

...

The first picture sums up your argument: "If you don't have to give up your car because others drive drunk, then why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?"

First, you're using a straw-man arguement. No-one is telling you to give up your guns. It's a claim used by Faux News to prey on impotent right-wing rage, to milk inbred wingnuts for money. You know, the type of people who create your pictures and post them to forums.

Second, when people got fed up with drunk drivers, the government cracked down and strengthened related laws. And it worked: Drunk driving deaths are a third of what they were. Regulation works.

They didn't take everyone's cars away. They didn't ban drinking. They merely forced those with cars and drinks to take some personal responsibility. It's the same with gun regulations.

If there were a threat to guns being taken away, it originates with the NRA. For them, rights - and their lobbying record shows that "rights" means "freedom from responsibility" - is all or nothing. And since "all" ain't working, THEY are advancing the option of "nothing." That's the problem with extremists: Reasonable middle-of-the-road options are their worst enemy, and they do their best to get them off the table.

[Leo Lyons]

[/b]

The first picture sums up your argument: "If you don't have to give up your car because others drive drunk, then why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?"

First, you're using a straw-man arguement. No-one is telling you to give up your guns. It's a claim used by Faux News to prey on impotent right-wing rage, to milk inbred wingnuts for money. You know, the type of people who create your pictures and post them to forums.
I never said anything re somebody saying I had to give up my guns, and I don't listen/watch Fox or any of the network clamor news shows. My comments are based on the pissing fights here between the libs and the cons regarding guns, gun control, banning certain weapons etc.

Second, when people got fed up with drunk drivers, the government cracked down and strengthened related laws. And it worked: Drunk driving deaths are a third of what they were. Regulation works.
You think maybe it's because it's much easier to take driving licenses than it is to pass legislation banning guns? As unlicensed drivers drive, it's just as easy to obtain a gun.

They didn't take everyone's cars away. They didn't ban drinking. They merely forced those with cars and drinks to take some personal responsibility. It's the same with gun regulations.
And who's doing all this "forcing"? The point of the photo is drunk (and unlicensed) drivers are still driving, and drunk drivers are still killing people. So if they survive, they're prosecuted. But because they drove drunk and killed someone or a bunch of people, should laws be passed to outlaw cars? Same principle.

If there were a threat to guns being taken away, it originates with the NRA. For them, rights - and their lobbying record shows that "rights" means "freedom from responsibility" - is all or nothing. And since "all" ain't working, THEY are advancing the option of "nothing." That's the problem with extremists: Reasonable middle-of-the-road options are their worst enemy, and they do their best to get them off the table.
Y'all can go and bad-mouth the NRA all you want, they're no friends of mine; but because they are fierce supporters of the 2nd. Amendment, they are the enemy in the eyes of the liberals who sincerely believe that all society's ills will be cured by sitting around the fire singing ballads and sucking a joint. It don't work that way.

[Mad American]

First, you're using a straw-man arguement. No-one is telling you to give up your guns.

They are telling us to give up guns....not all guns just SOME guns. They are trying to take away the ability to manufacture, purchase, and possibly even own certain types of guns. That means that those particular guns will be "given up". Those already out there might be grandfathered or they might not. So, yes the American people are being told to give up certain guns. Now, take away any talk of a proposed "assault weapons" ban and then we can talk about regulation and personal responsibility.

[Stinger]

First, you're using a straw-man arguement. No-one is telling you to give up your guns.

They are telling us to give up guns....not all guns just SOME guns. They are trying to take away the ability to manufacture, purchase, and possibly even own certain types of guns. That means that those particular guns will be "given up". Those already out there might be grandfathered or they might not. So, yes the American people are being told to give up certain guns. Now, take away any talk of a proposed "assault weapons" ban and then we can talk about regulation and personal responsibility.

All vehicles on the road have to be legal and licensed. Certain vehicles are not allowed on the roadway.

It's still a straw-man attack.

[Stinger]

ROTFLMAO!!! Wittle Weo Wannabe just debunked his whole war-on-drugs routine.

"So making drugs illegal will take them off the street?"

No. It will just enable criminal enterprises to continue to rake in the money.

[Mad American]

Vehicles are not a right guaranteed by The Constitution. I also offered a conversation regarding "personal responsibility" after taking an "assault weapons" ban off the table. Can't help but notice that has been ignored.

[O Really]

No charges for NBC host over ammunition magazine

..."Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public" after the Connecticut school massacre and President Barack Obama's address to the nation, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote a lawyer for NBC.

Still, Nathan said, there were other legal ways to prove the point and that "there is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter, especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence." He said it was a "very close decision" to not bring charges...

D.C. police say NBC asked for permission to use the clip during a segment and was advised that it would be illegal, though NBC has said it received conflicting guidance from other law enforcement sources...

"Meet the Press" issued a statement Friday that said: "We displayed the empty magazine solely for journalistic purposes to help illuminate an important issue for our viewers. We accept the District of Columbia Attorney General's admonishment, respect his decision and will have no further comment on this matter."

Makes sense to me, the First Amendment does matter, but I would have been okay with it if he was charged, too.

No doubt there will be lots of hypocritical mad Americans on the absolutist Mad American planet where real world risk and intent are irrelevant.

Somebody earlier in this thread said that consideration of intent or willful would make a difference, as well as the violation's relative importance amid other issues. Ummmm, I think that would be me.

[Mad American]

Vehicles are not a right guaranteed by The Constitution...

Neither are nukes, tanks or any other "Arms" other than single-shot muzzle loaders.

That's your opinion but unfortunately it is incorrect. Any manner of black powder fired cannon would also be considered an "arm" at the time of the 2nd Amendment. In addition where was the difference between smooth bore musket, muzzle-loading rifle, black powder shot guns, flint lock, and match lock weapons listed. If there was I'd love to see the link to the definitions appendix to The Constitution that defined "arms".

[mike]

That's why it's better known as Faux News and the least informed Americans keep tuning in ... only to be less informed.

[Mad American]

Vehicles are not a right guaranteed by The Constitution...

Neither are nukes, tanks or any other "Arms" other than single-shot muzzle loaders.

That's your opinion but unfortunately it is incorrect.

Okay, you believe that we have the right to personal possession of nukes and tanks, too.

Any manner of black powder fired cannon would also be considered an "arm" at the time of the 2nd Amendment.

Okay, you believe that we have the right to personal possession of black powder fired cannon, too.

In addition where was the difference between smooth bore musket, muzzle-loading rifle, black powder shot guns, flint lock, and match lock weapons listed. If there was I'd love to see the link to the definitions appendix to The Constitution that defined "arms".

Whatever , "Arms" can only have been defined as arms that existed at the time. Restrictions on anything else are constitutional. If they meant, "any killing implement that may ever be invented," they would have said so.

I have not made either of the statements you posted. You are very good at putting words in other people's mouth. However, if you would care to actually READ a conversation instead of trying to figure out how to inject your usual "sister Bertha better than you" junk, you would see that I have repeatedly stated what I think the definition of "arms" should be.

Nice to know that you also think modern day compound archery equipment is also subject to "constitutional" ban, simply because it did not exist at the time. As I have said, under your logic, "the press" can only have been defined as "the press" as it existed at the time. Which was manual moveable type printing presses. If they meant, "any media/information dispersion platform that may ever be invented," they would have said so.