Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[Boatrocker]

. . . And Men in Black, Independence Day, Armageddon, Total Recall, Escape from New York, yada. All really sound examples of what could happen tomorrow if we don't have enough guns.

Actually, I think you mean, "more meds and mental insitutions." You should consult your doctor if all problems look like nails, while the only tool you possess is a hammer.

[homerfobe]

Rightwing idiots... always your best entertainment value..

Thank you for reminding us of your station in life. Go treat yourself to some carrion.

[rstrong]

Rightwing idiots... always your best entertainment value..

Thank you for reminding us of your station in life. Go treat yourself to some carrion.

Good example.

[homerfobe]

...confused genders... Looks like homosexual sex is not the only thing he fantasizes about.
Yes, confused genders. This left-wing moonbat thinks he's an orangutan.



A foreign enemy defeats the US military, seizes all its remaining weaponry...
Would be easy to do if you left-wing, anti-gun, anti-military, queer-loving, shit-heads had your way. All you can do is piss and moan about the military and over-protective government.

Thanks for reminding us about your illiteracy, though: It's still funny.
No, thank you for exposing your utter stupidity. It's still funny.

I don't fantasize about queer sex. Just making a statement: I HATE a nasty, filthy, disgusting queer. They're the lowest scum to proliferate on this earth. If any of you or your kids are queer, that includes you and them.

[homerfobe]

Rightwing idiots... always your best entertainment value..

Thank you for reminding us of your station in life. Go treat yourself to some carrion.

Good example.

I knew you'd agree. Thanks rabbit face.

[Mad American]

D.C. attorney general’s office to investigate display of ammunition magazine on TV

Interesting, organized gun rights advocates are calling for his arrest. Yep, that's how they are. Fwiw, if he broke the law and his crime is not superceded by free press protections I think he should be charged. It's just funny to me how hypocritical the gun nuts are.

Points directly from vredes article:

Possessing a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition, even if empty, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

He was in possession of a 30 round clip...he broke the law.

Police have said NBC asked them whether it was legally permissible to show the clip. Police said they told NBC it was not

NBC asked the police and were told no....he broke the law.

NRA President David Keene told CNN last month that he did not think Gregory should be prosecuted, saying the incident shows “in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are.”

Hardly sounds like a "hypocritical gun nut". However, it should be noted that 105 people were arrested and prosecuted for possession of large capacity magazines in D.C last year. I'd say there is some hypocrisy there but it is not coming from gun rights advocates.

[O Really]

I'm not one who finds hypocrisy such an awful thing, but it seems to me that if I opposed strict gun laws, I'd be using the NBC issue as an example of ridiculous law. I'd claim that it just goes to show how unreasonable the damn libs can be to have a law that could make it illegal to use an ammunition magazine on a news show to demonstrate what a 30-shot magazine looks like. I'd point fingers and laugh at how out of reality these idiots are, and ask, "do you really want more of that?" On the other hand, if I just wanted to get a dig in to somebody who had a different opinion from me, I'd say "the law is the law...arrest him." And I'd probably do that while packing my personal piece in places not legally allowed.

[mike]

I'm beginning to understand Mad American's last name is LaPierre ... just sayin' ...

[O Really]

I'm beginning to understand Mad American's last name is LaPierre ... just sayin' ...

Yeah, he's leading the charge of misdirection and paranoid conspiracy theory. That's really the problem - the issue isn't actually guns nor Second Amendment rights. It's the view of the government itself. If you have an inherent distrust in the government you elect, if you think the government you elect is your enemy, then your view of anything affecting your imaginary threats to you and your family will be starkly different from others without that level of paranoia.

I own guns, and have had a substantial amount of training. I would have no problem in registering every firearm I own, nor - as Vrede somewhat seriously suggested - having them all chipped. I'd have no problem with having to go through a more rigorous background check to buy a new gun, nor having to go through some type of training or competency certification. A firearm can be a dangerous tool, and I have no problem with making them more difficult to get, and strengthen liability for misuse. I'm comfortable with all that because I know there is no way in several lifetimes that "they're going to take away our guns." Those who live in fear and ignorance of their own government including its limitations can't be expected to relate to the rest of us. Unfortunately, the NRA owns too many members of Congress for "the rest of us" to expect any significant change.

[mike]

I'm beginning to understand Mad American's last name is LaPierre ... just sayin' ...

Yeah, he's leading the charge of misdirection and paranoid conspiracy theory. That's really the problem - the issue isn't actually guns nor Second Amendment rights. It's the view of the government itself. If you have an inherent distrust in the government you elect, if you think the government you elect is your enemy, then your view of anything affecting your imaginary threats to you and your family will be starkly different from others without that level of paranoia.

I own guns, and have had a substantial amount of training. I would have no problem in registering every firearm I own, nor - as Vrede somewhat seriously suggested - having them all chipped. I'd have no problem with having to go through a more rigorous background check to buy a new gun, nor having to go through some type of training or competency certification. A firearm can be a dangerous tool, and I have no problem with making them more difficult to get, and strengthen liability for misuse. I'm comfortable with all that because I know there is no way in several lifetimes that "they're going to take away our guns." Those who live in fear and ignorance of their own government including its limitations can't be expected to relate to the rest of us. Unfortunately, the NRA owns too many members of Congress for "the rest of us" to expect any significant change.

Major props, Counselor.

[rstrong]

I just hope that we never have to deal with nutjobs like LaPierre here in Canada. But it's coming, unless we solve problems like this.

[mike]

*I did edit the post for visual effect*
I just hope that we never have to deal with nutjobs like LaPierre here in Canada. But it's coming, unless we solve problems like this:

LOL!

My family raised a turkey, once, with just that attitude. Best turkey I ever ate.

[O Really]

I think your merit badge was just revoked, O Really.

What-everrr. I've had (and have) my criticisms of the government as represented by any given administration, but I've never thought the government overall was my enemy. Even back in the day when I was outside the WH gate yelling "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" I recognized it as a matter of politics, not of essential governance. I remember saying when Reagan was elected that "1984 is just four years away" relating the to novel, but I still saw it as a matter of temporary political power. Even when I worked for La Raza in Crystal City and Carrizo Springs, Texas, I saw the government as a political opponent, and one we wanted to get more power in, not something we wanted to destroy. On the other hand, the gun ummm "enthusiasts" see the government itself as an entity dedicated to destruction of their rights - as their actual enemy. IMNVHO, that's nutz.

[mike]

Therefore, O Really, the inaccurate opining by homer over the movie Red Dawn ...

Anyone think homer will ever get it?

[mike]

I think my friend Thom Hartmann, says it well regarding my previously mentioned touchstone words such as "well regulated" and "militia" with regard to the 2nd Amendment:



Direct link ... for better quality video and full screen

[homerfobe]

Orangutans are a different species, not a different gender, dummy. I'm starting to understand your ignorance about all other biology.

Opps! Yes, confused genders. This left-wing moonbat thinks he's a female orangutan.

[Mad American]

D.C. attorney general’s office to investigate display of ammunition magazine on TV

Interesting, organized gun rights advocates are calling for his arrest. Yep, that's how they are. Fwiw, if he broke the law and his crime is not superceded by free press protections I think he should be charged. It's just funny to me how hypocritical the gun nuts are.

Points directly from vredes article:

Possessing a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition, even if empty, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

He was in possession of a 30 round clip...he broke the law.

That's what it sounds like to me.

Then why the need to post your negative comments unless you are simply trying to garner a response?

Police have said NBC asked them whether it was legally permissible to show the clip. Police said they told NBC it was not

NBC asked the police and were told no....he broke the law.

Oops, you neglected to quote the next sentence:

...Some published reports suggest that NBC also sought guidance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and got contradictory information...

An "accidental" omission, I'm sure.

Nope, not accidental. The local authorities who would enforce a local ordinance were asked and said no. End of story at that point.

NRA President David Keene told CNN last month that he did not think Gregory should be prosecuted, saying the incident shows “in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are.”

Hardly sounds like a "hypocritical gun nut".

Not Keene, silly. I was referring to:

...Gregory’s televised actions mobilized gun rights advocates and others nationwide; thousands have signed a White House petition urging the NBC host’s arrest.

Many gun rights advocates pressed police to immediately arrest Gregory after he wielded the prop...

Another "accident"? Still a great impression of nascarfan88.

Your obsession with nascarfan is duly noted but I'd say is reaching unhealthy level.

However, it should be noted that 105 people were arrested and prosecuted for possession of large capacity magazines in D.C last year. I'd say there is some hypocrisy there

I'd say you're jumping the gun. You will only be correct if they choose not to prosecute and don't have a damn good reason for it.

He has not been arrested yet so yes....it is still a wait and see. However, you seem equally as quick to "jump the gun" to make comments that you think support your argument.

but it is not coming from gun rights advocates.

It's Keene's lone voice vs. the thousands of gun nuts that want charges for violating a law they don't like just because it's a guy they don't like. Can't get much more hypocritical than that.

And, the creator, ryan l from Boise, ID, and over 18,000 others (you?) are idiots for petitioning the Whitehouse to get a DC law enforced.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/gMNRPpPl

As I've said, you and the other gun nuts make a better case for gun control than we lefties could ever hope to.

No, I do not sign online petitions. I do however, think that if Joe public is going to be arrested for "possession" of a magazine then so should a national media star regardless of circumstances. No matter how ridiculous, the law is the law.

[Mad American]

I'm not one who finds hypocrisy such an awful thing, but it seems to me that if I opposed strict gun laws, I'd be using the NBC issue as an example of ridiculous law. I'd claim that it just goes to show how unreasonable the damn libs can be to have a law that could make it illegal to use an ammunition magazine on a news show to demonstrate what a 30-shot magazine looks like. I'd point fingers and laugh at how out of reality these idiots are, and ask, "do you really want more of that?" On the other hand, if I just wanted to get a dig in to somebody who had a different opinion from me, I'd say "the law is the law...arrest him." And I'd probably do that while packing my personal piece in places not legally allowed.

I think that Keene is attempting to show the silliness of the law and a national media star is a great person to use as an "example". However, if local law enforcement will not enforce the law equally on all people regardless of position then that attempt becomes futile. I agree that the law is dumb as a bag of hammers and arresting a national media personality would go a long way towards showing that. It is the fact that local law enforcement seems to be turning the other cheek now that makes the situation even less tolerable.

[Mad American]

...I'd say you're jumping the gun. You will only be correct if they choose not to prosecute and don't have a damn good reason for it...

...He has not been arrested yet so yes....it is still a wait and see...

Contradicted in the very next post by:

...It is the fact that local law enforcement seems to be turning the other cheek now that makes the situation even less tolerable.

The real story, as clearly stated in the article:

...D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department has “completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the OAG for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”

...The question of how to proceed now rests with the office of Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan, which oversees prosecutions of some low-level offenses. A spokesman for Nathan said the office would not comment until a decision was made...

Just because the gun nuts are up in arms doesn't make it so. Still a great impression of nascarfan88.

My apologies. 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. It is still a wait and see.

[O Really]

Here's a guy who makes his living being a gun defense lawyer in DC http://www.washingtondccriminallawyer.n ... awyer.html

It looks like law enforcement has done its job in investigation and turning what it has over to the prosecution. The prosecution will decide whether or not to bring charges based on a variety of things, including whether they think they could get a conviction. According to the gun lawyer, "the prosecution must prove several elements. A knowledgeable DC gun lawyer can defend against the charge, casting doubt or disproving a prosecutor’s evidence of each element..." 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. It is, after all, DC.