David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

[listopencil]

I found this to be hilarious, and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:16 am EST | Updated: 12/26/2012 1:41 pm EST


UPDATE: NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press." Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD's Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:

"NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."

EARLIER: David Gregory is being investigated by police over the gun magazine that he showed on Sunday's "Meet the Press."

Gregory held up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine during his contentious interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre. He was asking LaPierre whether fewer victims would have died in the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School if the gunman had not had access to so many bullets.

Araz Alali, police officer and spokesman, confirmed to Politico on Tuesday that the Metropolitan Police Department is looking into “The 'Meet the Press,' David Gregory incident.” "There are D.C. code violations, D.C. code restrictions on guns, ammunition. We are investigating this matter. Beyond the scope of that, I can’t comment any further," he said.

The code in question says, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm," and has been mentioned by numerous conservatives making the argument against Gregory.

CORRECTION: The headline has been updated to say that Gregory was holding a gun magazine, not a clip, on "Meet the Press.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...03&ir=Politics

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is "possess" defined, for the purposes of the law? Get back to me on that.

Also, sometimes laws are so poorly worded as to leave them unenforceable in some situations. If you saw one of those magazines on the sidewalk and picked it up, not knowing exactly what it was, did you "possess" it for purposes of that law? What if you recognized what it was and took it straight to the police station? Did you "possess" for purposes of the law?

I don't think a journalist holding it for purposes of discussion on a news show meets the intention of the law--that's why he wasn't prosecuted.

I hope you didn't pull a muscle stretching that line of bullshit.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Hey pal, I didn't write the law or support it. It has been used 212 times last year against citizens in DC, to not enforce it against a person that blatantly violated it is a joke. The law is a joke and is used as nothing more than to infringe the rights of citizens. To selectively enforce it is a mockery of the judicial system.

**** that scumbag stooge posmo.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

They considered the intent of the law.

Do we agree that the intent of the law is to interfere with the rate of fire of a violent criminal?

Given the way they loosely use the word "possess" they pretty much have to consider it. Otherwise, if I saw one on the sidewalk, they are encouraging me to leave it there for someone else to take rather than pick it up to turn in or discard.

I don't get what you mean by a loose use of the term "possess." It seems fairly cut-and-dry to me that he broke the law, that the police stated that he broke the law, that the police determined that arrest was unnecessary and that the District Attorney General declined to prosecute citing de minimis non curat lex.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

I hope you didn't pull a muscle stretching that line of bullshit.

Its called basic logical thinking. I understand that to you it looks like someone might pull a muscle.

If you're too ****ing stupid to explain how I'm wrong, then .

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Do we agree that the intent of the law is to interfere with the rate of fire of a violent criminal?

I don't get what you mean by a loose use of the term "possess." It seems fairly cut-and-dry to me that he broke the law, that the police stated that he broke the law, that the police determined that arrest was unnecessary and that the District Attorney General declined to prosecute citing de minimis non curat lex.

I think we've exhausted this. We agree it would be ridiculous to prosecute. I think we agree that the lack of prosecution is not some pro-liberal conspiracy. That's good enough for today.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Its called basic logical thinking. I understand that to you it looks like someone might pull a muscle.

If you're too ****ing stupid to explain how I'm wrong, then .

You expect me to believe you're struggling to comprehend the meaning and principle of possession? Either you're stretching or you're too ****ing stupid to engage in the discussion and should go back to 3rd grade, learn about the dictionary and then use the ****ing thing.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

You expect me to believe you're struggling to comprehend the meaning and principle of possession? Either you're stretching or you're too ****ing stupid to engage in the discussion and should go back to 3rd grade, learn about the dictionary and then use the ****ing thing.

I gave you a plausible example--you find one on the sidewalk and pick it up. You are in "possession" using the normal definition of word. You think you should be prosecuted? Is that reasonable?

Here's some advanced thinking for you--laws often define key words within the law in order to avoid just this type of situation.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I gave you a plausible example--you find one on the sidewalk and pick it up. You are in "possession" using the normal definition of word. You think you should be prosecuted? Is that reasonable?

Here's some advanced thinking for you--laws often define key words within the law in order to avoid just this type of situation.

I live in DC and there are no mags lying around. Further, Gregory didn't find the ****ing thing in the men's room. He went further and asked and was specifically told don't do it and he did it anyway. That counts as knowing the law, defying the law, and possessing the ****ing thing in spite of the law. Would you defend him if he whipped his dick out as a prop for a story on STD's?

You're creating a hypothetical to rebut something very real and your hypothetical grey area has less than zero to do with the discussion at hand. It is a weak attempt to drive the debate away from your losing argument and into some esoteric morass debating what the definition of "is" is. The fact is Gregory possessed it. Make the case that what he did does not fall under the definition of that term or shut the **** up. He didn't happen upon the thing on his way to the set. He asked for it, he found it, he carried it, and he displayed it all after being told not to.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

I live in DC and there are no mags lying around.

That's reasonable.

Honestly, I stopped reading after that.

[Comrade Crapski]

Ten bucks says that by his 25th birthday cosmo2002 will have contracted AIDS, Hep C and rectal syphilis. And he'll loudly proclaim that it's Bush's (and the NRA’s) fault.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Ten bucks says that by his 25th birthday cosmo2002 will have contracted AIDS, Hep C and rectal syphilis. And he'll loudly proclaim that it's Bush's (and the NRA’s) fault.

Are you threatening to rape me, you psycho?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Are you threatening to rape me, you psycho?

If he does...will he have possessed you?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If he does...will he have possessed you?

I don't think so under the DC law. I do think he might be possessed though. Something ain't right in that head, and demonic possession is my last guess.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't think so under the DC law. I do think he might be possessed though. Something ain't right in that head, and demonic possession is my last guess.

Wait, is the comrade actually Tom Cash or is he Shitsprayer? I'm losing track.

[notorious]

Cosmo is simply here to stand on the opposite side of the masses on every topic.


It's called trolling.