The Republican Thread

[DukeNukeEm]

What if David Gregory left prison as a poor man with a family, in need of assistance? Do we give him bootstraps or food stamps?

Maybe he shouldn't have shown zero regard for the bats*** laws he wants so badly.

[DukeNukeEm]

While I couldn't argue with them getting Gregory (why not use a prop? lol), it certainly did not serve any kind of public safety purpose in DC. Gregory did far more for public safety by having that conversation with LaPierre and flashing those objects about than the PD arresting/fining him would have done.

So laws shouldn't apply to Democrats. If Diane Feinstein rapes and murders a 6 year old she should be let off because her fighting the EVIL SECOND AMENDMENT has saved so many lives, right?

[EvilMonkey]

So laws shouldn't apply to Democrats. If Diane Feinstein rapes and murders a 6 year old she should be let off because her fighting the EVIL SECOND AMENDMENT has saved so many lives, right?

That's pretty much what they are saying Duke.

[Jake]

So laws shouldn't apply to Democrats. If Diane Feinstein rapes and murders a 6 year old she should be let off because her fighting the EVIL SECOND AMENDMENT has saved so many lives, right?

 

First of all, I have no problem enforcing the laws on David Gregory. If I was the Police Chief, I'd do it.

 

Anyways, my point is not the sum of all his actions is greater than his illegal act (I like to think of this as the Michael Jackson Defense). My point is that the illegal act itself did more good than harm. Regardless, though I think David Gregory used discretion, I'm okay with prosecuting him anyway since not everyone knows better than the law. I'm also interested in what David did with those items -- I hope they were melted down.

[Balta1701]

First of all, I have no problem enforcing the laws on David Gregory. If I was the Police Chief, I'd do it.

 

Anyways, my point is not the sum of all his actions is greater than his illegal act (I like to think of this as the Michael Jackson Defense). My point is that the illegal act itself did more good than harm. Regardless, though I think David Gregory used discretion, I'm okay with prosecuting him anyway since not everyone knows better than the law. I'm also interested in what David did with those items -- I hope they were melted down.

I think having them melted down would be destroying evidence

[EvilMonkey]

First of all, I have no problem enforcing the laws on David Gregory. If I was the Police Chief, I'd do it.

 

Anyways, my point is not the sum of all his actions is greater than his illegal act (I like to think of this as the Michael Jackson Defense). My point is that the illegal act itself did more good than harm. Regardless, though I think David Gregory used discretion, I'm okay with prosecuting him anyway since not everyone knows better than the law. I'm also interested in what David did with those items -- I hope they were melted down.

I had read that a staffer returned it to the person they 'borrowed' it from, and that it was surrendered to the DC AG during the investigation.

 

The problem here is the same it always is with the leftist establishment. 'Fake but accurate', the 'ends justify the means' and so on. With NOT prosecuting him here, it seems the only reason to not violate the law is from a reasonable fear of getting caught if you don’t have enough juice to get out of it. This also has interesting implications for the jury system.

[G&T]

As a prosecutor (of sorts), from what I can tell, this decision on David Gregory was the right one. Apparently a recent case involving this statute resulted in acquittal despite solid facts (the blurb about Brinkley). The offer made by the AAG in that case was very low which tells me that this law is really used as a tag along for more serious gun charges. I'm guessing they knew they wouldn't get much out of this prosecution from the judges regardless of the facts so just let it go.

Edited January 13, 2013 by G&T

[southsider2k5]

So laws shouldn't apply to Democrats. If Diane Feinstein rapes and murders a 6 year old she should be let off because her fighting the EVIL SECOND AMENDMENT has saved so many lives, right?

If it was a 16 year old they murdered, Massachusetts might be interested in electing them...

[Reddy]

So laws shouldn't apply to Democrats. If Diane Feinstein rapes and murders a 6 year old she should be let off because her fighting the EVIL SECOND AMENDMENT has saved so many lives, right?

remind me why you haven't been suspended yet?

 

(and yes i'm probably not going to let this go)

[mr_genius]

remind me why you haven't been suspended yet?

 

(and yes i'm probably not going to let this go)

 

why would he get suspended?

[EvilMonkey]

http://westchester.news12.com/news/white-p...-1.4442333?qr=1

 

A White Plains home that is listed on a publicized handgun permit database was burglarized last night. Officials say the target of the burglary was the homeowner's gun case. Police are trying to determine if the break-in was a result of the homeowner's name and address being published by the Journal News last month, along with thousands of other registered gun owners.

[Reddy]

why would he get suspended?

 

Regarding this most recent post: "--Making threatening or questionable statements about elected officials or others in the public eye" (prohibited behaviors in the 'buster)

 

Regarding some of Duke's greatest hits:

 

As long as people are having gay sex, there will be AIDS. f***ing hippie.

 

Gay sex is risky because you could get AIDS. IMO the government should ban gay sex, or at least force people to wear condoms.

 

which caused the gun thread to get closed. it also violates at least three 'buster policies

 

1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly

4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others

6. I will try to make posts that actually add to the discussion at hand

 

for comparison's sake:

Reddy, following your post saying "your head is so far up your ass it's ridiculous", your posting priveledges have been suspended for 10 days

 

Yep. Still bitter.

 

EDIT: I know I'm probably gonna get in trouble for doing this and I'll accept the consequences... just don't ban me forever. I don't know what I'd do without the 'buster and Y2HH to argue with.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Reddy

[DukeNukeEm]

1. I didn't threaten or even make a questionable remark about Diane Feinstein. That rule is clearly there to keep people from saying things like "IF BUSH WINS IN 2004 I HOPE SOMEONE SHOOTS HIM" or "Obama is the anti-christ, march on Washington for him to publically executed!". I used Diane Feinstein merely as an example to prove a point: That if some laws dont apply to the political elite, even the political elite you agree with, then you've essentially made it so no laws apply to the political elite.

 

2. The AIDS comments. Again, I was trying to make a point. Throughout the thread anti-guns were complaining about how dangerous and risky firearm ownerships is, but AIDS kills more people than guns every year and essentially sentences to death almost 4 times the average US gun deaths per year. However since gays are a political ally of those generally willing to take away guns (generalizing a little I know) you'd be completely unwilling to take "humanitarian" measures to save lives that otherwise would not have been taken by AIDS. Honestly, I dont think we should ban guns nor should we ban gay sex because they both fall under civil rights. It's called holding a consistent view, try it sometime.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[The Sir]

I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to post here anymore, but moving to central Asia for nine months makes a man really bored. So, here it goes.

 

This whole David Gregory thing is a win for conservatives. Think about it.

 

One argument conservatives make against weapons bans is that owning a gun, or a high capacity magazine, is not a bad thing in and of itself. I use my firearms and corresponding mags for home defense and target shooting. Ted Nugent uses his for hunting or waving them around like a maniac during rock concerts. David Gregory borrows high capacity magazines and waves them around in DC media studios to argue against owning high capacity magazines. It's silly, and I disagree with his point, but Gregory didn't do anything evil, even though he violated DC law (mala en se vs mala prohibita).

 

So this absurd situation gets even better when Irvin Nathan comes along, and lets Gregory go free, referring on multiple occasions to his intent.

 

Isn't that the point? Intent doesn't matter when it comes to product bans. My intent with high capacity magazines is not an evil one, but in banning these items, they'd demand that I turn them in or be sentenced like an actual criminal. My intent, decent though it were, would do nothing to save me. David Gregory shouldn't be any different.

 

So while we could harp on other parts of this controversy, such as Nathan being friend's with Gregory's wife, or why the law doesn't apply equally, I think the best part is that this liberal journalist came along with this dumb stunt and proved our own point. Beautiful.

[Jake]

It certainly proves how little we can do to keep guns out of a city when the ban is only at the city level. One only needs a car, a good pair of feet, or a bicycle to start making legal straw purchases or buy things at a retailer.

[StrangeSox]

Fwiw any gun control legislation is going to grandfather in existing stock

[The Sir]

Fwiw any gun control legislation is going to grandfather in existing stock

 

Not to be snide, but that doesn't change my point.

 

Good idea on your part, nonetheless. Gun confiscation would go poorly.

[Jake]

Not to be snide, but that doesn't change my point.

 

Good idea on your part, nonetheless. Gun confiscation would go poorly.

 

If you think the death panels hysteria was bad, I can only imagine what would happen if they tried to confiscate anything from anyone.

 

[Balta1701]

If you think the death panels hysteria was bad, I can only imagine what would happen if they tried to confiscate anything from anyone.

Since it's kinda on subject of "law enforcement looking the other way"...we already have a lunatic in Tennessee going on Youtube and saying that if the government tries to pass any sort of gun control, he's going to have to start "Killing people".

 

In response, the state of Tennessee came down hard on him...by temporarily taking away his concealed carry permit.

[Reddy]

I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to post here anymore, but moving to central Asia for nine months makes a man really bored. So, here it goes.

 

This whole David Gregory thing is a win for conservatives. Think about it.

 

One argument conservatives make against weapons bans is that owning a gun, or a high capacity magazine, is not a bad thing in and of itself. I use my firearms and corresponding mags for home defense and target shooting. Ted Nugent uses his for hunting or waving them around like a maniac during rock concerts. David Gregory borrows high capacity magazines and waves them around in DC media studios to argue against owning high capacity magazines. It's silly, and I disagree with his point, but Gregory didn't do anything evil, even though he violated DC law (mala en se vs mala prohibita).

 

So this absurd situation gets even better when Irvin Nathan comes along, and lets Gregory go free, referring on multiple occasions to his intent.

 

Isn't that the point? Intent doesn't matter when it comes to product bans. My intent with high capacity magazines is not an evil one, but in banning these items, they'd demand that I turn them in or be sentenced like an actual criminal. My intent, decent though it were, would do nothing to save me. David Gregory shouldn't be any different.

 

So while we could harp on other parts of this controversy, such as Nathan being friend's with Gregory's wife, or why the law doesn't apply equally, I think the best part is that this liberal journalist came along with this dumb stunt and proved our own point. Beautiful.

 

The reason it doesn't actually matter is right here. It took you a paragraph to explain, isnt cut and dry, and doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or sound byte. I don't think this ends up mattering in the gun debate.

 

[StrangeSox]

Since it's kinda on subject of "law enforcement looking the other way"...we already have a lunatic in Tennessee going on Youtube and saying that if the government tries to pass any sort of gun control, he's going to have to start "Killing people".

 

In response, the state of Tennessee came down hard on him...by temporarily taking away his concealed carry permit.

 

Is what he said in any way illegal though?

[Balta1701]

Is what he said in any way illegal though?

If, hypothetically, a person who engaged in a mass shooting had made a series of youtube videos declaring how he was going to start "killing people", while simultaneously having an arsenal of weapons available to him (this lunatic runs some sort of survival training academy), would people look back and say "Well, they took away his concealed carry permit, that's the appropriate response"?

[StrangeSox]

Advocating violence isn't illegal unless it's likely to cause imminent violence as in "go kill this man right now." I think that can be extended to saying what your own actions might be. I don't know what else you think should be done to him.

[Balta1701]

Advocating violence isn't illegal unless it's likely to cause imminent violence as in "go kill this man right now." I think that can be extended to saying what your own actions might be. I don't know what else you think should be done to him.

I think threatening to start killing people fits under my list of "reasons why a person should lose their right to own guns".

[StrangeSox]

Well are we talking about your preferred response or what's actually possible legally?