Ha ha, Meet the press host under investigation for holding up "illegal" high capacity magazine

Apparently they asked the cops if it was ok and they were told no. Well, they went and did it anyway.

Should be interesting to see if his anti gun cohorts speak up on the existing gun laws not being enforced if he gets off on this as we all know he will. or continue their efforts and pretend it never happened.

reply to post by DIRTYDONKEY


Greta Van Susteren is defending him:

Van Susteren lambasted the controversy, asking, “How much time and money is going to be spent (wasted) investigating him? Can you think of a sillier use of investigative resources?”

link

But isnt it the law Greta? Shouldnt the law be upheld? The almighty glorious law?

If selective enforcement goes mainstream this could change society as we know it. It would force us to dump a ton of asinine victimless crimes or have to acknowledge that the law is neither blind nor fair and that should cause a massive uproar.

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
reply to post by TheCanuckian

 

reply to post by TheCanuckian

 

Wow you need a laxitive you are so full of crap. What gun law ever reduced crime? Can you show just one gun law enacted other than Kennesaw Ga that caused gun crime to go down? And, if you are refering to the recent shooting that gun was taken from his mother. HE DID NOT LEGALLY BUY THAT FIREARM!

As far as my childrern go I want them to have the legal right to defend themselves when the come of age. I want the government to fear the people not the other way around. The government rules by consent of the people and more than you might imagine will never give there consent.

As Jefferson said," The tree of liberty must on occasion be watered with the blood of tyrants". Hard words for this day and age and I pray it does not come to that. The desth of our country would hang in the balance.

The difference between me and you is that I would gladly give up my life for liberty, while you would trade liberty for life.

RELUCTANTPAWN

While i agree I think you should add the full quote which is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." I like the quote of "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Benjamin Franklin

Originally posted by PvtHudson
Apparently they asked the cops if it was ok and they were told no. Well, they went and did it anyway.

Good. Got exactly what they deserved. It's the price they should pay for media sensationalism. Did they think they are above the law?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by DIRTYDONKEY

 

Greta Van Susteren is defending him:

Van Susteren lambasted the controversy, asking, “How much time and money is going to be spent (wasted) investigating him? Can you think of a sillier use of investigative resources?”

link

But isnt it the law Greta? Shouldnt the law be upheld? The almighty glorious law?

If selective enforcement goes mainstream this could change society as we know it. It would force us to dump a ton of asinine victimless crimes or have to acknowledge that the law is neither blind nor fair and that should cause a massive uproar.

Wait, big guy.. hasn't Greta got a J.D.? Dave doesn't need investigating anyway,
he brandished the thing like a croissant fulla primers ON CAMERA.
Maybe Greta standing up and calling out silly would give it traction?
When legislation doth not follow law, thee get this.ROFL

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Ha Ha, you got busted for breaking the law you want to foist onto the rest of the nation.

Ha, ha, you want someone to be busted for breaking a law you don't think should exist just to prove a point

Talk about vindictive! If this were a conservative host, I'd imagine you'd be up in arms about how ridiculous it is that the law even exists, but since it's a liberal one (from your perspective) you WANT them to be punished out of spite? *sigh*

Originally posted by TheCanuckian
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

What's ridiculous about protecting children and ensuring everyone can live without being killed by some madman who bought a gun legally?

What are you, 10 years old? Do you even research the numbers on what guns bans do to crime?
If you did, you would not be speaking, you would be quiet and cross your fingers hoping nothing comes of this.

Fact is though new laws will be enacted and you won't have a choice, those with children will be thankful for it and praise the administration efforts.

I guess your answer to that is to rebel with your guns right?

edit on 26-12-2012 by TheCanuckian because: (no reason given)

What's ridiculous is that this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anyone. He was holding a metal box with a spring and a sliding internal platform that rides on that spring. In literal terms, thats ALL he held there. Nothing more and nothing less.

He ought to go to jail for it too. It's about time the media PAY under a few of the same laws they tell us we're foolish to complain about in any way. Well.....he's one heck of a hypocrite to even argue the case. The law was there, he broke it and in other times I'm sure he'd be the FIRST to tell someone all about how ignorance is no excuse.

The LAW is the problem. It isn't the stamped metal box he's holding...but until media realize that, nothing changes ....until media ABSOLUTELY ARE FORCED to follow the same laws, TO THE LETTER, that we are? They can't even pretend to understand what the problem is.

So you've brought a gun to a gun-free zone and are busy slaughtering citizens to your pharmaceutical-addled brain's content. You couldn't easily find a 30-round clip so you have a backpack full of 5 or 10 round clips instead. It takes a few seconds to swap the clips out but since there's no resistance a few seconds doesn't make much difference anyway.

They argue about how these killers wouldn't be able to kill people if they have less bullets. A ridiculous assertion given the same amount of bullets can be carried and utilized regardless of individual clip size.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The LAW is the problem. It isn't the stamped metal box he's holding...but until media realize that, nothing changes ....until media ABSOLUTELY ARE FORCED to follow the same laws, TO THE LETTER, that we are? They can't even pretend to understand what the problem is.

They sure do love laws right up until they get on the other side of that stick, and they forget just how big that stick is.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The feds will get the person who gave it to him after he claims ignorance of the law.

It's probably his. He either lives in Potomac, MD or McLean, VA - the two uppity rich people towns on the west side of the beltway outside of DC. Or maybe Chevy Chase. Those are legal in Virginia and probably Maryland (although I don't know), so it's only a bridge away from legal.

This is the problem.
The people with a voice believe all gun owners are as dumb as they are.
I hope the idiot ends up in jail for blatantly ignoring the police when they told him it was illegal.
After all, arent they the ones screaming for tougher gun violation enforcement?

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Ha Ha, you got busted for breaking the law you want to foist onto the rest of the nation.

Ha, ha, you want someone to be busted for breaking a law you don't think should exist just to prove a point

Talk about vindictive! If this were a conservative host, I'd imagine you'd be up in arms about how ridiculous it is that the law even exists, but since it's a liberal one (from your perspective) you WANT them to be punished out of spite? *sigh*

But it IS the Law and he DOES deserve to be punished for breaking it.
If you believe its silly, so do I which is why it irritates me when they try to ban them.

This is quite ironic! Hes advocating for gun control as well as greater control of certain gun accessories, and yet, he is proving how ineffectual the laws hes advocating are. In D.C these types of magazines are illegal to buy, sell, or possess, so that should mean they're next to impossible to obtain...and yet there it is, on National TV!

This just goes to show, that prohibition of any item fails to prohibit that particular item from being bought, sold, traded, or possessed in the Market. On the contrary, it causes a Black Market to develop around said prohibited item, and in a Black Market, there is no regulation or governmental oversight, outside of being caught red handed in the act of either possessing, or buying, selling, or trading. The abject failure that was the Prohibition of Alcohol in the early 20th Century proves this premise.

The moron should at least brought a airsoft or paintball magazine to prove his illustration.

See this shows even the media doesn't sometimes get a hall pass.

Originally posted by Dustofenese
This is quite ironic! Hes advocating for gun control as well as greater control of certain gun accessories, and yet, he is proving how ineffectual the laws hes advocating are. In D.C these types of magazines are illegal to buy, sell, or possess, so that should mean they're next to impossible to obtain...and yet there it is, on National TV!

This just goes to show, that prohibition of any item fails to prohibit that particular item from being bought, sold, traded, or possessed in the Market. On the contrary, it causes a Black Market to develop around said prohibited item, and in a Black Market, there is no regulation or governmental oversight, outside of being caught red handed in the act of either possessing, or buying, selling, or trading. The abject failure that was the Prohibition of Alcohol in the early 20th Century proves this premise.

So, you are equating illegal alcohol consumption to illegal gun ownership?

First of all, you are aware that there is already a well established black market in our country, correct? One can purchase anything one would want to through the use of black market sales. The banning of guns isn't going to do anything to this black market trade.

Second of all.. Am I understanding you correctly when you seem to be indicating that regular law abiding citizens, the people who own guns now, are all going to turn into black marketeers, buying unregistered weapons from people in back alleys if a repeal of the Second Amendment happens? Because that's what people did during the Prohibition Era. People looking to have a drink had to become criminals to get one. So, by comparison, people would have to become criminals to get a gun if the 2nd is repealed.

Do you believe that the same types of people that would break an alcohol ban at the risk that amounts to a night in jail the cost of 2 beers (usually) are going to also break a gun ban that could have considerably steeper penalties if caught? Could you imagine what accidental shootings could do to someone financially if an illegal weapon was discharged? What if there was a casualty?

This simple comparison of Prohibition and Ending the Second Amendment is getting complicated very quickly.

Originally posted by Dustofenese On the contrary, it causes a Black Market to develop around said prohibited item, and in a Black Market, there is no regulation or governmental oversight, outside of being caught red handed in the act of either possessing, or buying, selling, or trading. The abject failure that was the Prohibition of Alcohol in the early 20th Century proves this premise.

I couldn't agree more. At the same time, the very debate itself shows those who know better either how ignorant and hopeless the Media is for being informed .....Or how carefully they dance around subjects and choose just which areas to report and which to pretend don't even exist.

In the example you make, for instance, there exist across the Online world ...some places where Law simply doesn't exist. Ever. Period. No buts or footnotes. Law cannot go some places and simply cannot follow into some whole market segments within the greater online community. Within these places ...similar to a 3rd world bazaar in many ways, I could order a Russian or Chinese production AK-47 (and be specific about production origin too.) and have that brought to me for a price, anywhere in the world. (The U.S. is rather expensive for "handling" in getting it here ....but most of the world isn't too bad on cost)

Until the media addresses things like that? The "public side" is a sick joke. Most criminals don't know that world exists and it's why I'm not detailing it so well anyone can go see. No need ..no gain...and NOT productive. It's enough to note it exists and the media SHOULD KNOW plenty about it. Their brethren are in the war zones those weapons ship OUT of every day. No question ignorance buys no excuses on their part.

So, one has to wonder where this supposed law-abiding, intelligent, albeit moronic, television host obtained one of these high-capacity magazines in a city in which they're banned (sarcasm). This idiot doesn't even realize he totally scored a point for the other side!

Are not the MSM and the Gestapo on the same team with the SAME agenda?

I sense a ruse in the making...

This HAS to be staged.

reply to post by 0001391


The only firearm I ever owned was a single barrel, single round capacity shotgun. But I could get a new shell in there quick, I tell you what! So you're absolutely correct when you assert that people hellbent on taking life will do it whether or not you can buy assault rifles at Walmart.