NBC'a David Gregory Weapons Violation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChurchSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChurchSoldier said:
politico.com/story/2012/12/cops-probe-nbc-gregory-on-gun-clip-85481.html?hp=f2

gunauction.com/news/index.cfm/december-28-2012/sweet-justice-nbce28099s-gregory-in-hot-water-for-on-air-hi-cap-magazine-demonstration/

Apparently David Gregory is in a lot of hot water for violation of DC’s high capacity magazine ban for showing one on the program which is taped in DC after being denied permission from the police.

Talk about justice…
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing it. Could you please explain how ‘justice’ applies to either of the articles you posted? Who’s vindicated here? :rolleyes:
 
Allow me to join the conversation. I think the gist of the matter may be the poetic justice of Mr. Gregory finding himself hoisted by his own petard. He advocates an arbitrary law against ownership of a thing, ostensibly to thwart evil acts. He then finds that his mere possession of this spring-loaded metal box is a crime for which he may be incarcerated. While I resist the temptation to enjoy his squirming discomfort, I am pleased to see his argument turned around to become a demonstration of how unjust such laws are. I think it would be unjust if Mr. Gregory goes to jail for breaking the D.C. law and unjust to pass such laws. Saint Augustine tells us that an unjust law is no law.
 
Well, that can go the other way, too.

Gun rightists claim most gun bans are unconstitutional. I would think that would include taking it on the air despite denials from the police.
 
Bill1940 said:
Allow me to join the conversation. I think the gist of the matter may be the poetic justice of Mr. Gregory finding himself hoisted by his own petard. He advocates an arbitrary law against ownership of a thing, ostensibly to thwart evil acts. He then finds that his mere possession of this spring-loaded metal box is a crime for which he may be incarcerated. While I resist the temptation to enjoy his squirming discomfort, I am pleased to see his argument turned around to become a demonstration of how unjust such laws are. I think it would be unjust if Mr. Gregory goes to jail for breaking the D.C. law and unjust to pass such laws. Saint Augustine tells us that an unjust law is no law.
Click to expand...
What he ^^^^^ said.

The irony and arrogance of the media elite thinking they are above the law while trying to outlaw for “the great unwashed” exactly what they are doing (which in this case is breaking a firearms law). While he will have many high priced lawyers keep him out of serious injury, many regular citizens which are due the same rights are being jailed and deprived of property for the same level of infraction.

The best part is that he makes a great case against such laws. Mr Gregory, like 99.999% of gun owners presented absolutely no threat to anyone and was using the “outlawed device” for a perfectly legitimate use, in this case practicing the First Amendment.

One’s views of guns, particularly politicians and the press, are their view of people in general. Whether most people are just good upright citizens looking to live their rights or as criminals who need to be controlled. Their views on gun owners by the way are pretty similar to their views of religious as well, by the way.

Thanks for asking for clarification.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
What he ^^^^^ said.

The irony and arrogance of the media elite thinking they are above the law while trying to outlaw for “the great unwashed” exactly what they are doing (which in this case is breaking a firearms law). While he will have many high priced lawyers keep him out of serious injury, many regular citizens which are due the same rights are being jailed and deprived of property for the same level of infraction.

The best part is that he makes a great case against such laws. Mr Gregory, like 99.999% of gun owners presented absolutely no threat to anyone and was using the “outlawed device” for a perfectly legitimate use, in this case practicing the First Amendment.

One’s views of guns, particularly politicians and the press, are their view of people in general. Whether most people are just good upright citizens looking to live their rights or as criminals who need to be controlled. Their views on gun owners by the way are pretty similar to their views of religious as well, by the way.

Thanks for asking for clarification.
Click to expand...
How would controls infringe upon a law abiding citizen, or a person’s religious views?

How would strict gun registrations, with required documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes, prevent the law abiding citizen from the right of protecting self, and family?

How would requiring mental health disclosures of all in a residence, where guns would be stored, prevent one from the right protecting self and family?

How would requiring securing guns, not in use, prevent a person from the right protecting self and family?

Wouldn’t gun controls be another form of acceptable gun safety?
 
Those are good questions. Restricting guns and religion do not have a lot in common per se. I was referencing that many who see gun owners as dangerous also see those who hold strong Christian beliefs as dangerous and therefore need to be controlled. An example would be the healthcare law mandating companies provide for abortifacients whether they go against their beliefs or not.

Most would be surprised that prior to the “Gun Control Act of 1968” it was common for students in somewhat rural areas to take their guns to school and hunt on the way home. It’s not the firearm.

As far as “reasonable controls” for firearms, whether registration, restriction on transfer, keeping them unusable unless at the range are all of the modern mindset that people are not to be trusted and therefore need to be controlled.

It is the same mindset the English monarchs had about the Colonists in our history which is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment. It is not to allow firearms for hunting or defense, these were not in question. It was as a public check against government corruption in our system of checks and balances.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
Those are good questions. Restricting guns and religion do not have a lot in common per se. I was referencing that many who see gun owners as dangerous also see those who hold strong Christian beliefs as dangerous and therefore need to be controlled. An example would be the healthcare law mandating companies provide for abortifacients whether they go against their beliefs or not.

Most would be surprised that prior to the “Gun Control Act of 1968” it was common for students in somewhat rural areas to take their guns to school and hunt on the way home. It’s not the firearm.

As far as “reasonable controls” for firearms, whether registration, restriction on transfer, keeping them unusable unless at the range are all of the modern mindset that people are not to be trusted and therefore need to be controlled.

It is the same mindset the English monarchs had about the Colonists in our history which is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment. It is not to allow firearms for hunting or defense, these were not in question. It was as a public check against government corruption in our system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...
Of course you realize that people of faith, on these forums, disagree on the issue of gun controls, right?

That’s what happens when you mix politics with faith, or try to separate them, depending on which side of a debate you’re on. It’s a fallacy to claim one side is more righteous than the other.

For me personally, I cannot separate gun control and stopping abortion. I can understand the gun right advocate’s view, that they think the same, but still disagree with the fact that it’s very little inconvenience to try and use controls, with armed guards/policemen, especially law abiding citizens. That brings us back to the questions I posted.

Now, as for keeping a government in ‘check’, do you really think private gun ownership equals the force the government could bring down on an ‘uprising’? It was for the purposes of a Militia, in case of an ‘invasion’. The founding fathers of this country did not write a law suspecting themselves. Common sense.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
How would controls infringe upon a law abiding citizen, or a person’s religious views?
Click to expand...
Here in MI, concealed carry is not allowed in Churches or other places of worship.

The problem comes in when a religious leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, whatever) desires to allow concealed carry, and in fact, would himself be prohibited from carrying a pistol on the private property that he\she is legal owner of.

The question then becomes, is that the type of authority that the State should be able to have over how a priest\pastor\rabbi\imam\guru runs their religious establishment.
 
I do agree people of faith disagree on the issue of firearm ownership, and I have no problem with anyone choosing not to own firearms, keeping them locked when not in use, giving the government a list of firearms they own or anything else they want to do. What I disagree with is having to do it.

The same type of “reasonable restrictions” could be used for free speech. “Of course you can say anything you want, you just have to submit it to the government first…”. Once you go down that path it is a slippery slope.

What the common modern viewpoint is based upon is the concept the government has ultimate authority over rights and freedom and may dole it out as they deem necessary. Our Constitution is the reverse of that. The government rules at the consent of the governed and each of the governed has certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator, not government.

I found this article below to tell pretty much all of what we should think about government restrictions upon their people.

"The Communist Party of China demands the U.S. should disarm…According to US-based activist and FBI informant Brandon Darby, "the current Chinese government killed from 40 to 70 million people during Mao Zedong’s Revolution. Mao himself said that “political power starts in the barrel of a gun.” Link
 
Brendan said:
Here in MI, concealed carry is not allowed in Churches or other places of worship.

The problem comes in when a religious leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, whatever) desires to allow concealed carry, and in fact, would himself be prohibited from carrying a pistol on the private property that he\she is legal owner of.

The question then becomes, is that the type of authority that the State should be able to have over how a priest\pastor\rabbi\imam\guru runs their religious establishment.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And I believe no.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I do agree people of faith disagree on the issue of firearm ownership, and I have no problem with anyone choosing not to own firearms, keeping them locked when not in use, giving the government a list of firearms they own or anything else they want to do. What I disagree with is having to do it.

The same type of “reasonable restrictions” could be used for free speech. “Of course you can say anything you want, you just have to submit it to the government first…”. Once you go down that path it is a slippery slope.

What the common modern viewpoint is based upon is the concept the government has ultimate authority over rights and freedom and may dole it out as they deem necessary. Our Constitution is the reverse of that. The government rules at the consent of the governed and each of the governed has certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator, not government.

I found this article below to tell pretty much all of what we should think about government restrictions upon their people.

"The Communist Party of China demands the U.S. should disarm…According to US-based activist and FBI informant Brandon Darby, "the current Chinese government killed from 40 to 70 million people during Mao Zedong’s Revolution. Mao himself said that “political power starts in the barrel of a gun.” Link
Click to expand...
Were you ever in the military? If not, what do you think people are serving this country for? To insinuate that this is not the greatest country in the world and cannot be trusted is a dishonor to those who lost their lives and those that put their lives in danger. They served for FREEDOM, like we have in this country.

Yes, you have a right to own a gun, but you have responsibility that comes with it. You have a right to free speech, try yelling ‘bomb’ on your next flight, or ‘fire’ in the next movie you go to. To say, Hitler, Mao, Castro, or any other infamous leader is dishonest. We’ve had leaders in both parties, but politics grows dirtier and dirtier. Who ever is elected is the president. We have laws to prevent that imaginary take over people think we have to have guns for. If this government wanted inside your home, you don’t have nothing to stop them. That’s reality.

I’ve made a few suggestions in the form of questions. I’ve noticed you’ve overlooked them, even though I’ve brought them up twice now; this is the third time. Why not explain the infringement on your rights through those suggestions. Assuming you’re a law abiding citizen, it shouldn’t be something you’re afraid of.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yes, you have a right to own a gun, but you have responsibility that comes with it. You have a right to free speech, try yelling ‘bomb’ on your next flight, or ‘fire’ in the next movie you go to.
Click to expand...
But what you are asking for is the 2nd Amendment equivalent of a presumption that the general body of people will do the gun equivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in the movie theatre, and therefore enacting speech restrictions. That a person must register what they will say, and verify their mental health before they are allowed to speak.

Or require reporters to register their articles, subject to governmental censor, simply because a report might falsely report false data that might start a stock market crash, or heck, even start a war ( Remember the Maine 🙂 )

No American would stand for such controls, simply on the grounds that there are a very few who might misuse their right to speech or their right to freedom of the press.

Those type of controls are not why I served.
 
Brendan said:
But what you are asking for is the 2nd Amendment equivalent of a presumption that the general body of people will do the gun equivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in the movie theatre, and therefore enacting speech restrictions. That a person must register what they will say, and verify their mental health before they are allowed to speak.

Or require reporters to register their articles, subject to governmental censor, simply because a report might falsely report false data that might start a stock market crash, or heck, even start a war ( Remember the Maine 🙂 )

No American would stand for such controls, simply on the grounds that there are a very few who might misuse their right to speech or their right to freedom of the press.

Those type of controls are not why I served.
Click to expand...
It’s not a presumption, it’s common sense. In case you haven’t noticed, we’ve had several incidents, just in the past year, of people yelling fire, with an AR15. People are much easier to subdue when they run off at the mouth, when they’re armed to the teeth, people have a much higher chance of dieing. Apples, oranges, Rights, responsibility. It’s that easy, and as law abiding Christians, I fail to see controls as anymore than inconveniences, but then I’m not paranoid the government is going to take over.:rolleyes:

Check your oath of enlistment to see what you served for.
 
How would controls infringe upon a law abiding citizen, or a person’s religious views?
The nation’s capital does not recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms, creating the absurd situation where a member of the armed forces - whose job it is to carry a gun - can be put in jail for doing so. That’s what happened to Army National Guard1st Lt. Augustine Kim.
The injured vet, who served two tours in Afghanistan and is preparing to deploy to Kosovo, had his personal firearms collection seized by the city two years ago as he stopped for a doctor’s appointment while traveling in full compliance with federal law. Though all charges against him were eventually dropped, the city refuses to return his property to him in South Carolina. The case is putting D.C.’s anti-gun policies in the national spotlight.

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/17/soldier-wants-his-guns-back/#ixzz2Gagct5Fo
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

How would strict gun registrations, with required documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes, prevent the law abiding citizen from the right of protecting self, and family?
Oppressive governments never do so without first taking away the means for defense away from the people. This always begins with registration. Not saying our government will go that path, but if I were an Iraqi or Afghanistan citizen I might give you an argument.

How would requiring mental health disclosures of all in a residence, where guns would be stored, prevent one from the right protecting self and family?
While seemingly innocuous, what would be the definition of “mental health problem”. Seeing a psychiatrist more than once for instance.

How would requiring securing guns, not in use, prevent a person from the right protecting self and family? Is having a gun in the bedside table for home defense in use? Not in DC.

Wouldn’t gun controls be another form of acceptable gun safety?
No. Training is an acceptable form of gun safety. When you go down the road of legislating behavior the only logical outcome is a totalitarian state. England, which has outlawed private gun ownership for the most part, and is as likely to convict a homeowner who defends themselves from a break-in with a firearm as they are to convict the burglar, STILL has gun crime.

Israel, on the other hand, which has armed teachers in schools and sends armed teachers on field trips don’t have school shootings. Go figure.

Yes, I served our country in the armed forces. Thanks for asking.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s not a presumption, it’s common sense. In case you haven’t noticed, we’ve had several incidents, just in the past year, of people yelling fire, with an AR15. I fail to see controls as anymore than inconveniences, but then I’m not paranoid the government is going to take over.:rolleyes:

Check your oath of enlistment to see what you served for.
Click to expand...
I agree there have been several times people have used firearms to harm others. They weren’t right. Each time there were laws which were ignored.

What you do not read are the hundreds of thousands of times a year people defend themselves with firearms, most of the time without firing a shot. (Google John Lott for statistical reference).

What we can agree on is that neither of us want innocent people being killed by crazed killers.

I think it is clear we disagree on the solution and will probably just have to leave it at that.

Thanks for the interaction.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s not a presumption, it’s common sense. In case you haven’t noticed, we’ve had several incidents,
Click to expand...
And, as I mentioned, we have had incidents of reporters starting wars and causing runs on banks and stock markets. Would it be common sense to have them vette their articles out with the government before they are allowed to publish? And perhaps even institute a waiting period too?
Check your oath of enlistment to see what you served for.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was the Oath of Office that I took, and it was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The 2nd Amendment is part of the same Constitution that I vowed to defend.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
How would requiring securing guns, not in use, prevent a person from the right protecting self and family?
Click to expand...
Because while I’m attempting to open my gun safe the intruder is probably going to be busy emptying *his * gun into the back of my head.
 
nitesnake said:
Because while I’m attempting to open my gun safe the intruder is probably going to be busy emptying *his * gun into the back of my head.
Click to expand...
Everyone says basically the same thing. I have to wonder if it’s not to paint the worst case scenario?

Key words in that question, ‘…when not in use…’ We have owners with multiple guns; they can only carry one for protection outside the house, but that doesn’t prevent them from having one, or two more in the car. Let’s say that person owns 7 guns; while using 2, or 3, is it not gun safety to have the others stored securely? What if the person doesn’t have a permit, and only owns a gun for home protection; while that persons at work, shouldn’t the gun be stored securely? It can be taken out as soon as you get home, but while you’re gone the children, or ‘bad guys’ can’t just pick it up and walk off.

Oh, before I go start my shift, for those ‘smart’ guys who served, but slept with one eye on the government; weren’t you serving the ‘untrustworthy’ government as an enforcer? :rolleyes:

The way I had to explain the securing procedure, step by step, seems to show that people are looking for ways to make the suggestions look like it’s a lack of common sense to suggest such a thing. Do you realize how it looks to those of us who think it a minor inconvenience to utilize proper gun safety, not only for society, but for loved ones in our homes? 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
How would controls infringe upon a law abiding citizen, or a person’s religious views?

How would strict gun registrations, with required documentation of private transfers, for accountability purposes, prevent the law abiding citizen from the right of protecting self, and family?

How would requiring mental health disclosures of all in a residence, where guns would be stored, prevent one from the right protecting self and family?

How would requiring securing guns, not in use, prevent a person from the right protecting self and family?

Wouldn’t gun controls be another form of acceptable gun safety?
Click to expand...
One more time: CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Everything you suggest is ostensibly intended to keeps guns out of the hands of bad (or deranged) guys. It won’t work. Never has; never will.

When was the last time you heard a criminal say “I’m a convicted felon. I’m not supposed to have a gun so I guess I can’t commit gun crimes anymore.”?

When was the last time you heard a mentally-disturbed person say “Since I have been diagnosed with psychotic schizophrenia I better not go shoot up that day-care center with my stolen ‘assault weapon’ because then I would be in BIG trouble.”?

Even if it were possible to go door-to-door of every house in the country and gather up every single gun, criminals will still get them somehow. They can get them from other countries. Some people have the skills to build guns from scratch.

Use this analogy: Knives are banned in prisons. Yet inmates still get them or make their own out of various pieces of scrap material. Examples:

http://downloads.thedaily.com/photos/2012/07/01/070212-news-prison-consultants3-662w-at-1x.jpg

Instead of restricting guns from law abiding citizens, we need to better enable those citizens to better protect themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top