did david gregory break the law on meet the press holding up that magazine

[Valerie]

That makes it legal for the cop to let a reporter touch the thing.

Please provide a link to proof that a cop was there and let him hold the magazine.

Thankies.

How about providing a link to proof that there wasn't..or some such permit...?

 

[Si modo]

Actually, all they would need to do to make a "prop" one would be to buy a real one, and deactivate it.

They would still be guilty of "transferring" a 30 round clip, which is illegal.

Only if they did it in DC.

You seem to be assuming that they purchased that clip specifically for that episode of "Meet the Press". Why wouldn't they just call the NBC prop department?

IF it is a prop, then no problem.

If not, then the law needs to be enforced. No one is above the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, all they would need to do to make a "prop" one would be to buy a real one, and deactivate it.

They would still be guilty of "transferring" a 30 round clip, which is illegal.

Only if they did it in DC.

You seem to be assuming that they purchased that clip specifically for that episode of "Meet the Press". Why wouldn't they just call the NBC prop department?

Everyone is making a lot of assumptions. When Gregory coughs up the magazine to the DC police, then we'll know the answer.

 

[Pogo]

This is no attack on the First Amendment, ding dong. He broke the law. End of story. If he molested a 5-year-old boy on his show to make some point, would you call prosecuting him a violation of the First Amendment?

Really wanna go there, Finger boy? This is about the pattern. So what did Piers Morgan do to warrant "deportation"? What did Costas do to warrant "firing"? Or are you saying this is an exception to the pattern?

And how do you know "he broke the law"? You actually believe everything you see on TV? That must make for some conflicts...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yeah yeah, blame everyone and anyone but the idiot who didnt even respect the laws he wants in place. You are such pitiful creatures.

Wow - when I wrote "anyone not see the pattern" I thought it was a rhetorical question. Here's a guy who seems to volunteer that he actually doesn't see it.

It's peculiar how some of y'all want to jump all in front of the Second Amendment as Constitutionally sacrosanct, yet say absolutely nothing about this abuse of the First Amendment going on at the same time.

Even more interesting that the attacks on the First Amendment came before those of the Second, the same order as the Bill of Rights -- when Bob Costas put his commentary out on Sunday Night Football, two weeks before Newtown, he was immediately pounced upon with calls from the knee jerks for his firing, even though he said nothing about gun control or the Second Amendment. Even Rupert Murdoch can see that.

Hypocrisy is rampant.

I see your opinión and your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Come back with facts.

"Facts"??
Really? You actually don't mind appearing so dullwitted that you don't see what's going on all around you, just to make me state the obvious? Seriously??

"Fire Bob Costas" ...
"Deport Piers Morgan" ...
"Arrest David Gregory (the present thread) ...
See the pattern. Or just go

 

[LockeJaw]

The magazine is not a prop. I know what an empty magazine sounds like when you drop it,

Meet The Press David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law On National TV (Sign Petition To Have Him Arrested) - YouTube

There's absolutely no reason to think that it was a "real" magazine. TV props rarely are.

Should we investigate Law and Order too, in case those guns are real?

There's absolutely every reason to think it was a real magazine. Making a fake one might cost $10,000. Why make a fake when he could just buy a real one an eBay? Furthermore, it looked real enough.

Actually, all they would need to do to make a "prop" one would be to buy a real one, and deactivate it.

Watching you guys try to fabricate lies in order to save Gregory's hide is soooo damn funny. The idiot was just ignorant of the law and screwed up. Yes liberals CAN be ignorant and do stupid shit. Your false senses of intellectual superiority
are just that, FALSE. If the magazine were a réplica, He wouldve said that. Well, thats If they were as knowledgeable and intellectually superior as they claim to be, they'd have knew the law in DC and made sure to put a disclaimer in there saying that its a prop and not the real thing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The magazine is not a prop. I know what an empty magazine sounds like when you drop it,

Meet The Press David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law On National TV (Sign Petition To Have Him Arrested) - YouTube

There's absolutely every reason to think it was a real magazine. Making a fake one might cost $10,000. Why make a fake when he could just buy a real one an eBay? Furthermore, it looked real enough.

Actually, all they would need to do to make a "prop" one would be to buy a real one, and deactivate it.

Watching you guys try to fabricate lies in order to save Gregory's hide is soooo damn funny.

Not nearly as funny as watching you guys fabricate a story as to why he should be arrested.

The idiot was just ignorant of the law and screwed up. Yes liberals CAN be ignorant and do stupid shit.

Of course.

Your false senses of intellectual superiority are just that, FALSE. If the magazine were a réplica, He wouldve said that. Well, thats If they were as knowledgeable and intellectually superior as they claim to be, they'd have knew the law in DC and made sure to put a disclaimer in there saying that its a prop and not the real thing.

Why would he have said that? There's no legal reason for them to put up a disclaimer.

I'm sure they do know the law in DC, and there's no reason to think that they weren't following it - aside from "gotcha journalism" being spread around by the Right Wing Nutjob internets.

You're berating "liberals" for coming up with narratives that exonerate Gregory, while at the same time coming up with narratives calling for him to be arrested. The fact of the matter is that none of us have the slightest idea what it actually was.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not really. Lapierre looked like a giant asshole gun nut all over again.

LaPierre used facts and reason. Gregory looked like an out of control liberal.

Lapierre wouldn't agree once that guns just might be a part of the problem. He is a complete moron.

That's YOUR opinion. Not based in fact.
Guns are NOT the problem. Evil people and criminally inclined individuals are the problem.
In fact, the problem is liberalism and liberal policy.
Liberalism has broken down civility. There is a total lack of shame. Liberals have essentially eliminated the concept of personal responsibility. There is a frightening lack of consciousness with regard to right and wrong. There is a lack of concern over the consequences of one's actions. Again, liberalism is the culprit.
Liberalism has set up a system where criminals are coddled. Judges issue far lighter sentences than crimes call for.

 

[LockeJaw]

This is no attack on the First Amendment, ding dong. He broke the law. End of story. If he molested a 5-year-old boy on his show to make some point, would you call prosecuting him a violation of the First Amendment?

Really wanna go there, Finger boy? This is about the pattern. So what did Piers Morgan do to warrant "deportation"? What did Costas do to warrant "firing"? Or are you saying this is an exception to the pattern?

And how do you know "he broke the law"? You actually believe everything you see on TV? That must make for some conflicts...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wow - when I wrote "anyone not see the pattern" I thought it was a rhetorical question. Here's a guy who seems to volunteer that he actually doesn't see it.

It's peculiar how some of y'all want to jump all in front of the Second Amendment as Constitutionally sacrosanct, yet say absolutely nothing about this abuse of the First Amendment going on at the same time.

j more interesting that the attacks on the First Amendment came before those of the Second, the same order as the Bill of Rights -- when Bob Costas put his commentary out on Sunday Night Football, two weeks before Newtown, he was immediately pounced upon with calls from the knee jerks for his firing, even though he said nothing about gun control or the Second Amendment. Even Rupert Murdoch can see that.

Hypocrisy is rampant.

I see your opinión and your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Come back with facts.

"Facts"??
Really? You actually don't mind appearing so dullwitted that you don't see what's going on all around you, just to make me state the obvious? Seriously??

"Fire Bob Costas" ...
"Deport Piers Morgan" ...
"Arrest David Gregory (the present thread) ...
See the pattern. Or just go

Yes, dipshit. Facts... Not your paranoid conspiracy theory about shit both sides do, threats to boycott, calling for people to lose their jobs, etc... Like its some huge conspiracy to kill free speech . Lmao!

 

[Pogo]

If the magazine were a réplica, He wouldve said that.

What the hell for? So that stupid shit like this thread wouldn't happen? How'd that work out for Barack Obama releasing his birth certificate in 2008 five months before the election?

"Disclaimer"? Seriously?? Do you expect a "disclaimer" from the weatherman when he stands in front of a green screen? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when an NFL video feed shows where the offense needs to go for a first down? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when a movie or TV cop show shoots somebody so you know they didn't actually commit murder?

Seriously??

And just FYI I don't believe replica contains an accent aigu. Maybe you should have included a "disclaimer"

 

[LockeJaw]

Excuses, excuses, excuses.. thats all im seeing Logo.

 

[Pogo]

This is no attack on the First Amendment, ding dong. He broke the law. End of story. If he molested a 5-year-old boy on his show to make some point, would you call prosecuting him a violation of the First Amendment?

Once again for the slow, it is the pattern that despises the First Amendment. You don't make a pattern with one instance. I cited three, and I prolly omitted a bunch.

But back to "he broke the law" -- isn't that equally true of George Bush, as I posted way back here?

What's the difference?

 

[Valerie]

None of us know that.

It could very well have been a fake empty prop.

It was presented as real.

Oh. My. God. A prop on TV presented as real?? Surely that's never happened before.

What about George H.W. Bush and his bag of crack?


This is the silliest thread going on right now bar none. Desperation meter pegged.

OMFG He broke the LAW!!!

 

[Si modo]

This is no attack on the First Amendment, ding dong. He broke the law. End of story. If he molested a 5-year-old boy on his show to make some point, would you call prosecuting him a violation of the First Amendment?

Once again for the slow, it is the pattern that despises the First Amendment. You don't make a pattern with one instance. I cited three, and I prolly omitted a bunch.

But back to "he broke the law" -- isn't that equally true of George Bush, as I posted way back here?

What's the difference?

He's the CiC handling an evidence bag.

The hack "reporter" is in possession of a magazine in the District where it is illegal to BE in possession of such an item. And he ain't no agent of the government. Maybe it's a prop, but it's the law and should be investigated.

Gun control advocates should be happy to see a gun control law enforced...one would think, unless their agenda is something other than gun control.

 

[bripat9643]

He's the CiC handling an evidence bag.

The hack "reporter" is in possession of a magazine in the District where it is illegal to BE in possession of such an item. And he ain't no agent of the government. Maybe it's a prop, but it's the law and should be investigated.

Gun control advocates should be happy to see a gun control law enforced...one would think, unless their agenda is something other than gun control.

The President is the Chief law enforcement officer of our government. If it's illegal for him handle evidence, then it's illegal for any FBI or Customs agent to handle it.

 

[Si modo]

And, good news: Metro PD is actively investigating this.

Police investigating David Gregory for displaying illegal gun clip on-air
By Jonathan Easley - 12/25/12 03:08 PM ET

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department is investigating “Meet the Press” host David Gregory for a potential violation of the District of Columbia’s gun laws, a spokesman for the department confirmed to The Hill.

....​

Police investigating David Gregory for displaying illegal gun clip on-air - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[LockeJaw]

If the magazine were a réplica, He wouldve said that.

What the hell for? So that stupid shit like this thread wouldn't happen? How'd that work out for Barack Obama releasing his birth certificate in 2008 five months before the election?

"Disclaimer"? Seriously?? Do you expect a "disclaimer" from the weatherman when he stands in front of a green screen? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when an NFL video feed shows where the offense needs to go for a first down? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when a movie or TV cop show shoots somebody so you know they didn't actually commit murder?

Seriously??

And just FYI I don't believe replica contains an accent aigu. Maybe you should have included a "disclaimer"

Excuses and more excuses. If he and his show producers are going to debate The Gun laws in America, then they should be expected to know the laws Theyre attempting to debate, even more so the laws in the city Theyre broadcasting from. This too much to ask for from Meet The Press?

Apparently in your opinión it is. Why mention its not a real magazine? So Gregory doesnt get himself into the trouble he is in now, thats why.

 

[Pogo]

This is no attack on the First Amendment, ding dong. He broke the law. End of story. If he molested a 5-year-old boy on his show to make some point, would you call prosecuting him a violation of the First Amendment?

Once again for the slow, it is the pattern that despises the First Amendment. You don't make a pattern with one instance. I cited three, and I prolly omitted a bunch.

But back to "he broke the law" -- isn't that equally true of George Bush, as I posted way back here?

What's the difference?

He's the CiC handling an evidence bag.

Unfortunately the CiC is not a law enforcement officer. And what he's holding a bag with a card on it saying the word "evidence". Much like a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon. And what's in the other part of the bag, he's already confessed to.

I don't want to see the 88-year-old ex-POTUS go to jail. I just want to know what the difference is between what Bush did (and confirmed on the air exactly what it was), and what some of these armchair TV producers think David Gregory did.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the magazine were a réplica, He wouldve said that.

What the hell for? So that stupid shit like this thread wouldn't happen? How'd that work out for Barack Obama releasing his birth certificate in 2008 five months before the election?

"Disclaimer"? Seriously?? Do you expect a "disclaimer" from the weatherman when he stands in front of a green screen? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when an NFL video feed shows where the offense needs to go for a first down? Do you expect a "disclaimer" when a movie or TV cop show shoots somebody so you know they didn't actually commit murder?

Seriously??

And just FYI I don't believe replica contains an accent aigu. Maybe you should have included a "disclaimer"

Excuses and more excuses. If he and his show producers are going to debate The Gun laws in America, then they should be expected to know the laws Theyre attempting to debate, even more so the laws in the city Theyre broadcasting from. This too much to ask for from Meet The Press?

Apparently in your opinión it is. Why mention its not a real magazine? So Gregory doesnt get himself into the trouble he is in now, thats why.

Gregory isn't "in trouble".

 

[Si modo]

Once again for the slow, it is the pattern that despises the First Amendment. You don't make a pattern with one instance. I cited three, and I prolly omitted a bunch.

But back to "he broke the law" -- isn't that equally true of George Bush, as I posted way back here?

What's the difference?

He's the CiC handling an evidence bag.

Unfortunately the CiC is not a law enforcement officer. And what he's holding a bag with a card on it saying the word "evidence". Much like a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon. And what's in the other part of the bag, he's already confessed to.

I don't want to see the 88-year-old ex-POTUS go to jail. I just want to know what the difference is between what Bush did (and confirmed on the air exactly what it was), and what some of these armchair TV producers think David Gregory did.

Asked and answered.

And, Gregory is already under investigation by Metro PD.

Too bad for you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's the CiC handling an evidence bag.

Unfortunately the CiC is not a law enforcement officer. And what he's holding a bag with a card on it saying the word "evidence". Much like a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" written in in crayon. And what's in the other part of the bag, he's already confessed to.

I don't want to see the 88-year-old ex-POTUS go to jail. I just want to know what the difference is between what Bush did (and confirmed on the air exactly what it was), and what some of these armchair TV producers think David Gregory did.

Asked and answered.

And, Gregory is already under investigation by Metro PD.

Too bad for you.

You really think that he's under "investigation"?

The DC police spokesperson had to answer "yes" to that question.

But you're fooling yourself if you think there's going to be an "investigation". Maybe they'll call the station and ask, but that's about as far as they're going to go.