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

[Pogo]

Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.

I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.

(Yap Yap... )

Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?

 

[Valerie]

Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.

The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:

"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."

It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."



On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBC’s David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked


She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.


David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

 

[saveliberty]

No, he's addressing your stoopidity POGO. NBC called the police for permission. First mistake. The exception was not granted, so they ask the ATF, which can only speak to federal law. Third mistake. Took the word of ATF, Fourth mistake. Put the magazine on air. Fifth mistake.

 

[Si modo]

Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.

I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.

(Yap Yap... )

Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?

This dog ain't a he, Dodge.

You're just pissed off because you look like a fool and just not all that sharp.

Thank me and others for that.



Negged for being a general asswipe and dishonest poster in this thread. And a moron.

Hope you have a more sensible New Year.

 

[Pogo]

No, he's addressing your stoopidity POGO. NBC called the police for permission. First mistake. The exception was not granted, so they ask the ATF, which can only speak to federal law. Third mistake. Took the word of ATF, Fourth mistake. Put the magazine on air. Fifth mistake.

Well then he's misread the names because what he's saying is the same thing I was saying.

Once again, police cannot give "permissions" or "variances", therefore asking for it is moot. And what they were really asking for was a support statement, which is by their position unofficial. That's why I said way back that the proper entity to ask would have been the DA. And maybe they did that -- we don't know.

But the difference is, absent that information, I'm not going to assume it.

 

[Si modo]

Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.

The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:

"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."

It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."



On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBC’s David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked


She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.


David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

Good to know the "press" finds enforcement of gun control laws as frivolous.

 

[Pogo]

Seriously, who's dumber - tinydancer or Si modo? It's pretty much a tie in my book.

I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.

(Yap Yap... )

Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?

This dog ain't a he, Dodge..

Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.

 

[saveliberty]

No, he's addressing your stoopidity POGO. NBC called the police for permission. First mistake. The exception was not granted, so they ask the ATF, which can only speak to federal law. Third mistake. Took the word of ATF, Fourth mistake. Put the magazine on air. Fifth mistake.

Well then he's misread the names because what he's saying is the same thing I was saying.

Once again, police cannot give "permissions" or "variances", therefore asking for it is moot. And what they were really asking for was a support statement, which is by their position unofficial. That's why I said way back that the proper entity to ask would have been the DA. And maybe they did that -- we don't know.

But the difference is, absent that information, I'm not going to assume it.

Gregory was aware of the law, that is why all the questions and calls. He gets to suffer the consequences now.

 

[Si modo]

I disagree -- I definitely have a dog in this race.
He actually thinks a thread about a media figure is a thread about gun laws. I keep telling him I'm here for the former, not the latter. That seems to be over his short-legged little head.

(Yap Yap... )

Besides, Tinydancer has way cooler music... hear it?

This dog ain't a he, Dodge..

Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

 

[Pogo]

This dog ain't a he, Dodge..

Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

 

[Si modo]

Sorry and noted, but you are dressed like a he. Plymouth.

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

 

[Pogo]

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.

Sexist pig!!

 

[Valerie]

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

Maybe you should put on the outfit I got you for Christmas!

Some snazzy Christmas jammies for Si Modo!

 

[Si modo]

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.

Well, I am barefoot.....

 

[Pogo]

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

You should prolly ditch the top hat and put a skirt on.

Sexist pig!!

Now why do you assume my species? Hmpf.

 

[Pogo]

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

Now that's insulting. I hate to be "in the norm".

 

[beretta304]

David Gregory Mocks NRA Leader for Proposing Armed Guards in Schools But Sends His Kids to a School with 11 Armed Guards

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

Moreover, with the Obama kids in attendance, there is a secret service presence at the institution, as well.

It's safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It's just odd he'd want it for his kids, but wouldn't be more open to it for others.


David Gregory Mocks NRA Leader for Proposing Armed Guards in Schools But Sends His Kids to a School with 11 Armed Guards - Leah Barkoukis

 

[DiamondDave]

Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.

The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:

"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."

It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."



On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBC’s David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked


She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.


David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

So.. since the law abiding do not have intent on committing a crime (just like Mr. Gregory), they should not be limited or held to the standard for magazines either... good to know..

 

[beretta304]

Journalists are blasting the police investigation of David Gregory and his use of a gun magazine on Sunday's "Meet the Press" as completely frivolous.

The Wall Street Journal called the investigation "entirely nonsensical" in an editorial on Thursday. The piece, entitled "Free David Gregory," read:

"Mr. Gregory interrogates Mr. LaPierre on the subject of whether to ban a magazine that it is illegal for Mr. Gregory to display but apparently easy enough to acquire in time for a Sunday morning broadcast. So here we have a possible indictment that would be entirely nonsensical of a journalist who was trying to embarrass an NRA official over an ammunition ban whose impact would be entirely symbolic."

It said that Gregory was guilty of nothing besides "overzealousness in pursuit of the conventional gun-control wisdom."



On Wednesday, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren derided the police investigation as a waste of resources. "Investigating NBC’s David Gregory? Really? Can we be any sillier?" she asked


She said Gregory was merely pulling "a stupid TV stunt," and had no intention of committing a crime. "We have so many serious issues of violence in this country... that it is bizarre to me that anyone would spend (waste) 5 minutes investigating NBC’s David Gregory for this," Van Susteren wrote.


David Gregory Investigation Makes No Sense: Wall Street Journal, Greta Van Susteren

Neither do most gun owners but.....