Friday, December 28, 2012

'Dear Washington, D.C. Police Chief: please... please... '




'... please arrest David Gregory for illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine. Please...'

Now, of course, normally I'm not the vindictive type (e.g. note the commentors I haven't banned), but there are situations in which the irony, the karma, is so intense that I have to beg for an arrest. Handcuffs, perp walk, rounding up the malefactor's associates (NBC producers, directors, etc).

Please bust these guys. For violation of gun control laws.

After all, the law is unambiguous:


DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01
(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition...
Penalties:

It is also illegal to possess, sell or transfer any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” A person guilty of this charge can be sentenced to a maximum fine of $1000 and/or up to a year imprisonment. D.C. Criminal Code 7-2506.01.


A year in prison...

It's too delicious. Please take a moment to understand the irony here. Supercilious elite media liberal David Gregory demands that ordinary citizens be prosecuted even more stringently for failing to obey ever more stringent gun control legislation. If you flashed this 30-round magazine in Washington D.C., your non-elite a** would be heading for the slammer. It wouldn't matter that the vast majority (99.9999%) of owners of high-capacity magazines never harm anyone, have the best of motives (protecting their loved ones, sport shooting, collectors, etc), are not criminals in any meaningful sense of the word. Gun-phobic elites want to criminalize you for possessing this magazine.

So the excuses that Gregory would offer to the arresting officer-- "I meant no harm, I was acting with the best of intentions, why don't you go after the real criminals,..." are exactly what you would say to the arresting officer if you, like Gregory, possessed a 30-round magazine.

The elites want you criminalized. They want you in jail if you possess it. But of course preening liberals like Gregory exempt themselves from the laws they intend for the lumpenproletariat

To the Washington D.C. chief of police: hoist Gregory on his own blow-dried petard. Give him what he and his a**hole liberal chums want to do to the rest of us.

Please... please...

42 comments:

  1. I was wondering if you where asshole enough to jump on this band-wagon.

    If nothing else Gregory demonstrates the futility of communities enacting strict gun laws when all you have to do is drive to a Republican controlled state to buy all the firepower you want.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand, no one at all had to wonder if KW would try to start up the hypocritical leftist bandwagon he's trying to jump-start in that post.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, this just proves liberals are right...or something.

      Stop jumping on that bandwagon! So assholeish of you to point out that David Gregory is in violation of a stupid law, on national television, that he wants enforced against the rest of us.

      Joey

      Delete
  2. Dr. Egnor, a paragon of freedom,
    Badly wants a journalist jailed.
    The irony is delicious.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My philosophy is simple, KW:

      "Hold them to their own book of rules..."

      Delete
    2. Wanting your opponents silenced, not to mention jailed, crosses the line in my humble opinion, Dr. Egnor.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Simple possession is a crime. Gregory is a criminal. Read the law, idiot.

      Wanting your allies to escape prosecution for crimes committed is not only Machiavellian, it's insane.

      Delete
    4. @ Hoo:

      I want the law enforced equally.

      If an ordinary otherwise law-abiding well-intentioned NRA lumpenproletarian gets arrested for possessing a high capacity magazine,then ordinary otherwise law-abiding well-intentioned NBC elites should get arrested for possessing a high capacity magazine.

      Now if you don't want gun-control laws enforced because they're stupid, hey, I'm with you on that.

      Free David Gregory!

      Delete
    5. Dr. Boggs,

      You seem very irritated today. I hope you did not forget to take your medications. Please take good care of yourself.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Dr. Egnor,

      I hope your claim of equal law enforcement is sincere. However, there is a simpler, and therefore more elegant, theory that describes your actions. Occam's razor tells me that it is right.

      Here is the theory: Liberalism and atheism are bad and must be destroyed by any means necessary.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. David Gregory is not above the law. Hoo and KW want him to be above the law. And that means that Egnor is a bad man who hates freedom.

      Explain this to me.

      Joey

      Delete
    8. Mr. Joey,

      I do not think that I have expressed my point of view on the legality of Mr. Gregory's actions. So please do not put words in my mouth.

      Thank you in advance,

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Hoo:

      Thanks for your heartfelt concern! Following your idiotic comment, I'm sure you would rather talk about me.

      Delete
    10. You said: "Wanting your opponents silenced, not to mention jailed, crosses the line in my humble opinion, Dr. Egnor."

      And where did Egnor say that he wanted anyone silenced? He said he wanted Gregory jailed, but so what? That's the law. Either you agree, in which case you're "crossing the line" too, or you diasgree, in which case you want Gregory to be above the law, just like I said.

      So either you agree with stupid ol' Egnor, or you want David Gregory to be above the law. Your previous comment indicates the latter.

      Joey

      Delete
    11. Dr. Boggs,

      People do not normally call others idiots in a conversation. If this happened in real life you would likely have your false teeth kicked in. And even in a virtual conversation one usually tries to maintain some norms of politeness.

      Seeing that you have called me an idiot in our very first two exchanges, I can only conclude that you are not your normal self. today Please accept my sympathies.

      Hope your day is off to a good start otherwise,

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. "Dr. Egnor, a paragon of freedom,
      Badly wants a journalist jailed."

      Yes, but not for journalism, rather for possession of an illegal magazine. He wants David Gregory jailed for something that anyone else would be jailed for. And you agree, right? Because if you doon't agree, then you're admitting that Joey is correct: you want David Gregory to be above the law.

      No one's putting words in your mouth. They're drawing logical inferences from your comments.

      Ben

      Delete
    13. The "idiot" comments are uncalled for. I agree.

      Ben

      Delete
    14. Mr. Ben,

      I fully agree With Dr. Egnor that Mr. Gregory broke the law of the District of Columbia. What I do not share with Dr. Egnor is the wish that Mr. Gregory should serve time in jail.

      Anyone who can think straight should be able to see that Mr. Gregory broke the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. No court and no judge will convict him. Don't count on it.

      I will repeat that wishing your opponent rot in jail makes for ugly politics. I condemn ugly politics that is on display on this blog.

      Hoo

      Delete
    15. Oh, I won't count on it. He's above the law. He broke it and you don't want him punished for it.

      Joey was right.

      Ben

      Delete
    16. Mr. Ben,

      If you wish to pretend that the law was written with intent to punish a journalist who shows a magazine on national television, then I think that you are severely mistaken. Doing so may violate the letter of the law, but not its spirit. I hope you understand the difference between the two.

      Hoo

      Delete
    17. No, it was written to prevent people from possessing a high capacity magazines. There is no "journalists are allowed to do it" loophole in the law.

      He violated the letter of the law, not the spirit, and therefore you think he should get off scot free. Ergo, David Gregory and other members of his profession are above the law, just as Joey said.

      Hey, any other laws journalists can flagfrantly violate?

      Ben

      Delete
    18. Mr. Ben,

      I am in good company. The editors of the Wall Street Journal (whose conservative editorial slant is well known) agree with me that it would be silly to prosecute Mr. Gregory for showing the magazine on TV.

      Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

      Hoo

      Delete
  3. Doc Egnor, please. Don't you know that those gun laws are for the lumpenproletariat, the public defender market segment? Not the Anointed class who can afford to send their children to school in private compounds with armed guards and hire white-shoe law firms to defend them.

    Why, a former Progressive senator and governor of NJ "lost" almost two billion dollars of investors' money and a sitting Progressive Attorney General presided over the illegal smuggling of "assault" weapons into Mexico causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexican men, women, and children. A high-cap magazine is peanuts. What makes you think the Anointed Class will ever be held accountable in this world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George:

      So true. The laws are for the little guys.

      I hope... hope... they go after Gregory.

      Never happen, though.

      Delete
  4. Gun control laws are nothing more than liberals forcing their morals on other people, something they truly believe, in their own minds, that they never do. Those of us who have been forced by law to live according to liberals' every whim our entiure lives know otherwise.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Ben,

      I hope that you will condemn abortion opponents of doing the same: forcing their morals on other people. I will not hold my breath, though.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. I am an abortion opponent. But you misunderstand my comments. Liberals are the ones who really believe that they don't legislate their morality. In fact, they're it's written somewhere, as some kind of principle of law that the law cannot be used to force one's morals on someone else. That's bull. All laws do exactly that, and it's not written anywhere that it's against the rules.

      You're the hyopocrites, not us.

      Abortion is killing, by the way. It's a big, long, never-ending spree killing that's been going on (legally) since 1973. I think it's time to start legislating some morality here and put a stop to it.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. Mr. Ben,

      If I understand you correctly, you are OK with legislating morality. If that is so then you should not complain about others doing that. This argument, as I hope you can see, is a non-starter.

      Best,

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. My point, Hoo, is that liberals cry foul when others legislate their morality, but still reserve the right to legislate their own. Everyone has to live by liberals' morality, but liberals only live by their own. They believe that they have a "live and let live" philosophy, but really they have a "shut up and do it my way" philosophy.

      It's their world, the rest of us just live in it.

      Ben

      Delete
    5. Mr. Ben,

      Laws reflect a society's morals. We can all complain about that. Doing so would not be very productive.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Criticizing people trying to get the most prevalent tools of mass murder off the street for legislating morality makes you sound like a lobbyist for mass murderers.

      -KW

      Delete
    7. @Hoo:

      Do you believe that a law prohibiting possession of a large capacity ammunition clip is a good law? Do you support this law?

      If you do support the law, do you believe it should be enforced?

      If there are exceptions to enforcement, what should those exceptions be? Should political affiliations be the basis for exceptions?

      And I do point out that your assertion that I want Gregory jailed is imprecise. I don't want anyone jailed for possession of high capacity magazines. I think it's a stupid law that criminialized millions of law-abiding non-violent people (like Gregory, for example).

      But I do insist on this: enforcement (or non-enforcement) must be equal, without regard to political connections, political ideology, etc.

      Delete
  5. 277 gun deaths since the last massacre. Hey pro-lifers, how many people where saved by gun toting private citizens in that time?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know. Why don't you ask the Democrats who run the local governments of all of those municipalities with high gun death rates.

      How about this: you libs stop all of the gun murders in cities you govern like Chicago, Washington, Houston, New Orleans etc, then we will pay attention to your advice for the rest of the country.

      Delete
    2. Well it certainly would help if criminals couldn’t skip over state lines into a red state and pay a redneck $100 cash to buy him a gun. I don’t care what the local gun laws are, two tanks of gas and a few grand, anybody can have a assault rifle in a couple of days (that is unless the panicked gun nuts have horded all the inventory). Until this situation is fixed, the bodies will continue to pile up.

      For conservatives those bodies are a small price to pay for the pleasures associated with dreaming of overthrowing our elected government and shooting all the bad guys.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. @KW:

      [For conservatives those bodies are a small price to pay for the pleasures associated with dreaming of overthrowing our elected government and shooting all the bad guys]

      Actually, if memory serves, the last armed attempt to overthrow our elected government by force was a Democrat project (1861-1865).

      [Well it certainly would help if criminals couldn’t skip over state lines into a red state and pay a redneck $100 cash to buy him a gun.]

      Actually, some of the largest gun manufacturers are in deep blue states (NY, Conn).

      And to get your AR 15, you can get nice ones in very bluish environments.
      (http://www.rockriverarms.com/)

      Delete
    4. one more intellectually dishonest leftist: "277 gun deaths since the last massacre. Hey pro-lifers, how many people where saved by gun toting private citizens in that time?"

      Like you leftists really care (*) (**) -- for, after all, the lives and sufferings of all the "little people" who are maimed and murdered by criminals given free-reign and freedom-of-the-city due to your regime of (violating their human rights by) disarming the law-abiding citizens coupled with your system of catch-and-release coddling of criminals are surely small prices to pay for your self-granted writ of moral superiority.

      (*) Even if that number of “guns deaths” is correct, you leftists don’t really give a damn about the deaths. More that half of “gun deaths” in America are suicides. Most of the rest are caused by known criminals -- whom you people insist upon turning loose upon society.

      (**) And, like most "questions" you people raise, it's irrelevant anyway – for, *we* don’t have to justify arming ourselves. Rather:
      1) you have to justify your continuous attempts to disarm us;
      2) you have to have the means-and-force to carry it out.
      You people *never* even attempt 1), and you’ll probably never have 2). And, even if you did manage to (violate our human rights by) disarming us law-abiding citizens, you’ll do nothing about the criminals … not that you care about that, anyway. From your leftist point of view – since your deepest desire is to demolish any civil society that actually exists so to build Utopia on the ruins – the damage criminals do to us mere law-abiding citizens, and thus to civil society, is all to be desired.

      Delete
  6. For clarity's sake, the Confederates were no more trying to overthrow the US federal government that the American Revolutionaries were trying to overthrow the British government. In both cases, they simply wanted out.

    However, if you look to the 1960s, you can find leftists (*) in the US actually plotting and hoping to overthrow the government ... and intending to purposely kill a lot of people in the process.

    (*) that is, in today's partisan terms, hard-core Democrats

    ReplyDelete
  7. Egnor: "And I do point out that your assertion that I want Gregory jailed is imprecise. I don't want anyone jailed for possession of high capacity magazines. I think it's a stupid law that criminialized millions of law-abiding non-violent people (like Gregory, for example)."

    The fool's (*) assertion wasn't meant to be precise, much less to have any factual basis in truth and reality: it was meant to change the subject, so as to distract the casual reader from your point, and to emotionally put you on the defensive, so as to render you incapable of further pressing the point.

    The fool was engaging in what CS Lewis called 'Bulverism' (a more descriptive term would be "motive mongering"). It is a favoréd plot of leftists, atheists, Darwinists, Freudians. It si utterly contemptable.


    (*) In case the reader is but vaguely informed, 'fool' doesn't mean "stupid person"; it means "person who intentionally behaves and/or reasons as though he were too stupid to behave or reason correctly". To call someone a 'fool' is to make a moral judgment and assertion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Ilion:

      Good point. I think that Gregory's brandishing of the ammunition magazine was an attempt at Bulverism-- an attempt to shock and shame LaPierre.

      That Gregory was breaking the very law he was endorsing is such delicious irony.

      Irony at this level should be added to the lists of the proofs for God's existence.

      Delete
    2. Leftism (of which "progressivism" or "liberalism" is but the Happy-Face version) doesn't present rational argument to advance its cause(s). Rather, it relies upon emotionalism, distraction, red herrings and other logical fallacies, motive mongering, lies and deception, "projection", and so on and so on.

      Delete
  8. thanks for share..

    ReplyDelete