• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Because laws are for the LITTLE people

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
82,729
Reaction score
45,490
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Indeed, it will be quite interesting to see where ole David Gregory ends up.


A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.

This is, declared NYU professor Jay Rosen, “the dumbest media story of 2012.” Why? Because, as CNN’s Howard Kurtz breezily put it, everybody knows David Gregory wasn’t “planning to commit any crimes.”


So what? Neither are the overwhelming majority of his fellow high-capacity-magazine-owning Americans. Yet they’re expected to know, as they drive around visiting friends and family over Christmas, the various and contradictory gun laws in different jurisdictions. Ignorantia juris non excusat is one of the oldest concepts in civilized society: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Back when there was a modest and proportionate number of laws, that was just about doable. But in today’s America there are laws against everything, and any one of us at any time is unknowingly in breach of dozens of them....

To Howard Kurtz & Co., it’s “obvious” that Gregory didn’t intend to commit a crime. But, in a land choked with laws, “obviousness” is one of the first casualties — and “obviously” innocent citizens have their “obviously” well-intentioned actions criminalized every minute of the day. Not far away from David Gregory, across the Virginia border, eleven-year-old Skylar Capo made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days. For her pains, a federal Fish & Wildlife gauleiter accompanied by state troopers descended on her house, charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species, issued her a $535 fine, and made her cry. Why is it so “obvious” that David Gregory deserves to be treated more leniently than a sixth grader? Because he’s got a TV show and she hasn’t?


Anything involving guns is even less amenable to “obviousness.” A few years ago, Daniel Brown was detained at LAX while connecting to a Minneapolis flight because traces of gunpowder were found on his footwear. His footwear was combat boots. As the name suggests, the combat boots were returning from combat — eight months of it, in Iraq’s bloody and violent al-Anbar province. Above the boots he was wearing the uniform of a staff sergeant in the USMC Reserve Military Police and was accompanied by all 26 members of his unit, also in uniform. Staff Sergeant Brown doesn’t sound like an “obvious” terrorist. But the TSA put him on the no-fly list anyway. If it’s not “obvious” to the government that a serving member of the military has any legitimate reason for being around ammunition, why should it be “obvious” that a TV host has?...

The argument for letting him walk rests on his membership of a protected class — the media. Notwithstanding that (per Gallup) 54 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA while only 40 percent have any trust in the media, the latter regard themselves as part of the ruling class. Which makes the rest of you the ruled. Laws are for the little people..


There are two possible resolutions: Gregory can call in a favor from some Obama consigliere who’ll lean on the cops to disappear the whole thing. If he does that, he’ll be contributing to the remorseless assault on a bedrock principle of free societies — equality before the law. Laws either apply to all of us or none of us. If they apply only to some, they’re not laws but caprices... Or he can embrace the role in which fate has cast him. Sometimes a society becomes too stupid to survive. Eleven-year-old girls fined for rescuing woodpeckers, serving Marines put on the no-fly list, and fifth-generation family cats being ordered into separate compounds with “electric wire” fencing can all testify to how near that point America is. But nothing “raises awareness” like a celebrity spokesman. Step forward, David Gregory! Dare the prosecutor to go for the death penalty — and let’s make your ammo the non-shot heard round the world!



My bet is that he goes for a modified version of the first. He'll get some kind of "5 hours of community service" sentencing that none of us would ever receive. The ruling class usually has little to no idea what the actual impact of their laws are, and have little patience with the notion that they should apply to themselves.
 
Indeed, it will be quite interesting to see where ole David Gregory ends up.






My bet is that he goes for a modified version of the first. He'll get some kind of "5 hours of community service" sentencing that none of us would ever receive. The ruling class usually has little to no idea what the actual impact of their laws are, and have little patience with the notion that they should apply to themselves.

One report said the ATF approved it, but how can the ATF approve violations of city law, when the city did not approve it?
He should be treated as any other of us little people would, arrested, booked and a day in court.
 
One report said the ATF approved it, but how can the ATF approve violations of city law, when the city did not approve it?
He should be treated as any other of us little people would, arrested, booked and a day in court.

Yeah I heard that on CNN but then I saw on a crawler on one of the networks indicating that the ATF misunderstood what was being asked or the situation (I forget which it was).
 
Indeed, it will be quite interesting to see where ole David Gregory ends up.






My bet is that he goes for a modified version of the first. He'll get some kind of "5 hours of community service" sentencing that none of us would ever receive. The ruling class usually has little to no idea what the actual impact of their laws are, and have little patience with the notion that they should apply to themselves.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't want him arrested on this either.

Also, don't forget prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have the ability to pick and choose which breaking of the laws they actually go after, based on a variety of factors. I've seen a show about Texas cops who catch two young women who were shoplifting. The store owner didn't want to press charges, and so the cop just gave them a warning and let them go.

And then there's what happens when corporations break the regulations they must follow, in which they actually negotiate how much money in fines they'll pay to regulators - which, in some financial industries, they actually choose who they get regulated by - and people rarely go to jail.
 
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't want him arrested on this either.

Also, don't forget prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have the ability to pick and choose which breaking of the laws they actually go after, based on a variety of factors. I've seen a show about Texas cops who catch two young women who were shoplifting. The store owner didn't want to press charges, and so the cop just gave them a warning and let them go.

And then there's what happens when corporations break the regulations they must follow, in which they actually negotiate how much money in fines they'll pay to regulators - which, in some financial industries, they actually choose who they get regulated by - and people rarely go to jail.

So what, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

He broke the law, in which the rest of us, would of been immediately arrested.
The fact is, he broke the law, it is documented on video and his network more or less admitted it.

People wanted these bans on magazines.
This guy shouldn't get off because of purported ignorance, fame, etc.
 
"to be fair" you eloquently stated the cpwill had it spot on - the rules of the radical leftists don't apply to the ruling class - only those "little" people; but why should we expect different; this is the land where our president says its ok to break the law so long as you are of the right age, nationality and from another country.


To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't want him arrested on this either.

Also, don't forget prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have the ability to pick and choose which breaking of the laws they actually go after, based on a variety of factors. I've seen a show about Texas cops who catch two young women who were shoplifting. The store owner didn't want to press charges, and so the cop just gave them a warning and let them go.

And then there's what happens when corporations break the regulations they must follow, in which they actually negotiate how much money in fines they'll pay to regulators - which, in some financial industries, they actually choose who they get regulated by - and people rarely go to jail.
 
"to be fair" you eloquently stated the cpwill had it spot on - the rules of the radical leftists don't apply to the ruling class - only those "little" people; but why should we expect different; this is the land where our president says its ok to break the law so long as you are of the right age, nationality and from another country.

Precisely. This administration seems (so far) to have little respect for the notion of enforcing laws whose application they dislike. I'm thinking that someone somewhere quietly makes sure ole Gregory will walk on this one.
 
Precisely. This administration seems (so far) to have little respect for the notion of enforcing laws whose application they dislike. I'm thinking that someone somewhere quietly makes sure ole Gregory will walk on this one.

You know better than to think the President or his administration has anything to do with enforcing law in DC
 
You know better than to think the President or his administration has anything to do with enforcing law in DC

:lol: yeah. Because if there is anything the federal government doesn't do, it's interfere with small-potato matters. Indeed, this administration is noted for it's desire to refuse to discuss local questions.


Well, at least the Constitution, with the enshrined principle of Federalism, will keep a national government from having jurisdiction?


Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America said:
The Congress shall have the Power to...exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States...

Oh. :) Guess not then.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, it will be quite interesting to see where ole David Gregory ends up.






My bet is that he goes for a modified version of the first. He'll get some kind of "5 hours of community service" sentencing that none of us would ever receive. The ruling class usually has little to no idea what the actual impact of their laws are, and have little patience with the notion that they should apply to themselves.

So you're mad that a guy might get a reduced sentence?
 
“This is, declared NYU professor Jay Rosen, “the dumbest media story of 2012.” Why? Because, as CNN’s Howard Kurtz breezily put it, everybody knows David Gregory wasn’t “planning to commit any crimes.”

Was it a complete accident, then, than Mr. Gregory was in possession of that item which was illegal to possess in the area where he was? Did he just find it laying on the ground on his way to work, and pick it up without any thought to the legalities of having it in his possession?

I do not agree that, it can be a crime to possess something that the Constitution explicitly affirms a right to possess, but to any who acknowledge the legitimacy of the law in DC that makes it a crime to possess that object, I do not see any basis for claiming that Mr. Gregory didn't plan to commit that crime. It seems that Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Rosen are at least as much idiots as Mr. Gregory.
 
So what, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

He broke the law, in which the rest of us, would of been immediately arrested.
The fact is, he broke the law, it is documented on video and his network more or less admitted it.

People wanted these bans on magazines.
This guy shouldn't get off because of purported ignorance, fame, etc.

More to the point, he deliberately broke a law for which he thinks us ‘little people” should be prosecuted if we are caught breaking that same law.
 
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't want him arrested on this either.

Also, don't forget prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have the ability to pick and choose which breaking of the laws they actually go after, based on a variety of factors. I've seen a show about Texas cops who catch two young women who were shoplifting. The store owner didn't want to press charges, and so the cop just gave them a warning and let them go.

And then there's what happens when corporations break the regulations they must follow, in which they actually negotiate how much money in fines they'll pay to regulators - which, in some financial industries, they actually choose who they get regulated by - and people rarely go to jail.

While you make this "discretion" sound normal, it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment. To have respect for the law, the law must have repect for the citizens, all of them, and equally. I have seen many cases that the exact same crime (conviction), is given widely different sentences, based on everything from the age, gender and race ot the perp to those same things of the victim. Once we accept different treatment under the law, then there will be different levels of respect for it, as well. If you are "excused" from being held fully accountable once, are you then more, or less, inclined to break that law (or another) with the expectation of escaping full responsibility yet again? Once one gets a "bad taste" of the law, might they not easily lose respect for it entirely? This seems to be the common "urban youth" outlook on the matter; justifying any and all illegal behavior as "sticking it to the man".
 
In general, I'm all about intent of the law over the letter of the law, but in this case I think he should be charged as he's one of the people pushing so hard for these bans without regard to individual intent. Be careful what you wish for, dude.

A photo of a magazine would have worked just fine, but less ZOMG!!! :eek: sensationalistic.
 
In general, I'm all about intent of the law over the letter of the law, but in this case I think he should be charged as he's one of the people pushing so hard for these bans without regard to individual intent. Be careful what you wish for, dude.

A photo of a magazine would have worked just fine, but less ZOMG!!! :eek: sensationalistic.

Yep. But they beleive in "just us" not "justice", as shown by the POTUS directing selective enforcement of our immigration law to make it "dreamy" and thus "fair"; if you are 29 then a different version, of the same law, applies but turn 31 and the legal situation changes. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom