jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (61 posts)

Should David Gregory be prosecuted?

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    David Gregory, the host of Meet the Press, had an illegal AR magazine on his show. His staff called the DC police to ask if he could take it on the show, they said no, and he did it anyway. They declined to press charges, and are now being sued.

    The plaintiffs state "The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice.  If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded."

    What do you think? Are some Americans just 'more equal' than others? Do you think your average gun-totin' Joe could have gotten away with having an illegal magazine?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/le … documents/

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    lol Seriously?
    Equal administration of justice! Ha ha. Doesn't exist.

    Besides, he's press.
    He was using the magazine for illustrative purposes, not to actually shoot anyone or anything, right?
    A photo would not have had the same visual impact. This is TV, not ewspaper, after all.


    Besides, doesn't freedom of the press trump any/all local laws?
    I thought it was a blanket protector...

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty much.

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tppTeIU7FQI/TVI5TVoeEjI/AAAAAAAAAR4/sE0sJBFIwrA/s1600/animal1.jpg

      I should do a segment where I show how easy it is to break into someone's house and steal their jewelry. I mean, freedom of the press, right? tongue

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        People do it all the time...

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is perfectly legal, usually people add a disclaimer saying they are writing it for purely interest purposes or whatever.

        Evasion is a classic example, has lots on tips on how to live off petty crime.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No... I mean a video of myself breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff. Actually breaking the law, on video.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh ok well in that case making the video isn't a crime the crime is breaking and entering and theft. Nothing to do with freedom of the press.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just like in the case of the media having an illegal magazine that's a crime. They claim it's ok though under freedom of the press.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    There never has been equal justice under the law.  As injustices go, this one doesn't bother me.  I would consider it a waste of taxpayer money to prosecute.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's sad. All injustices bother me.

      If you say that one person is above the law but another isn't, that's not a free country.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just the other day you were defending the right of sheriffs departments and local police to choose whether to enforce federal gun law, but if someone chooses not to do it to a liberal you are up in arms about it....

        Gees talk about hypocrisy.

        "Police often ignore many many crimes(like speeding, and perjury on gun-background checks). They are no worse than the rest of the country in that regard."
        JaxsonRaine

        That is pathetic big_smile

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, that's an issue of state rights vs federal rights. When I talk about state vs federal I'm talking about the way that I think it should be, based on the Constitution. Our federal government, backed by the Supreme Court, has mutilated that portion of the Constitution.

          Besides, that's true. It's no worse than the police who ignore other crimes.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was referring to your quote, your quote says it's fine for police to choose not to pursue a crime but here you are making a thread about how it's really evil and unjust that they have done just that. Do you honestly not see the glaring double standard and the sickening hypocrisy?

            But the first issue mainly pertained to conservatives being convicted, this one pertains to a liberal so not convicting him is just so horrible.

            *facepalm*

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I addressed that, why ignore it?

              I said it's no worse, and that's true, it isn't any worse.

              But the underlying issue with that topic is the state vs federal rights, as well as the unconstitutionality of it.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          David Gregory a liberal?
          I don't see him as liberal at all.
          smile

        3. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Didn't you get the memo?  Jaxson is never wrong and he is never hypocritical.  I'm shocked you would think such a thing.

          mad

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I've admitted I was wrong before, but boy oh boy you sure love to speak poorly of me.

            Do you want to actually talk about it, or do you just want to be sarcastic?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I take it back, as it would be impossible for me to know if you've ever admitted you were wrong on the forums, since I don't read every post on the forums.  However, I think you will argue the "legitimacy" of some statistics and data over others based on whether they support your argument rather than the actual level of legitimacy.  I've seen that many times.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Think that if you want, I reject bad statistics no matter what conclusion they come to.

                Often people will mistake my using bad statistics that support my position to illustrate how invalid statistics mean nothing as my actually supporting those statistics, that's not the case.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You think you reject bad statistics.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You think I accept bad statistics.

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well actually I really would like you to admit to being a complete hypocrite by posting this thread claiming it was so unjust to not prosecute this man on this firearm offense after explicitly defending not prosecuting people for firearm offenses just a few weeks before.

              That is pretty darned bad.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I already addressed this, it's not hypocritical for several reasons. We can disagree on those reasons, but the frameworks for the two issues are completely different.

                Ideally, David Gregory shouldn't be prosecuted, because the law is unconstitutional... but he shouldn't get special treatment for being a member of the press, where the average citizen would have been arrested for doing the same thing.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You get sad about the most innocuous things.  I live in the real world where people are not prosecuted for many different reasons.  I get sad when corporate raiders are not prosecuted for stealing from workers' retirement accounts, for example, but I won't shed a tear over the lack of prosecution of David Gregory's crime.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, what about prior felons perjuring themselves on background checks for gun purchases... should they be prosecuted?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It would be a judgment call based on many factors:  evidence, resources available to prosecute, seriousness of crime in relation to others that need to be prosecuted, likelihood of conviction, etc.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But you want more background checks and more gun control laws don't you?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not necessarily more. I'd be okay with repealing some and enacting others.  I have my own ideas about what would work and what wouldn't.  Doesn't mean I want more.  Also doesn't mean I know I'm right, just that I have an opinion.

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Also Josak, I don't believe that unconstitutional laws should be enforced. According to the very foundation of this country, they are invalid from the moment they are put into law.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The constitution says that the Supreme court gets to decide what is constitutional by interpreting it, the supreme court has ruled that plenty of gun legislation is constitutional and the things people are looking to introduce (like the semi auto ban) they have validated before so the laws are constitutional, because the Supreme court says so and the constitution says they get to decide and on and on it goes.

      So that is a non starter as an argument. The laws are constitutional according to the constitution itself and it may surprise you but random people don't actually get to interpret the laws for themselves and go from what they make of it.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the Supreme Court ruled a law allowing Congress to establish a national religion 'constitutional', that wouldn't make it constitutional. It would still be patently unconstitutional, and some serious changes would be needed. That's not how things are meant to work, that's pure corruption.

        The 2nd Amendment is very clear, and uses the strongest language of the time. In context with the history and writings of the founders, it is even more clear. They viewed guns as the ultimate protection of rights.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is a subjective moral reply to a concrete legal issue. Not factual and thus not valid as anything other than a personal opinion.

          The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"  the first amendment says similarly "or abridging the freedom of speech" do you think that child pornography should fall into that category? how about death threats? or the famous shouting fire in a crowded theater, free speech can be regulated and so can guns and if the founding fathers didn't want the supreme court to decide what that means they wouldn't have made it so it did.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your examples are not examples of freedom of speech. Children cannot give consent or enter contracts. Death threats are issues of state law, but similarly were never considered free speech at the time of the founding of the Constitution or in common law. You are free to shout fire in a crowded theater(that's actually old, invalid case law, for your information), however you aren't free to induce panic.

            If you knew more about our Constitution and the writings of the framers, you would know that they knew no system was perfect, and they expected that the government would start infringing on our rights again at some point and need to be corrected. Some of them didn't expect our country to last more than 50 years before it needed another revolution. No matter what the SCOTUS says, it can't change objective fact. If the Constitution says '1+1=2' and SCOTUS rules that '1+1=3', then SCOTUS is wrong.

            Ironically, you miss the fact that the 2nd is the final check and balance against such corruption.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So to "defend" the constitution (or rather your interpretation of it) you would violate the constitution (by not following it's procedures on interpretation) and you need these guns so you can become a terrorist when you decide that the Supreme Court is wrong... You do realize that imposing violence on a democratic society is tyranny right?

              So you want to become a tyrant/terrorist to defend the constitution by violating the constitution to impose your interpretation of the constitution which the constitution itself says it should be interpreted by the actual expert judges of the SCOTUS who specialize on the constitution and it's writers.....

              That is a fantastic argument, I love it.

              This whole conversation has been so much fun.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It depends. If the government becomes too corrupt, it is up to the people to establish a new government. That premise is not just implied in the very founding of our country, it is immortalized in our Declaration of Independence.

                The Founding Fathers were traitors, and would have been called terrorists by today's standards. It just depends on who is writing about it.

                The Supreme Court is not the ultimate law of the land, contrary to what you seem to think. The Constitution is. If the Supreme Court rules that no citizens can own arms, or publish their political thoughts online, that would very clearly be in violation of the Constitution, and thus invalid.

                You act like the idea of corrupt government and revolution is alien to the founding of America, and would have been a revolting thought to the founders...



                1 - When it becomes necessary. Not if. It's inevitable, and the founders knew that. No government can forever be without tyranny.
                2 - It is our right to overthrow corrupt governments. More than that, it is our duty.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yup I have been a terrorist myself by some definitions but the important difference is always democracy, the founding fathers rebelled against a non representative state, people who impose violence on DEMOCRATIC governments (as I said before) are terrorists (barring election rigging or not being allowed to leave the country). 

                  The constitution is the highest law of the land, it says that the Supreme court get's to interpret it, the Supreme court justices are appointed by the elected representative of the people so they have both democratic and constitutional right to decide what the constitution means.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope, it has nothing to do with a democracy or a monarchy or whatever type of government. Read it again.

                    It has to do with a government that stops doing its job of protecting our rights. You argue against the founders with apparently no idea of their beliefs or what they actually set up, and why.

                    If the Supreme Court decided that the press didn't have the right to print accusatory statements against the POTUS, that would be an invalid ruling, and an example of what the founders were talking about. You still don't understand, the Constitution is the ultimate law. What it speaks about, and what it represents, is ultimate, and that is that the rights of the people are truly the ultimate law of the land.

          2. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They viewed guns as the ultimate protection of rights.

            They viewed guns as necessary to protect our collective rights/freedom, specifically from government tyranny.
            It does not say guns are protected as the ultimate protection of individual
            rights in all cases against any and all threats, perceived or real.

            Interesting essay on the language changes to the 2nd Amendment from original
            intent to current incarnation.
            To draw a modern parallel: Looks like these talking points were heavily edited to
            remove offensive language! lol
            http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/origin … amendment/

  5. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    I wish people would talk about the words of the founders more often. I wish they were taught more often.

    Some of the wisest truths were evident in the founding of America.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah I like how one of them wanted land reform to redistribute by value or real property all land equally within America. A bit before his time was Thomas Paine.

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    You're not responding to what I'm saying. You're just saying it's false.

    Where in the founding documents or writings of the founders does it state that revolution against an elected government is immoral? It doesn't. Your view is antithetical to the core of America.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry did I say that the founding fathers said that at some point? You will have to point it out for me tongue

      It may stun you but some of us have a comprehension of ethics and legitimacy of governance that extends a bit beyond the constitution.

      The people have the right to the government they wish, people who decide they are more right and others need to be made to live by their more right rules are terrorists and extremists.

      I am pretty sure none of the foundling fathers were keen on forcing your beliefs on a populace that rejected them.

      "People (experts who are indirectly elected by the people) understand the constitution differently to me I will shoot them until they change their mind and understand my interpretation is right"

      That is not a mature argument it's childish and tyrannical.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You are trying to use the Constitution, and by extension the founders, to support your assertion that 'legitimate' rebellion cannot exist against a democracy... which just isn't correct. As far as the founding of America goes, there is no difference.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Given that the success of the American revolution was reliant on representation ( democracy being the primary means of representation) I think there really is a difference.

          But please justify to me how you believe it is right to use force to make the majority live one way when they want to live another.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You do know that the founding fathers didn't like democracy, right? They didn't want America to become a direct democracy.

            I believe it is justified to use force to establish a government that will protect the rights of all, if the current government is failing to do its duty. If people side with the current government, then they are siding with tyranny. So the idea of revolution isn't to force other people to do what you want, it is to keep them from forcing you to do what they want. It is protection of liberty for all.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They established a constitutional republic where both the constitution and the Republic could be changed democratically so that is obvious nonsense.

              I am sure Muslim terrorists feel the same way, "for their own good we have to force people to accept our views because their current ones are wrong and evil".

              Not only is it insultingly paternalistic and arrogant it is completely incompatible with a large number of basic human rights like representative government.

              You want to take away people's right to represent themselves.

              SO if say tomorrow 90% of the population suddenly supported a government you considered tyrannical you would force them to live under your rules anyway? and when they inevitably rebelled on this system you forced on them you would use force to crush that too? Man you would make a great dictator, hell maybe we should make you King... Freedom by subservience to your beliefs YAY!

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Appeal to ridicule.

        The fact is, there is a line in the sand. That line is different for different people, but the government can only go so far before it needs to be overthrown. Reducing that to 'I'll shoot you if you disagree with me' is childish.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope that is your argument is most people disagree with you sufficiently it's time to pull out the guns. Because screw their right to live as they wish it's up to you to show them how they have to live. By force.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sufficiently, yes. At some point, a line is crossed, as outlined in our founding documents. When the government becomes tyrannical, and you can't change it through the existing processes, then that is the time to consider revolution. My thoughts on this are less severe than those of the founding fathers.

            You're still doing the appeal to ridicule though...

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously you can change it by the usual means because it's a democracy which means it can change if people want it to change.

              You are basically an extremist who wants to impose his beliefs on others by force, sorry not basically, exactly that. That is called tyranny, so you want to use violence to get rid of this perceived tyranny (that you believe exists and most people apparently do not) by being a tyrant.

              The founding fathers absolutely loved tyrants.

              It's not an appeal to ridicule it's an accurate assessment of a ridiculous extremist belief.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's the problem with democracy. Just because 51% of the people want to vote away rights doesn't make it right.

                I don't want to impose any belief on anyone, I just want the government to do its Constitutional duty, which is to protect our basic rights. If someone wants to be a tyrant and enforce their own restrictions on my rights, then yes I will take issue with them.

                You have the false impression that the majority is automatically right. And you have the false impression that the founding fathers would have agreed with you. It's so absurd it's almost laughable, that's in direct contrast to what they actually believed, said, and set up.

                It is appeal to ridicule because you misrepresent my position in a ridiculous, extreme manner.

                Can we just agree to disagree on this?

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah man they guys who set up a country where leaders are chosen and everything can be changed by vote definitely disliked democracy big_smile even the constitution can be changed democratically.

                  No your belief is simply ridiculous and extreme when you put in plain language it becomes apparent as such.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're just showing your ignorance. They disliked democracy. They said as much. They didn't set up a direct democracy.

                    If the majority votes for tyranny, tyranny is still wrong.

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Josak, seriously, if you want to talk about the US Constitution, read about it first.

    It was never set up as a democracy. It was never set up as being able to be changed democratically. There was never a provision for a popular vote for amendments.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not popular vote and I never said there was but there is a referendum process that revolves on democratically elected legislatures so it's a democratic method of changing the constitution.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Our entire system is different than what was originally set up... you keep trying to attribute how things are now to how they were. They are vastly different.

        Besides, the point still stands. Just because the majority votes for tyranny doesn't make tyranny right.

        I'm done, I can't listen to this anymore. It's literally painful to read the errors you are posting about the founding of my country.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope that method of changing the constitution was set up at the original constitutional convention and they agreed there needed to be a way of doing this again in the future.

          Tyranny and right are your personal subjective definitions you have zero right to force them on anyone else, period.

          Good excuse man tongue

          But just to reiterate for any sane person that might stumble on this mess, forcing your views on a populace that disagrees with them using violence is always wrong it's tyrannical and sets up dictatorial or non representative government. No if buts or maybes.

  8. profile image60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    Shouldn't be prosecuted because its a stupid law!

 
working