“You Americans who support illegal immigration are supporting those who break the law. It is illegal to cross the border using the back door. It's that simple. Why do you support those who break our laws?
Instead of seeking to change the laws so what those whom you support do not break our laws, you seek to let them do so with impunity. You do not go about solving the problem the right way by seeking new laws you can support. Instead, you clobber those who favor punishing those who break the law. Do you blame the cop who tickets you when you break the speed limit?
This is so straight forward and logical. Why do you people not see this?
Hey, try getting what you want done the American way, by organizing and getting laws passed you like. That's how you stop little girls from losing their fathers!”
“The lesson here for illegal immigrants is that breaking our laws can affect your family as well as yourself, even future children. This poor girl does not understand that, and it's an awful situation for her and it's very sad. It is NOT the fault of our law enforcement community. It is the fault of her parents for coming here illegally. They knew what they were doing, and they should tell their daughter the truth about who is to blame for her father's deportation.”
“G would NOT have been prosecuted on this even without permission. That's why this was not acted on right away. If it was as open and shut as you think, the cops would have taken G in forthwith and then it would have been sorted out and the permission thing would have come to light and he would have been let go, as you now agree. D.C. never had any intention of bringing him in. Why? Because it is obvious that going after him would be silly.
Wrench, I'm done with this as we are going going back and forth and getting nowhere. If you want the last word, I will read it, but not respond.
It was fun debating this with you, and I wish you a very good day!
Wrench Turner on Jan 21, 2013 at 16:00:39
“Then it would have established a clear precedent for say a business owner, to carry a high capacity magazine, or the law does not apply at all, it applies to all of us or none of us, if we say that David Gregory poses no threat to anyone by only having the magazine, then clearly I should be allowed to carry the same magazine with me in DC since I have no intent of committing a crime. Until the ATF clarified that they gave NBC permission, the DC police were in fact investigating, that's written in the article, if you don't read the article you can't really debate the subject since you are ignorant of the content. ”
“If possession were a "perfect example" there would not be all this hullabaloo. I think you're just after G because of who he is. Many nobody's dislike somebodies, for obvious reasons. Is your zeal is affecting your judgement, my friend?
Wrench Turner on Jan 21, 2013 at 12:13:21
“The law applies to all, even white men in suits, had he not gotten permission, he should face charges. ”
“The permission thing was just a way to put this issue to bed. I think there was no permission given. No one wanted to go after G, not D.C., not the Whitehouse, not ATF. Why not? Because they saw no threat, and so no reason to go after him.
He, obviously, would not have been prosecuted. Those like yourself, who were arguing for prosecution, are now grabbing onto the permission to get them gracefully out of arguing a losing line. I was hoping to see you folks having to eat one heck of a big crow. I said all along he would not be taken in, and he was not. End of story.
But it was a fun debate, Mr Wrench!
Wrench Turner on Jan 21, 2013 at 12:15:34
“No it clearly states in the article that he had permission from the ATF, you did read the article right? They didn't because he asked permission, DC Police were going to until they got confirmation from the ATF. Its not a losing argument, if you bring an illegal magazine into DC or NY, or any other area that has a restriction, you're gonna get prosecuted unless you have permission to have it. ”
“Hear here! I love this lady, too. All these silly comments from some of the lefties here would be funny if they weren't no vicious. This classy lady draws the ire of the more sophomoric among those who disagree with her.”
“1. Last I heard, Pelosi wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds, and Feinstein wants to outlaw assault rifles. There may be others. But you may mean "bills" when you say "on the table", and I don't think any bills have been introduced yet. I think it's quite obvious that any story involving civilians and gun violence which makes the 11 o'clock news automatically becomes part of the gun debate.
2. She's a hero because she kept her head and took smart evasive maneuvers. This is a prima facie example of responsible gun ownership. She trained on how to use guns safely and effectively, and possibly saved the lives of herself and her children in using her weapon only as a last resort. She shot only when the man opened the door to her hiding place. After she wisely emptied her weapon on him she ran with her kids to a neighbor's house. Cops are taught not to be heroes and to not shoot someone in the legs, etc. to disable them instead of killing them. That may give the opportunity for the suspect to return fire and kill you and/or others. If you shoot, shoot to kill. You do not show mercy at the same time you believe you are under existential threat. The time for mercy, if one is so inclined, is later when the threat is over and the suspect is in jail.
She is now a poster girl for responsible gun ownership, and rightly so.”
“Sorry, intent is not irrelevant in any case, period. That doesn't mean anyone will get off in any case because they say they didn't intend to do any harm. The legal apparatus examines the case and they make the call. There can be disagreement in a case as to whether the purported intent is in fact there, and further if such intent is determinative in that particular case. Law is not always, perhaps never is, just what the text says it is. That is basically where you are going wrong. The BATFE gave permission because they think he posed no threat. Obviously, D.C. authorities made or would have made the same determination - because it is obvious in this case. That's why cops did not run down to the studio and haul him in the second they heard he had a magazine.
Your view of the law is just too simplistic. It is not black and white.”
Wrench Turner on Jan 11, 2013 at 14:58:06
“Perfect examples include possession and harassment. Intent remains irrelevant. No the DC police did not give him permission and had already denied it. ”
“He got permission because it was deemed he posed no threat and so the possession law was set aside in this case as I have been saying it should be IN THIS CASE. Those other cases you mention are DIFFERENT cases and each case is taken on it's own merits. One may or may not be deemed to be in violation of the law in other cases. Not bringing G in on this one has NO EFFECT on the adjudication
Wrench Turner on Jan 11, 2013 at 14:59:17
“Of course but if he did not have permission he would face charges. Permission makes the difference. ”
“What the ATF said doesn't matter. What matters is what G did. He brought in an illegal magazine to a national TV show. Intent IS considered by the criminal justice system. The text of the law is not the only thing that matters. You see the law as black and white. It's not always that way.
If you were right he would have been immediately brought in like any gang member. He has not been brought in, so you think it's because G is famous. Sir, it's just as simple as you think it is. So far, it looks like the D.C. law community does not agree with you, unless G has some kind of juice. Does he?
They might bring him in if the public doesn't let go of this story, but it would only be to turn him loose for after a smoke and mirrors sideshow put on to take the wind out of the sails of those who feel the way you do.”
Wrench Turner on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:16:08
“It absolutely does matter. If I possess a high capacity magazine because I fear some Red Dawnesque invasion, does that mean I did not violate the statute? Possessing drugs is another perfect example.
He has not been brought in because he had permission. That changes everything. If you actually wanted existing gun laws enforced, you would want him arrested. ”
“You don't know the law. We all know G had possession, but that is not all that is considered by the criminal justice system. Cops decline to arrest people who've broken the law all the time. D.A.'s drop or decline to file charges all the time. Judges throw out cases all the time.
In this case, intent is paramount. Try to tell me Mr. G represented any level of threat to the D.C. community. That, sir, is why he hasn't been brought in!
Have you noticed that many think this is an open and shut case, but the law community has taken no meaning full action? Mr G. is home watching football with his family while people such as you insist they should be hauled in. Look around you, why hasn't he been charged?
It's because it would not be appropriate - period!
Good day, my friend.”
Wrench Turner on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:17:02
“He could have lost the magazine and intent remains irrelevant in a possession case. he had permission from the BATFE, they're kind of the authority on this...”
“Your charge is silly. News people have a job to do and they do it. As you know, many of them die in faraway lands while doing their jobs in dangerous places. So much for your charge that they don't care about their country. They do tend to be overzealous at times and we have to wade through the crap to get at the fresh red meat.
Frankly, I'm fed up with these short cynical posts by simpletons who don't have the wherewithal to put up well thought out meaningful posts which might just teach us something now and then. Your little pittance of a post is not helpful or useful, and certainly doesn't show any kind of sophistication.
Put some thought into what you put up and give us your best. I'd love to see it!”
“In a weak economy your priority is to strengthen it by increasing spending and taking appropriate monetary measures. In a strong economy your priority is to balance the budget. When you achieve a balanced budget then you can work to pay down the debt while keeping watch on the economy.
I believe Obama/Bernanke/Giethner are on this path and I believe it is the right one. Attempting to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down debt in a weak economy by cutting spending and increasing taxes will further weaken the economy and increase the deficit and the debt. This is because revenues come down in a weak economy and more taxes further weaken the economy. Now is not the time to address the debt directly, but bringing the budget into balance would be a major step in that direction.
You see only what he's doing now in a weak economy, and you talk like you want him to take the right actions to balance the budget and pay down the debt at the wrong time. You do not see the Big Picture. There is a proper time for each type of action. You don't try to do everything: strengthen the economy, balance the budget, and eliminate the debt all at the same time.
You say is Obama is not serious about the deficit or the debt. You do not back that charge up, as I have my opinion. Let's hear from you with something meaningful.”
“No, going after Gregory would be the wrong thing to do. He clearly posed no threat in waving the magazine in the face of the NRA chief. "Intent" is a very important factor in how the law is applied. He had no intention of harming or threatening anyone. You have no sense of what the "spirit" of the law is. The law is not just what the text says it is. This law was not intended to be applied in a case like this. Gregory will not be prosecuted, but you can bet he and others will be more mindful of the letter of the law.”
Wrench Turner on Dec 30, 2012 at 11:23:17
“Intent is irrelevant to possession. The law mentions nothing on why you have it, just that you have it. I know what the spirit of the law is, and that doesn't apply to a case like this where he could have gotten a picture of it instead. ”
“Why do you think D.C. has not brought him in? The law was made to protect people. They know Gregory waving a magazine around on TV posed no threat to D.C. Bringing him in wastes time and money. It's not the cops that are making this decision. It's the leaders of the city. They don't want to be embarrassed by caving into pressure from headline seeking zealots and ideologues.
This thing about a Whitehouse petitions the president seeking to distance themselves from the heat. The petition is just smoke. This story will soon get knocked off the news by the next hot story, such as the Fiscal Cliff.
Going after Gregory is silly, and those that advocae in favor of this don't understand how the law works. There's more than just the text of the law. A whole lot more.”
Wrench Turner on Dec 29, 2012 at 11:07:46
“They had yet to report that he had asked the ATF. Going after Gregory if he did not get permission as it appeared in the first place would be the right thing to do, he would have blatantly been breaking the law after he was told not too. It would send a horrible message to say the law applies, but not to white gentlemen in suits. ”
“Have you ever been pulled over for speeding and warned, but not ticketed? The cops don't enforce the law with blinders on. They are given the latitude to consider the situation and make a judgement call. Now, do you seriously think Mr. Gregory should be arrested? Do you think the cops are going to arrest a news broadcaster for using a magazine as a prop?”
Wrench Turner on Dec 26, 2012 at 11:43:45
“That's an area that is left to the officers discretion. Firearms offenses, that's serious business. If he was in violation of DC law, like any other person, he should get his day in court. ”
“Don't forget that only a small minority of voters watch these debates or vote in the primary or a caucus, and most general election voters don't start paying attention or make up their minds until a couple weeks before the election.
Obama is vulnerable because of the state of the economy, high unemployment, $1t+ budget deficits, and public debt of $15t and counting.
Romney, Perry, Gingrich, or Huntsman might beat Obama. I'm a Republican and I plan to vote for Obama, but I think my guy is in a lot of trouble and the outlook for improvement doesn't look very good.
The general election is up for grabs.”
“People with passion like hers are why we won our freedom in the first place. You people who want to just sit and enjoy your freedoms leave it to others to do the work of keeping your freedom safe. You enjoy what was obtained at the cost of lives without wanting to risk lives to defend it. You can't have it both ways.”
marleyma77 on Sep 13, 2013 at 11:17:29
“what does people like me mean? I realize what people have risked their lives for. I also realize when these war acts have nothing to do with my freedoms int his country, but a foreing pollicy statute of agression. ”
J Riley on Sep 13, 2013 at 11:10:28
“We shouldn't go to war based on someone's "passion". Honestly, by some of her remarks, it sounds like her passion is clouding her good judgement. America is the most moral country in the world? Our long history of humanitarian interventionism? Give me a break.”
“We will have to move on Syria depending how things go. Polls will not decide what America will do in Syria. People who simply say "Stay out, period" will not unilaterally determine American foreign policy or it's actions. Wiser minds will do so. You and those of your ilk will sit and watch while others risk their lives to defend your freedom.”
“We are indeed the world's policeman, just as Britain was in the 19th century. They kept the sea lanes open and that helped America grow into what it is. We must be proactive in keeping what we have safe, or we will lose it.
Fight them there or we will have to fight them here.”
“29 was an attempt by Big Cancer to use the tax system to collect money for them instead of having to get it the hard way via donations. We all know donations, regretfully, have been down along with the economy. Big Cancer tried using our hatred of Big Tobacco for their own ends. They made it undoable with a 15 year suit of impenatrable armour because they knew the people would get wise and kill it later on. They tried to play the people for suckers and lost.
I am a non-smoker. I know smokers are people, too, with familes, mortgages, and bills to pay. That's where this annual $500 million would have come from. And Big Cancer tried to take that away from them by fooling the rest of us.
I wish the lefty tax hounds would pull back the covers and take a careful look at where they're going to sleep instead of just jumping in because it looks good on the surface. I don't care if a Lance Armstrong says it's okay. There could be a snake in that bed.
Big Cancer needs to get back in the line with the rest of the many worthy charities (God bless them all) and fight for our donations with the rest of them. I pray that all worthy charities will get the doantions they need to keep us from the ravages of the enemies they fight on our behalf.
Let us all make regular generous donations.”