atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3731: NBC reporter is obviously guilty of a gun crime.

Millions of people saw him brandishing a 30-round magazine in a municipality which has banned them.
During the show, Gregory waved around a 30-round magazine for what he claimed is an AR-15 rifle. But since Meet the Press is taped in NBC’s Washington D.C. studios this is actually a violation of the city’s strict gun laws.
The guy's committed a gun crime. Why hasn't he been arrested yet?

I mean, if you or I did that, we'd be in jail faster than you could say "shall not be infringed." But since this guy's a bigshot reporter....

(Incidentally, the reporter's kids go to a private school which has armed security guards, but he scoffs at the idea of mandating armed security guards for schools. As always: one rule for me, another for thee....)

The reporter did it despite warnings from D.C. police.

Yes he should face gun charges.

D.C. police are "investigating". This AoSHQ post is essentially a condensed version of the Michelle Malkin post--complete with wry commentary about the hypocrisy of scoffing at armed guards for schools while placing your children at a school which has armed guards.
Certain people just seem to have more rights, and lives more worthy of defending, eh?
That's how it is.

AoSHQ then has two posts relating to Howard Kurtz discussing the probe into the NBC gunman's criminal acts. First he scoffs at the D.C. police and their investigation. If I'm reading Kurtz's article correctly, Howard Kurtz apparently believes that mere posession of an "empty ammunition clip" is not a criminal act.

Well, good! We have a major journalist who is now on record as being against bans on high-capacity magazines.

Also, "no criminal intent" means the NBC gunman shouldn't be prosecuted. Well, hell, what good news for all the people currently awaiting trial for manslaughter! Many of them certainly had "no criminal intent" when they did whatever they did that ended up killing someone, so I guess that means we can just let them go, eh?
David Gregory broke the very type of law that Gregory and Kurtz want more of, want not just in DC, but across the country, for a lot of different guns or gun accessories, and Kurtz says, "Well that's not really a crime, because it's David Gregory and he didn't do anything wrong."

When should the average citizen know when it's permissible for he himself to break the stated law? If he only uses his magazine for legal target-shooting, should he likewise consider himself to be immune from prosecution? Would law enforcement agree?

Or is it just that David Gregory's High Status gives him a general license to break certain minor laws without consequence?
It's a shame that--ultimately--the D.C. police will not find this to be a prosecutable offense. It'd be nice if a pro-ban liberal actually went to jail for violating exactly the type of law he insists we need more of.

* * *

Newspaper editor okays the publication of a map showing who has guns and where they live; gets doxed by Internet. Ahh, the sweet, sweet irony of someone being hoist on his own petard....

Here's one who has a pistol permit in NYC which is not very easy to get. This is the reporter whose byline accompanied the story to which the map is attached.

No, there's no hypocrisy here!

* * *

I have a less-complex reason that Cuomo's confiscation plan won't work. It's very simple: people won't give up their guns if the police come knocking and demand they be turned over. Sure, plenty of people will...but enough wouldn't that it would make things so very costly--in lives and PR--that it's politically impossible.

Don't expect that the cops would knock on doors and politely ask for the weapons, either; what would happen? There'd be a "voluntary compliance" period where people could bring in their guns; after that the no-knock raids would start, and people would die. Plenty of those people would be completely innocent of any wrongdoing--both on the level of the black-letter law, and the higher morality of civil rights as enumerated by the Constitution--and it would look very, very bad. Not just to the people of New York state, nor the US at large, but the rest of the world.

So the guns would have to be bought:
And given that the weapons are worth $1,000 or more apiece, a buyback would cost the state at least $1 billion, since even Cuomo administration officials concede that their owners would have to be compensated financially.
Eminent domain, my friend, eminent domain--if the government takes your property in anything other than a criminal case it must compensate you fairly for it. The government can't outlaw something which is legal, and then confiscate it, without giving you a chance to sell the chattel to the government.

Meanwhile, gun sales are through the roof.

* * *

Wow! Reporter smacks down a Democrat, asking him what the Democrat party is willing to give up in order to reach a compromise with the Republicans. The answer that comes back is "nothing at all".
That’s all you want to do. That’s it. It’s your way or the highway. Raise the rates on the rich. No other way. Your way or the highway. That’s it. That’s where we are. Thank you, Senator.
In fact, the Democrat definition of "bipartisanship" is, "Republicans give us everything we want."

Nice to see at least one person in the press has a clue about what real compromise is. She'll probably be unemployed tomorrow.

* * *

A lousy Christmas season, adjusted for inflation. 0.7% lower sales than last year.

* * *

The grand progressive victory, Prohibition, led to government poisoning its own citizens. Yeah, that's about how liberal policies work out, sooner or later.

It wasn't illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition; only to make, move, or sell it. So these people were essentially being punished for buying liquor, not for drinking it. But they were being punished without arrest, judge, or jury, which is clearly unconstitutional.

The whole thing should have served as a warning sign to America: this is what liberalism does. Unfortunately, the lesson wasn't obvious enough.

* * *

Yesterday I lit a fire in the fireplace. I used the wood which had formerly been a fake fire for the fake fireplace; I pulled the wiring out and knocked the assembly apart, then arranged the wood in the fireplace.

I did this before Thanksgiving, and hadn't had an opportunity to light it. Well, Lemonzen wanted to roast chestnuts, and I wanted a fire, so I lit the thing.

I don't know how old that wood was. It was birch, and it had to be at least 50 years old, and it was dry as the Moon; it went up fast and it went up hot. For a couple hours' worth of fire I needed only to add another three 3" diameter chunks of wood (from the pile by the back door) and there were good coals for roasting chestnuts.

Of the perhaps dozen or so chestnuts I tried to roast, one actually popped and came out edible.

One problem: the fire was so hot it melted the aluminum foil I'd put half a dozen chestnuts into, so of course they ended up in the fire. Heavy-duty foil, doubled, yeah. *sigh* I had the other half arranged by the lip of the firebox; most of them scorched but one baked nicely and popped, so Lemonzen and I split it. It was not exactly a taste treat, but it had an interesting flavor and texture. One was enough for both of us.

Cooking with an open fire is not my strong point. Maybe if I'd put the chestnuts into the dutch oven that would have helped? I don't know.

Next year, if I try again, I'll get a recipe from the Internet a few days in advance.

All told it was a pleasant and agreeable--if hectic--Christmas.

...I muffed my reading at church Christmas Eve. I was supposed to read Luke 1:1-5, but somehow misread it and instead read Luke 1:1-15, thus tromping all over the next three readers. After I got back to my seat I looked at the program again and realized what it said, and the flop sweat began even before the next reader was up.

Reading comprehension fail. *sigh*

Lemonzen insisted that no one had noticed, but I'm not sure I believe her. What I do know is that I've probably ensured that no one's going to ask me to read anything ever again, and I'm pretty sure that in the future I'm not going to volunteer for such duty like I did this time. Shit.

But like nearly all embarassements, this one was not fatal. Call it a "learning experience", I guess. Anyway it's not like I drunkenly mooned the entire congregation or something; I just read too much aloud. Heck, the pastor tripped over a microphone cord and nearly did a faceplant. The program listed the wrong number for one of the hymns. And then there was my mistake. Murphy strikes again!

* * *

And home-brewed Garf- yada yada etcetera:





I can see it now--next year, all the Christmas trees will have a big warning label on them:
WARNING: USE ONLY UL-LISTED DECORATIONS. EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE. HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CONTAIN CARCINOGENIC OR POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES. FOR EXTERNAL USE ONLY. DO NOT INSERT IN RECTUM OR OTHER BODILY OROFICES.
After all, you don't want to get sued!
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments