|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 14, 2014 18:51:23 GMT -6
I don't know. I wasn't there. What was the exchange between the 2 men prior to the shooting? What was the profile of the victim? What was is the profile of the shooter? Was the victim threatening? Is the shooter senile? There was an altercation, one man shot a gun, and another is dead. I'll leave it at that until more is known.
Thanks LTZ!!! Pizza was delish!!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 14, 2014 23:47:16 GMT -6
Victim was married father enjoying a movie with his wife. During previews he sent a text to his young daughter angering the shooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2014 7:24:44 GMT -6
He told police he was acting in self defence. Things moving quick on this story. He was a cop, he knows exactly what to say and when to say it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 15, 2014 8:35:40 GMT -6
The old "he attacked me with popcorn" defense. Screw him. He was looking for an excuse.
Here's a mind-blowing paragraph from the CNN article:
"Theater chains had already moved to ban handguns. Cobb Theater, which owns the Grove 16 and more than 120 other theaters, says posters displaying its zero weapons policy are posted on its front doors. Other chains have also stepped up safety measures."
***Ohhhh they banned guns. Well then... the gun culture in the US is beyond out of control. Toby Keith banned guns from all his restaurants and has come under fire from people who feel its their RIGHT to carry weapons into a restaurant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2014 12:11:50 GMT -6
The old "he attacked me with popcorn" defense. Screw him. He was looking for an excuse. Here's a mind-blowing paragraph from the CNN article: "Theater chains had already moved to ban handguns. Cobb Theater, which owns the Grove 16 and more than 120 other theaters, says posters displaying its zero weapons policy are posted on its front doors. Other chains have also stepped up safety measures." ***Ohhhh they banned guns. Well then... the gun culture in the US is beyond out of control. Toby Keith banned guns from all his restaurants and has come under fire from people who feel its their RIGHT to carry weapons into a restaurant. Unless they half to walk through metal detectors or are getting patted down before entering these facilities, there just signs! |
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 15, 2014 12:30:48 GMT -6
Exactly Tim. Thats my point. Im not sure what is more ridiculous, that they need signs alerting people that they cant bring their firearms inside or that they think the signs would prevent it.
I had a similar argument about the use of metal detectors at bars. I worked for Scandals when Canad Inns installed their first metal detector and I immediately thought it was silly. Years later, a different bar owner asked me if I wanted him to buy a metal detector or a video surveillance system. I opted for the cameras.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2014 12:39:38 GMT -6
They could implement the same gun laws in the US that we have in Canada and I'm really not sure things would change all that much, but funny I just came back from Mexico, federales walking around with M16's and ozzies, and I never felt safer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 15, 2014 14:11:47 GMT -6
The US has a major major problem and im not sure they have the political balls to try to change it. Im not sure what the gun nuts dont get about this issue. Restricting hand guns, removing assault weapons etc is not attacking collectors and hunters. The people stockpiling for their eventual war with the government are exactly the types who should have their weapons taken away. But as I have said before, the debate begins and ends with the constitution and what many Ameericans misunderstand as their 'right' to bear arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 15, 2014 15:40:28 GMT -6
I don't think they 'misunderstand' their right to bear arms. It's a right that they have, for good or ill, and it's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's the presence of that right and their unwillingness to relinquish it, or even have a rational discussion about it, that is in play.
We discussed the difficulties of the second amendment elsewhere and the same issues still exist. The second amendment is largely straightforward in its wording, is supported by the historical principals of English common law in place at the time, and has the weight of any number of Supreme Court (and lower court) decisions behind it.
Any argument that the second amendment doesn't say what the vast majority of Americans throughout history have said it says is a non-starter. It's the elephant in the room of any gun control debate and it's not going away.
m.
|
|
|
|
Post by JordyRamone on Jan 15, 2014 17:08:18 GMT -6
I don't think they 'misunderstand' their right to bear arms. It's a right that they have, for good or ill, and it's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's the presence of that right and their unwillingness to relinquish it, or even have a rational discussion about it, that is in play. We discussed the difficulties of the second amendment elsewhere and the same issues still exist. The second amendment is largely straightforward in its wording, is supported by the historical principals of English common law in place at the time, and has the weight of any number of Supreme Court (and lower court) decisions behind it. Any argument that the second amendment doesn't say what the vast majority of Americans throughout history have said it says is a non-starter. It's the elephant in the room of any gun control debate and it's not going away. m. Just cause the consider it a right doesn't mean it's right. |
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 15, 2014 19:04:03 GMT -6
I don't think they 'misunderstand' their right to bear arms. It's a right that they have, for good or ill, and it's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's the presence of that right and their unwillingness to relinquish it, or even have a rational discussion about it, that is in play. We discussed the difficulties of the second amendment elsewhere and the same issues still exist. The second amendment is largely straightforward in its wording, is supported by the historical principals of English common law in place at the time, and has the weight of any number of Supreme Court (and lower court) decisions behind it. Any argument that the second amendment doesn't say what the vast majority of Americans throughout history have said it says is a non-starter. It's the elephant in the room of any gun control debate and it's not going away. m. Because you support it doesn't make your position correct. Many highly intelligent people disagree with your position. The US has grown increasingly hard-lines when it comes to their constitution. In fact there is much dispute about that particular amendment as two versions exist. Any concrete statement on the absolute intent of he amendment is foolish especially one that takes the position that the amendment as accepted by the gun nuts has any real world application in a modern society. It's pissing on the constitution to ignore the intent and common sense and hold it up to defend rights that really were never intended. It's easy to argue the founding fathers could never have conceived of the amendment being used in the fashion it is today. I believe it's quite clear the intent was to ensure citizens were armed for the need of forming militias to fight the British. Either way the amendment needs to be repealed and common sense gun laws invoked. |
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 16, 2014 0:05:31 GMT -6
I don't think they 'misunderstand' their right to bear arms. It's a right that they have, for good or ill, and it's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's the presence of that right and their unwillingness to relinquish it, or even have a rational discussion about it, that is in play. We discussed the difficulties of the second amendment elsewhere and the same issues still exist. The second amendment is largely straightforward in its wording, is supported by the historical principals of English common law in place at the time, and has the weight of any number of Supreme Court (and lower court) decisions behind it. Any argument that the second amendment doesn't say what the vast majority of Americans throughout history have said it says is a non-starter. It's the elephant in the room of any gun control debate and it's not going away. m. Because you support it doesn't make your position correct. Many highly intelligent people disagree with your position. The US has grown increasingly hard-lines when it comes to their constitution. In fact there is much dispute about that particular amendment as two versions exist. Any concrete statement on the absolute intent of he amendment is foolish especially one that takes the position that the amendment as accepted by the gun nuts has any real world application in a modern society. It's pissing on the constitution to ignore the intent and common sense and hold it up to defend rights that really were never intended. It's easy to argue the founding fathers could never have conceived of the amendment being used in the fashion it is today. I believe it's quite clear the intent was to ensure citizens were armed for the need of forming militias to fight the British. Either way the amendment needs to be repealed and common sense gun laws invoked. Just to be clear, I DON'T believe in the NRA free-for-all that the second amendment promotes. I'm in favour of Canada's status quo. Solid gun control with appropriate accessibility (I articulated my beliefs in our last discussion of gun control). But I'm also not so naive to believe that repeal of the second amendment is realistic nor am I so pedantic that I make wild reaches and narrow interpretations of the second amendment to make it fit my beliefs. The wording of the second amendment is plain. The gun lobby won't be defeated by pretending it's not. And I'll be redundant to make sure my thoughts are clear: if I was an American and there was a referendum on repeal of the second amendment I'd vote for it. I'd campaign for it. (I took the time to do some Googling of gun control in the USA. Since it appears that a strong plurality of Americans support both the NRA and the second amendment I think the only victories that can be won will be small-time local ordinances. I had NO idea the second amendment was so popular in this day and age). m. |
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 16, 2014 0:09:42 GMT -6
Except the second amendment is absolutely not plain. I'm not saying there is any major desire to repeal it but to say the language is plain is naive and wrong. The wording and punctuation has long been controversial never mind the intent of the authors who could never have possibly conceived of the weaponry available in a modern world.
Can you not concede it's entirely possible the amendment was meant to arm the citizenry for the expressed purpose of forming militias to defend the Union in the context that they felt the need for such militias?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 16, 2014 5:21:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 16, 2014 6:57:21 GMT -6
Because you support it doesn't make your position correct. Many highly intelligent people disagree with your position. The US has grown increasingly hard-lines when it comes to their constitution. In fact there is much dispute about that particular amendment as two versions exist. Any concrete statement on the absolute intent of he amendment is foolish especially one that takes the position that the amendment as accepted by the gun nuts has any real world application in a modern society. It's pissing on the constitution to ignore the intent and common sense and hold it up to defend rights that really were never intended. It's easy to argue the founding fathers could never have conceived of the amendment being used in the fashion it is today. I believe it's quite clear the intent was to ensure citizens were armed for the need of forming militias to fight the British. Either way the amendment needs to be repealed and common sense gun laws invoked. Just to be clear, I DON'T believe in the NRA free-for-all that the second amendment promotes. I'm in favour of Canada's status quo. Solid gun control with appropriate accessibility (I articulated my beliefs in our last discussion of gun control). But I'm also not so naive to believe that repeal of the second amendment is realistic nor am I so pedantic that I make wild reaches and narrow interpretations of the second amendment to make it fit my beliefs. The wording of the second amendment is plain. The gun lobby won't be defeated by pretending it's not. And I'll be redundant to make sure my thoughts are clear: if I was an American and there was a referendum on repeal of the second amendment I'd vote for it. I'd campaign for it. (I took the time to do some Googling of gun control in the USA. Since it appears that a strong plurality of Americans support both the NRA and the second amendment I think the only victories that can be won will be small-time local ordinances. I had NO idea the second amendment was so popular in this day and age). m. "I had NO idea the second amendment was so popular in this day and age" Why wouldn't it be popular, the US government/Home Land security thrives on keeping their citizens scared, and when your scared your easily controlled. Hell everyone's against the USA, Terrorism warnings every day home and away, what will the warning colour be this week, the everyday violence in the streets of America, people it's not safe to walk the streets. With this been force fed to them every day in the News and from there government why would one want to give up that right we need to protect ourselves Armageddon is just around the corner. 9/11 guaranteed that right will never be changed, the Boogie Man is now in the streets of America, protect yourself, wrap yourself up in the flag, and God Bless America. God I'm glad I live here, now if we could only get a ban on Knifes in the streets of Winnipeg! Great Article about it! link |
|
