Armed Man Shoots Security Guard at FRC

[MikeK]

Where? I go to www.CNN.com and it's headlines are:

1) Two deputies fatally shot and two wounded in Louisiana
2) Opinion like him or not Ryan is key

The story isn't in the featured videos or in the this Just In

It is #4 in "this just in"

 

[Blackwater Babe]

And hey, 'nother mass shooting!

 

[MikeK]

The story will probably get bumped down, as there is the more recent news of another mass shooting, killing two police officers, injurring another two, and 5 suspects being taken into custody, with at least one of them injured as well. The weapon choosen by the civilian was described by police as an assault rifle.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Quick, name a single shooting with no fatalities that got more media coverage in 2012 than this one did. There are over 200,000 non-fatal shootings in the United States per year. That this one made the news at all is quite remarkable.

You don't know the routine. You don't know how media works. You know fear because fear is all you consume, from the people who profit by feeding it to you. You are no different than a leftist who cannot accept that there is to vast right wing conspiracy to ocupy the middle east.

MY only news source is OBOB. Ok, and Facebook.

I hate the media - mainly due to the hype and Obama loving i see. AND of course it is depressing. I will find out news from someone who does watch news - but mainly Fox because when Fox runs a story - the other's generally dont touch it.

I have seen - especially in my neck of the 'woods' - very benign news stories. And for the world news - very depressing stories.

You love to pretend you know me and my motives.

I dont watch news sources because even Fox - the story can be slightly suspect. But overall i know the news folks are really sales ppl pushing their own ideas when it comes to politics.

However; seldom do national news outlets pick up a story of this degree - a disgruntled liberal going after a Traditional family group - hating their politics.
It's been done Mike, and i am sorry if i dont report everything i hear in here. Besides, if it isnt about a neocon losing it - who cares?

Because an organization evidently against gay marriage was attacked in todays society - it wont get air time. EVEN without fatality - you will see someone 'attacking' a gay pride parade or what not - even if it is just a disturbance.

I personally feel you are too one sided to notice.

 

[WarriorAngel]

'I knew my husband was going to go,' West Nile widow says Four-star general could be demoted over misspending allegations Can the military save America's livestock growers?

from cnn

West Niles is getting serious.
600 plus folks had it.

 

[MikeK]

MY only news source is OBOB. Ok, and Facebook.......However; seldom do national news outlets pick up a story of this degree - a disgruntled liberal going after a Traditional family group - hating their politics.

For someone who doen't get their news from sources other than reliable sources like OBOB and Facebook, you seem to be convinced that you know a lot about the news.

Because an organization evidently against gay marriage was attacked in todays society - it wont get air time.

Umm, this case did get airtime and it continues to recieve it as more facts come out.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I know Rachel Maddow covered it on her show last night on MSNBC.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The story will probably get bumped down, as there is the more recent news of another mass shooting, killing two police officers, injurring another two, and 5 suspects being taken into custody, with at least one of them injured as well. The weapon choosen by the civilian was described by police as an assault rifle.

Fun fact, mention this incident in any connection with gun control, and be prepared for a 700 post semantic debate over the exact definition of assault rifle. Of course, never once in the 700 posts will anyone discuss what a civilian needs what police describe as an assault rifle for, because hey, why address the issue when you can be making disparaging comments about peoples' firearm knowledge, amiright?

 

[Michie]

When Defending Marriage is Called Hate Speech: Shooting at the Family Research Council

The shooting at the Family Research Center needs to be watched closely. Perhaps it was the act of a man with psychological problems. Perhaps, it reflects something more ominous. When defending marriage is called "hate speech", the very future of western culture is placed at risk. The Family Research Council does wonderful work and deserves our prayers and full support.
Full Story

 

[Blackwater Babe]

When Defending Marriage is Called Hate Speech: Shooting at the Family Research Council

When defending marriage is called "hate speech", the very future of western culture is placed at risk.

"Defending marriage" isn't called hate speech. Saying homosexuals should be imprisoned and trying to get homosexuality a capital offence in other countries is called hate speech.

The Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
PETER SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly-MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.SPRIGG: Yes."February 02, 2010. Hardball, MSNBC.statement at 8:37, transcript

 

[Erose]

"Defending marriage" isn't called hate speech. Saying homosexuals should be imprisoned and trying to get homosexuality a capital offence in other countries is called hate speech.

The Chick-fil-a boycott proves otherwise. You have a man saying he supports traditional marriage, and says nothing more than that, and it got referred to by gay marriage advocates as hate speech.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The Chick-fil-a boycott proves otherwise. You have a man saying he supports traditional marriage, and says nothing more than that, and it got referred to by gay marriage advocates as hate speech.

Well, IMHO, they're wrong. What's your point? Some people call anything that goes against their position hatespeech? Yes. And in other news, fire is hot... but once we start excluding the fringe outliers, we may be able to have a reasonable conversation.

ETA, I don't think most, MOST, of those involved in the chick filla boycot called the chick filla guy's statements "hate speech". Obviously choosing not to support a company doesn't mean you think its position is hate speech.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Another case to bolster the campaign for gun control.

You can't trust a Liberal nut with a gun or Tea Party vulture...

Funny how the main stream media gave it scant coverage. Maybe Because it was a Conservative Christian organization ?

Are you aware that we have a constitution in the United States and the 2nd amendment to said constitution upholds the right to bear arms.

 

[Erose]

Well, IMHO, they're wrong.

Well we can at least agree on this.

What's your point? Some people call anything that goes against their position hatespeech? Yes. And in other news, fire is hot... but once we start excluding the fringe outliers, we may be able to have a reasonable conversation.

The problem is that the fringe outliers have the biggest voice.

ETA, I don't think most, MOST, of those involved in the chick filla boycot called the chick filla guy's statements "hate speech". Obviously choosing not to support a company doesn't mean you think its position is hate speech.

I disagree with you. They called for the boycott of Chick-fil-a over the following comments:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Which one of these comments is hate speech? Because that was originally what was being reported. When I ask people who were for the boycott and called Dan Cathy a bigot among other things, which part of these comments is hate speech they never gave me an answer.

 

[MikeK]

The problem is that the fringe outliers have the biggest voice.

That very succinctly sums up...well, everything. The moderate has disappeared from relevance in our society, only the nuts have voices. There can be no rational discussions on changes in policy on firearms, illegal drugs, abortion, or taxes - because 20% of our population happen to be loudmouthed nut jobs who are incapable of understanding any sort of nuance. Any attempt to revise or modernize gun control laws gets met with "He's gonna take our guns away!!", any talk about banning abortions under specific, horrific circumstances gets met with "he wants to ban all abortions!".

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The Chick-fil-a boycott proves otherwise. You have a man saying he supports traditional marriage, and says nothing more than that, and it got referred to by gay marriage advocates as hate speech.

The mass boycott was sparked by words, but in some capacity was already happening and in large part spread because of the Company's large donations to groups that lobby against gay rights. Chick-Fil-A were also not labeled a hate group.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I am amazed at those who would so quickly give up their constitutional rights. Once one right is abrogated, then the whole foundation crumbles, then all bets are off.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers​

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840​

 

[MikeK]

I am amazed at those who would so quickly give up their constitutional rights. Once one right is abrogated, then the whole foundation crumbles, then all bets are off.

Who is advocating for wholesale disarmament? Practically nobody. Since the 1800s, and likely earlier, laws have existed restricting what sorts of arms civilians may and may not posses and under what conditions. Such laws must evolve with the times. Your reaction here is the exact sort of reaction I was speaking about earlier.

 

[S.ilvio]

Are you aware that we have a constitution in the United States and the 2nd amendment to said constitution upholds the right to bear arms.

Archaic, ain't it..?

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Archaic, ain't it..?

Not really, considering all 50 states also allow one to possess a firearm, and when I say 50 states allow it, I mean 50 state constitutions have it written into their laws.