poochy

The justification for his death follows a chain of events that begins with the laws he broke and the rightful duty of the police to enforce those laws, including arrest by force when a suspect resists that arrest. After that, maybe the police made mistakes, maybe those mistakes or even malicious acts are borne out of some sort of 'privledge', doubtful. However, you either believe that the police were out to execute this man no matter what, or that his resistance played a large part in his death. His crime as justicifcation for his death implies an intent to kill him, which i cant imagine you beleive, and if you dont, why are some of you arguing it from that point of view? Are you arguing obliquely to the facts just to be difficult? He shouldnt have died, he didnt deserve to die, but sometimes shit happens, when you are being lawfully subdued afetr resisting arrest sometimes you get hurt, or worse.

That is an awfully simplistic view of the power generation and transmission. You could have a system using only clean energy sources at astroniomical consumer cost and frequent outages, or a system using clean power with traditional backup, always on, dirty power for and even more astronomical cost, or we can wait for technological advancements that might allow for the mass storage of and or generation of a relaible always available clean energy. Thats all there is, these is no magic in it. If you want your light's to turn on without fail regarless of how windy or not, or how sunny or not, carbon, at least for now it's carbon, i'm not sure why people over complicate this simple fact.

I suppose the answer is to repeal all of the laws that relate to misdemeanor crimes, there isn't much point in keeping them if the police are to throw up thier hands and walk away as soon as the subject of an arrest resfuses to be arrested, why wouldn't you resist? Choose to have some people hurt when resisting arrest, or choose to not have the police even bother, in which case the laws might as well not exist. Or if many other arrests and selling cigaretees isn't enough to enforce that particular law maybe the more enlightened among us need to outline to police at what just point they should enforce the laws that exist. I vote for the freedom that anarchy brings.

Frankly none of that matters. It is all a paper work formality, all the new law does is take that away, now you get a blanket ATT if you are legally allowed to own the firearm and trained in it's use, which of course makes complete sense. Just how was i going to make use of the legally owned firearm if i couldn't take it to the place I was allowed to shoot it, or to have it maintained, and the law changes nothing in terms of how it can be transported. Again, an ATT is redundant paperwork, no reasonable person would believe that these changes could affect public safety. No piece of paper will prevent someone from using their firearm in an illegal way, whether it be as innocuous as taking a longer route to the range or as bad as shooting someone with it. It would be really nice if people could accept that reality, but some are clearly too wrapped up in their ideology to accept basic fact. How does any piece of paper change the function of a firearm or the mental state of the owner? If an the ATT did not exist what exactly could firearms owners do, legally or illegally, that they couldn't already do with it now? The change in ATT requirements of C42 does not change the state of gun control in Canada, not one iota.

So police officers aren't afforded different rights in the performance and execution of thier duties than civilians are? Hmm, last i checked I can't carry a handgun on my hip, it is in fact illegal, police can, in most places in the USA the law is no different than here. So you might be right about this chokehold, but you are wrong in general, obviously.

So now you are just trolling looking for a response.

Do you think that gun owners have to let someone know every time they went to the range? What about an ATT makes a firearm less transportable or inoperable?

What exactly is wrong with you? You have been thrashed from post one in this thread, you should be embarrased, but don't let that stop you, carry on.

O and one other thing, if i owned a restricted firearm and wanted to do something illegal with it, just what about an ATT, or in the past, a registration certificate, just what about having or not having those pieces of paper actually prevented me from doing something bad with those firearms? In other words an ATT is a completely ridiculous requirement and a totally useless piece of paper. Do you think that illegal handguns that are used in the majority of firearms crimes would somehow become inoperable if the owner had those peieces of paper? Do adults beleive these things? Zero effect on public safety, that's what C-42 has, zero, but liberals out to buy votes could care less, and it's no wonder.

Nope, try again.

No actually it doesn't, as the other poster said, name one, name the thing that actually changes where and under what circumstances a restricted firearm can be transported. You won't, i read through this whole thread and what strikes me most is how you are exactly the reason that the liberals outright lie about C-42 and gun owners in general. Low information voters who have a bias against gun ownership and couldn't care less about reality, it's no wonder they lie when people like you are so eager to beleive.

It is pretty impressive how a few of you on the same side of the argument feel so self righteous that you regularly insult those who disagree with you with comments like this.

Fewer people are murdered each year in the usa with rifles and shotguns combined than are beaten to death, but sure, unarmed people who have already proven a willingness to assault a police officer, to fight for his weapon, surely they wouldn't be capable of seriously harming someone. So the officer should not have done his job, and after he did, he should have taken some type of beating, perhaps have his weapon taken and been shot himself, just to satisfy a very special class of progressive lunatics that see racism around every corner? Perhaps the satisfactory level of assault a police officer must receive for doing his job should be determined by a panel of left thinking academics and social justice experts. Under no circumstances though shall the officer attempt to use his weapon, at least not until he is unconscious.

That's right, in a case that was being closely watched by the Attorney General, and the President of the USA, both black men, somehow the prosecutor has been able to maintain a lid on the 'truth', of course, everything is a conspiracy after all, hey, i'll bet that all of the witnesses that allegedly prove that Brown was shot in the back, and shot in the head while the officer stood over him have all just 'disappeared' (probably in the river eh!), and hey, the pathologists, even the one the family hired, they were somehow bought off by the prosecutor, and maybe they paid off the attorney general of the USA too! 9/11 was an inside job! Wow.

You insinuate that Brown was shot because he stole cigars, that is a lie, now, feel free to twist that any way you wish, but we all know what you meant, he was shot after he assaulted a police officer, after he fought for the officers weapon, after he was recognized as a suspect in a robbery, after he was stopped for walking in the middle of the street. Admit to those facts and your honesty won't be questioned.

hey don't let the facts get in the way of you lying about what happened.

That is not what happened, at what point does your making stuff up just become race baiting?

Ok then, explain then why it is that only 7 percent of black murder victims are murdered by white people, while 14 percent of white murder victims are murdered by black people? African Americans make up 14 percent of the population, white people around 60 percent. So despite being 1/4 of the population, blacks murder whites twice as often. So a black person is 8 times more likely to murder a white person than a white person murder a black person. You might think that if racism was so rampant that those numbers would be a little closer.