A movie worth getting shot for?

You may have already heard this story.
A man was shot because he was talking with his son during a screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on Christmas Day, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Reportedly, 29-year-old James Joseph Cialella told the unidentified victim’s family to be quiet and threw popcorn at the man’s son. After exchanging words, Cialella allegedly got up to confront them, the victim stood up, and Cialella shot him in the arm with a .380 caliber gun. As other theatergoers ran for safety, Cialella sat back down to watch the movie. Police arrested Cialella and charged him with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons violations.

Just bizarre. Bringing guns to the movies–that’s not a surprise, I am afraid. Still, the alleged assailant shot the man and then sat down to continue to watch the movie. Very, very odd.
“The armed society is a polite society” Heinleinians would say that if the victim had a gun and the assailant had reason to believe he would have gotten shot in return, probably wouldn’t have taken the shot in the first place.
Bollocks, I say. In a Heinleinian “Everyone has a gun” society, it would have turned into a free-for-all.
The size of the population and the population density of modern society makes the Second Amendment, as intact, in serious need of further amendment, by amendment or by statute.
The Founders did not envision cities of millions, each of the adults with guns, running around. At the eve of the Revolution, Philadelphia had 40,000 people. NYC, 25000, Boston 16000, Charleston 12000, and Newport 11000. (Taken from here: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/burrows/demog.htm)
There is a fundamental difference of scale between a city of 40,000 and a city of 1.3 million.
Enough of that digression, though. Is “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” such a good movie that not only its worth shooting someone loud, but then to remain in the theater watching it afterwards?

One thought on “A movie worth getting shot for?”

  1. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has been misinterpreted, spurring gun proliferation.
    The phrase says “bear arms,” not “carry arms.”
    To early Americans, “bear arms,” especially when used in a wholly military context such as the Second Amendment, meant “render military service.” To say, for instance, that a person was capable of bearing arms or able to bear arms was to say the person was capable of military service or able to render military service.
    These facts are plainly revealed in documents of the Second Amendment era. A declaration of right, almost identical to that of the Second Amendment, was signed on July 26, 1788, and transmitted to Congress as a part of New York’s ratification of the Constitution:
    “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.” (Elliot’s Debates, vol 1, p 328)
    If “bear arms” here meant “carry arms,” then “bearing arms” here would mean “carrying arms.” That would be to say that the people in general had a right to carry arms but that only those actually capable of carrying arms should be in the militia. Such a meaning would be absurd, particularly in view of the fact that almost everyone not in diapers is capable of carrying arms of some kind.
    The obvious meaning of the provision is that the people as a political community have a right to keep arms and provide militia service, with the actual militia duties being performed by those judged capable of doing so.
    I suspect the Second Amendment would be reinterpreted into its original meaning as a militia-preserving provision long before its actual wording would be changed.

Comments are closed.