-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Newtown parent heckled... Sad.
- Thread starter Richland
- Start date
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
he has been through alot, however infringing on the rights of people who had nothing to do with his childs death is alot worse then what they did to him
he asked a rhetorical question, there was a pause, and someone else answered - I dont see that as heckling.
I cant imagine the man's grief, but at the same time, I dont want his grief to be what determines my rights.
I cant imagine the man's grief, but at the same time, I dont want his grief to be what determines my rights.
this. am i blind or is it not mentioned in the article?
SpaceCritter
NES Member
This one has it as the subhead:
Parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims disagree on gun reform Republican American
In God We Trust
NES Member
Screw this guy and good for the heckler. I feel bad for the kids and the families but that does not give you the right to endanger my family by disarming me.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Here's the Courant's:
Parents Of Massacre Victims United In Grief, Divided On Gun Control - Courant.com
Parents Of Massacre Victims United In Grief, Divided On Gun Control - Courant.com
M60
NES Member
IMHO the two issues listed above are not remotely compareable.
Is there a video somewhere I missed?
So this guy from Newtown would rather that that woman in Georgia and her three kids be dead - when that guy broke into their house?
It seems like this guy should call us Suzanna Hupp and tell her he's glad she couldn't defend her parents and keep them from dying.
Seriously buddy - sorry for your loss - but............... arguing that everybody else should lose their rights because of what a CRIMINAL did to you kid - is a non- starter with a lot of people.
I'm glad to see people not backing down on this. No matter how grievous this guy's loss - he should get a massive load of shit for using the pulpit to try and screw over people and take away their rights.
The truth of the matter is - he is using his son's death - to argue that other people should die. Because somewhere there is going to be person who gets killed - maybe even MANY of them - if we were to follow this guy's wishes.
So basically his argument is: My son died - and I think more people should die because of that.
It seems like this guy should call us Suzanna Hupp and tell her he's glad she couldn't defend her parents and keep them from dying.
Seriously buddy - sorry for your loss - but............... arguing that everybody else should lose their rights because of what a CRIMINAL did to you kid - is a non- starter with a lot of people.
I'm glad to see people not backing down on this. No matter how grievous this guy's loss - he should get a massive load of shit for using the pulpit to try and screw over people and take away their rights.
The truth of the matter is - he is using his son's death - to argue that other people should die. Because somewhere there is going to be person who gets killed - maybe even MANY of them - if we were to follow this guy's wishes.
So basically his argument is: My son died - and I think more people should die because of that.
How so?
Guns were specifically called out in the bill of rights for a reason.
The death of one parent's kid is a tragedy. What's the deaths of a million parent's kids then - a statistic - like Stalin said?
The truth of the matter is that yes - some parent's kids may die if we have a society that allows firearm ownership by civilians. The alternative is a society that is completely dis-armed - and you MIGHT end up with less deaths. That is exactly what the anti's think. On the other hand - you might end up with a genocide somewhere down the road - and get MILLIONS of parents whose kids are now dead.
So which is worse? One parent losing his kid - because he lives in a society where people can access firearms - and a CRIMINAL and PSYCHOPATH got hold of one and killed his kid - or living in a society where crime is rampant (like it is in Britain right now - and they are about as disarmed as you can get) - - or where there is a massive genocide and millions upon millions of people die.
See here's the truth about genocide - genocide happens when you get disparate cultures or belief systems living side by side - that hate each other. Sooner or later one group of people get dominance - they take away the less dominant groups ability to defend themselves - AND THEN THEY KILL THEM ALL OFF.
It's a time proven way of getting rid of your problems. It's been practiced very effectively down thru history.
The other uncomfortable fact is that the United States probably has all of the perfect indicators for having a genocide. We've got this "multicultural " BS that has been promoted by the left for decades now - and the reality is - many of these people REALLY don't like each other.
If the SHTF time comes - you are going to see that a lot more clearly.
And if one group gets dominance - they are likely to figure out that just killing off all the members of the other group - is the best and "final" solution.
If you think that could not happen here - you're just ignorant of human behavior and human history.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Likes
- 1
While I understand that the man has grief, I don't claim to understand his grief as I have never buried a young child. However, how is the means of perpetrating that death more important than the root cause? Had his child died as the result of a classmate beating him to death with a rock at recess; would he be publicly decrying our culture or senseless violence, or would he be demanding that schools be designated as rock free zones?
If only rocks had been banned, my child would be alive today? Sounds ridiculous, but it's exactly the argument he's making for "Assault Weapons".
For those who lack a depth of understanding on genocide, I suggest you read up on the Rwandan Genocide. This is exactly what happened. Could it happen here? We are strongly divided Red and Blue, and the more I hear from the blue constituency, the less tolerant I become of their point of view. I begin to applaud the various calls for secession, even if it won't really happen.
yes, it is tragic. yes, i mourn for the families and friends who lost someone in the tragedy. however, he did ask a question, which im sure we can all agree, has many rightful answers to it. and i dk if id consider that heckling especially because no one burst out immediately, cutting the man down. but i do agree. he has his position to voice his opinion.
There was no "heckling". There is a big difference between a handful of people answering his question and being "heckled". Someone saying something once is not heckling. Heckling is someone or a group shouting at someone repeatedly.
I feel very sorry for this man's lose however, he nut shooting his child has nothing to do with me and the 80 million other law abiding gun owners. I also get annoyed with this guy continuously saying AR's and such are military weapons, etc. It was not just at this hearing, I've seen him interviewed before saying the same thing. He seems like a decent person but one who is ill informed and in need of the facts. I'd be nice if someone there had a change to speak with him after the hearing and explained where he was factually very wrong. I hope that happened.
I feel very sorry for this man's lose however, he nut shooting his child has nothing to do with me and the 80 million other law abiding gun owners. I also get annoyed with this guy continuously saying AR's and such are military weapons, etc. It was not just at this hearing, I've seen him interviewed before saying the same thing. He seems like a decent person but one who is ill informed and in need of the facts. I'd be nice if someone there had a change to speak with him after the hearing and explained where he was factually very wrong. I hope that happened.
To call the audience responses heckling or even interrupting is quite a stretch. I also can't imagine the man's grief but he asked a rhetorical question and there was not a peep from the audience for a good five seconds. He then challenged again by saying not one person could answer the question. I hope I would have given him a pass, even the second time but he did up the ante IMHO.
Here is the video with the relevant audience response:
Neil Heslin's Testimony Interrupted By 2nd Amendment Rights Advocates Advocates...
Here is the video with the relevant audience response:
Neil Heslin's Testimony Interrupted By 2nd Amendment Rights Advocates Advocates...
There's a video in the other thread about this. The gist of it is he asked a question then paused and someone started to answer him. No one shouted at him, no one berated him, no one heckled him. Someone answered his question, and it doesn't fit with the media agenda so they're saying that gun rights advocates shouted at him.
Correct. Someone died. That's really sad. It happens, it's a part of life. It is particularly horrid that it was at such a young age and due to violence.
That's a lot different from putting the lives of millions at risk because of fear of guns. One person vs. millions. What he's implying is dangerous, and will get people killed. What he did was deserving of the mild correction he received.
No one life is worth more than millions.
i understand his grevin, but please do not blame us, we were not a part
of this mess. His mother was careless in storing her firearms, he was
basicaly nuts and no one did anything to confine him. and this is what
happens.
so F#ck off;
of this mess. His mother was careless in storing her firearms, he was
basicaly nuts and no one did anything to confine him. and this is what
happens.
so F#ck off;
Boghog1
NES Member
Do you have any confirmation that she was reckless in storage? I have been able to find little more than speculation but there is so much crap out there I may have missed it
SteelShooter
NES Member
I saw the whole video and he asked a question of the audience, he then turned around and looked at everyone for an answer, when he then turned back and said something to the effect of "no one can answer my questions?" he then looked again and that is when the crowd answered him. MSNBC put out an edited video that seems to show the crowd interrupting him but that was definitely not the case. haven't we learned yet, that all is not at it seems when the media is involved?
Have we had any confirmation that the guns even belonged to the mother? The only thing that I've been able to find saying that the guns were belonged to the mother (other than "common knowledge" now) is a news report where a neighbor said the mother owned guns, and the media ran with the "the guns belonged to his mother".
Has anyone seen an official report (police/investigator) that has stated that the guns belonged to the mother, or that the mother even owned guns to begin wwith?
This is exactly what happened. When no one answered the first time, he started to use the silence as 'they have no reason to give for wanting an AR, etc.' He used the respectful silence against gun right supporters. He's probably not emotionally great right now so I give him a pass on intent.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
I'll give him a pass. I will NOT give a pass to the "journalists" who were there supposedly reporting on it.
Similar threads
