Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

What do you think about the Second Amendment? Do you think the Sandy Hook crowd should have heckled?

Posted by   + Show Post

Sandy Hook Dad Heckled By Gun Lovers & They Should Be Ashamed

Posted by Kiri Blakeley on January 29, 2013 

A father who lost his 6-year-old son in the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was actually heckled by gun advocates. Heckled! How on earth do you dredge up enough yuck from your soul to be able to heckle a guy who lost his child in the most horrific manner possible? Well, some gun lovers managed. Because they love their guns more than their humanity. When Neil Heslin, who lost his son Jesse in the Newtown killings, testified before a local hearing on gun control, he asked a simple, reasonable question: WHY does anyone need an assault rifle? You'd think gun lovers would have a good answer for this. You'd think they would have researched, prepared, passionately and intelligently reasoned for why assault weapons are a necessary thing for your average person. But instead they heckled.

So what did they heckle? When Neil asked why people need assault weapons, the brilliant (sarcasm) gun enthusiasts yelled, "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!" drowning out the devastated dad.

Neil stayed classy and replied: "We're all entitled to our own opinions and I respect their opinions and their thoughts. But I wish they'd respect mine and give it a little bit of thought."

I don't expect Second Amendment buffs to be able to think rationally or critically about this matter, but here's the truth. Amendments get altered, changed, even repealed. Just because it's an amendment doesn't make it sacred. Let's see ... ever hear of the 16th Amendment? That allows the government to collect income tax. But guess what? There are seven states that don't collect income tax! Shocker.

Ever hear of the 18th Amendment? That abolishes the sale of alcohol. But lo! That unpopular Amendment was repealed entirely by something called the 21st Amendment.

There's the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet I'm willing to bet a lot of these Second Amendment lovers are just fine with strapping someone down and administering a lethal injection into their veins. The 15th Amendment established suffrage for men of different races. But conveniently left out women. That didn't happen for another 50 years.

Additionally, other Amendments, such as the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, isn't a sweeping, anything-goes, black-and-white rule. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded place when there's no fire just because you have freedom of speech. Try yelling "Bomb!" on a plane and then standing behind the First Amendment. It won't get you very far.

So an Amendment is not sacred, my friends. The right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean the right to bear an AK-47 any more than it means you can stock a nuclear weapon or a cannon. Deal with it.

What do you think about the Second Amendment? Do you think the crowd should have heckled?

by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Replies (151-159):
mommyrustina
by Platinum Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I completely agree that the screening process is flawed, so why is there not more attention being paid to that? There is already a great system in place for maintaining security clearances, why can't a similiar system be adapted. That way, all background checks would be instantly available to the necessary parties and any issues that arise that would make the person ineligible to purchase a gun could be instantly added to the system and seen immediately. I even think that regular gun safety/shooting courses should be mandatory.

So why aren't we focusing on meaningful things like that instead of random band aid fixes that don't really help anything?

Quoting laurag8707:

 so as a gun dealer you get to see this from a legal side and from law enforcement I get to see this from an illegal side. so here is my simplified version by regulating these weapons it will in turn help to cut down on these weapons that have no business being on the streets in the first place. While there is a heavy black market for these you would be surprised how many of these guns are obtained legally when they should not be. Or how flawed the screening process is in some of these states for these types of weapons.There is no enough done to regulate  guns peroid there needs to be more. Everyone knows our MENTAL HEALTH system is beyond defective. So personally I am all for harder regulations when it comes to anyone owning a firearm peroid.  Also I want to point out no armor we wear is 100% all armor has flaws so for you to say it does not go through I hate to tell you it can and has it much more likely for that type of weapon to penetrate a vest then say a 9mm. There have not been enough advances in vest protection to keep up with  the weapons that are out on our streets today.

Quoting LuvmyAiden:


You are obviously law enforcement. I can respect that. I am a gun dealer and a firearms instructor. This is MY job too. I work with a lot of law enforcement and I can say a huge percentage do NOT agree with proposed gun control. My stats came from the FBI numbers so I'm sorry that you don't like them but the source is fairly reliable. If you can find me ONE case of an NFA item(full auto) that was legally owned and used for a crime I would be highly impressed. For the most part it doesn't happen. ANYTHING full auto(which is what it must be to be an assault rifle) is regulated by the ATF through the NFA, is very expensive, very hard to get(more than a 12 month wait right now) and cannot be resold unless the buyer goes through the same long process. No deniability if it's used to hurt someone in other words. The ONLY numbers I have seen for full auto items used in crimes was illegal guns and you should know very well how big the black market for those things really is and that new gun laws won't change that since laws already exist to try and curb the black market for guns. And as far as peiercing the armor goes, the .223 will not pierce the body armor most departments around here use and that is what the often attacked Ar-15 uses.

Quoting laurag8707:

 for your information I do know alot about guns and control on them and the issues on hand considering it was i deal with every day for my job. Now onto your point here guns will be regulated no matter what for the simple fact of the country does not want to deal with the most important issue at hand which is MENTAL HEALTHCARE LACKING now as I previousally stated there is no need for anyone to own an automatic rifle at all except if you are in military for war. Now another thing here as far as your statistics go they are heavily flawed. Now you can have your opinion as I can have mine which mine comes from the factor of every day I have to go put my life on the line in front of scum bags who get these heavy weapons because they are not regulated ENOUGH every day I get to not know what scumbag will have the weapon that penetrates my vest today and I am hear to tell you I see way more then just your "3%" being used for crime and I take way more then just your "3%" off the streets so yes I think I have enough knowledge to be entitled to my opinion as it does not just come from reading something off the damn internet and listening to a damn news story once in awhile. Thank you very much!

Quoting LuvmyAiden:

 There was NO rifle involved in killing this man's child first of all. Second, automatics are NOT readily available and are regulated(heavily) through the NFA. Handguns are what were used, they have relatively small mags and are semiauto just like the rifles he is talking about. This statement really gets me because people don't seem to get that rifles(ALL rifles, not just the ones that look scary) account for less than 3% of all gun crime in this country so why are we attacking them? Also the handguns you say you beleive in people owning ARE included on the new proposed ban just so you know. WHY continue to attack guns when they are clearly NOT the issue here? Knee jerk reaction and all I know but common sense should prevail at some point.


Quoting laurag8707:

 Im with the dad here nobody needs automatic rifles unless using them for war. I believe in owning handguns but no regular joe schmo needs an automatic rifle.



 



 



laurag8707
by Bronze Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM

 only a question our law makers can answer

Quoting mommyrustina:

I completely agree that the screening process is flawed, so why is there not more attention being paid to that? There is already a great system in place for maintaining security clearances, why can't a similiar system be adapted. That way, all background checks would be instantly available to the necessary parties and any issues that arise that would make the person ineligible to purchase a gun could be instantly added to the system and seen immediately. I even think that regular gun safety/shooting courses should be mandatory.

So why aren't we focusing on meaningful things like that instead of random band aid fixes that don't really help anything?

Quoting laurag8707:

 so as a gun dealer you get to see this from a legal side and from law enforcement I get to see this from an illegal side. so here is my simplified version by regulating these weapons it will in turn help to cut down on these weapons that have no business being on the streets in the first place. While there is a heavy black market for these you would be surprised how many of these guns are obtained legally when they should not be. Or how flawed the screening process is in some of these states for these types of weapons.There is no enough done to regulate  guns peroid there needs to be more. Everyone knows our MENTAL HEALTH system is beyond defective. So personally I am all for harder regulations when it comes to anyone owning a firearm peroid.  Also I want to point out no armor we wear is 100% all armor has flaws so for you to say it does not go through I hate to tell you it can and has it much more likely for that type of weapon to penetrate a vest then say a 9mm. There have not been enough advances in vest protection to keep up with  the weapons that are out on our streets today.

Quoting LuvmyAiden:

 

You are obviously law enforcement. I can respect that. I am a gun dealer and a firearms instructor. This is MY job too. I work with a lot of law enforcement and I can say a huge percentage do NOT agree with proposed gun control. My stats came from the FBI numbers so I'm sorry that you don't like them but the source is fairly reliable. If you can find me ONE case of an NFA item(full auto) that was legally owned and used for a crime I would be highly impressed. For the most part it doesn't happen. ANYTHING full auto(which is what it must be to be an assault rifle) is regulated by the ATF through the NFA, is very expensive, very hard to get(more than a 12 month wait right now) and cannot be resold unless the buyer goes through the same long process. No deniability if it's used to hurt someone in other words. The ONLY numbers I have seen for full auto items used in crimes was illegal guns and you should know very well how big the black market for those things really is and that new gun laws won't change that since laws already exist to try and curb the black market for guns. And as far as peiercing the armor goes, the .223 will not pierce the body armor most departments around here use and that is what the often attacked Ar-15 uses.

Quoting laurag8707:

 for your information I do know alot about guns and control on them and the issues on hand considering it was i deal with every day for my job. Now onto your point here guns will be regulated no matter what for the simple fact of the country does not want to deal with the most important issue at hand which is MENTAL HEALTHCARE LACKING now as I previousally stated there is no need for anyone to own an automatic rifle at all except if you are in military for war. Now another thing here as far as your statistics go they are heavily flawed. Now you can have your opinion as I can have mine which mine comes from the factor of every day I have to go put my life on the line in front of scum bags who get these heavy weapons because they are not regulated ENOUGH every day I get to not know what scumbag will have the weapon that penetrates my vest today and I am hear to tell you I see way more then just your "3%" being used for crime and I take way more then just your "3%" off the streets so yes I think I have enough knowledge to be entitled to my opinion as it does not just come from reading something off the damn internet and listening to a damn news story once in awhile. Thank you very much!

Quoting LuvmyAiden:

 There was NO rifle involved in killing this man's child first of all. Second, automatics are NOT readily available and are regulated(heavily) through the NFA. Handguns are what were used, they have relatively small mags and are semiauto just like the rifles he is talking about. This statement really gets me because people don't seem to get that rifles(ALL rifles, not just the ones that look scary) account for less than 3% of all gun crime in this country so why are we attacking them? Also the handguns you say you beleive in people owning ARE included on the new proposed ban just so you know. WHY continue to attack guns when they are clearly NOT the issue here? Knee jerk reaction and all I know but common sense should prevail at some point.

 

Quoting laurag8707:

 Im with the dad here nobody needs automatic rifles unless using them for war. I believe in owning handguns but no regular joe schmo needs an automatic rifle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnrmom
by Ruby Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 3:12 PM
1 mom liked this

Ok. So when was the last time you were in a position where you needed that? I mean, really needed it? Probably never. News flash: we are not in a war on our soil. If we were, ok cool. That would be a different ball game. But, we're not. Armageddon has not happened. The Walking Dead is really just a TV show, I promise. And there is nowhere in the US that this type of weaponry is necessary. You said yourself that reloading is no big.

And even if it's just "warm and fuzzies" it sure makes me, as a non-gun owner, feel a lot more safe sending my kids into the world without "law abiding" gun owners having more ammo than necessary. After all, it was "law abiding" gun owners that killed two young men in FL in the past 12 months who were doing nothing wrong besides being young men. Or do we forget that? 

If you can't down an intruder with a couple shots, you don't need to be carrying a weapon. I have lived in some pretty shady neighborhoods and have been able to effectively protect myself, my children, and my property with a baseball bat. So if you need a 100 round clip to feel safe, then you have some serious problems.

It is very obvious that neither of us are going to budge on this, but at least now you can maybe consider a non-gun owner's feeling as you're ranting about these damn clips. I doubt you will, but that's on you. Have a good day.


Quoting mommyrustina:

It is not about reloading, it is about carrying so many seperate components. What if you are in a dangerous situation, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take the risk of fumbling a magazine reloading.In reality, I highly doubt I would use hundred round magazine. I am used to twenties.

Regardless, the actual question is why should you NOT be allowed to have a one hundred round magazine? How does banning them help promote the public safety?

My biggest issue is that many of the proposed bans do nothing to prevent gun violence, they just give people the warm fuzzies. I have no issue with reasonable and effective regulations. But regulations that do nothing but make guns look less "scary" do nothing except open the door to further regulations.

Quoting lnrmom:

 And it just takes so long to reload right?

Whatever. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. I still do not believe that is an adequate reason to need a 100 round clip. It's just not necessary.

 

Quoting mommyrustina:

One example would be that I practice a lot and it takes a lot more than ten rounds every so often to be an adequate marksman.

 

 

 

 

 


 

AHmom103
by Gold Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM
1 mom liked this

 I'm still trying to figure out how a semi automatic rifle that shoots 1 bullet per trigger pull is considered an assault rifle. I could hunt with an AR-15. It is illegal to buy/sell a fully automatic rifle in this country, with good reason. So unless the gun used in that shooting had been modified to be fully automatic, the only differences between that and our hunting rifles are the appearance of the gun, and our hunting rifles shoot a higher caliber bullet.

 

Obviously, people shouldn't have heckled that poor man. But, grieving or not, no one should speak out against something without knowing what they are talking about.

bmw29
by spitfire_bobbie on Jan. 30, 2013 at 3:25 PM
1 mom liked this

We need weapons like that not to protect ourselves from the everyday criminal but to protect ourselves from our own government. The government as a whole would have a much easier time controlling citizens in any way the saw fit if we were not able to arm ourselves and lets be honest, if it came down to needing guns for this reason a 6 shot is just not going to cut it. For everyday use we don't need anything more than that but the sad fact is it may not always be that way. If we allow them to take our rights away now we will surely be kicking ourselves for that in the future.

mommyrustina
by Platinum Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM
1 mom liked this

I am by no means a conspiracy theorist. But do you know what the future holds? Can you say there will never be a natural disaster the likes of hurricane Katrina where people just lose their minds? Do you have fire extinguishers? I do, even though I highly doubt my house will burn down.

Again, I would not even use a hundred round magazine. And it is a magazine, not a clip, big difference. But placing bans on something just to make people feel good is silly. As I asked before, how does preventing the possession of high capacity magazines prevent gun violence?

And yes, I do consider the non gun-owners feelings, however, it is hard to give credence to their concerns when said concerns are borne of ignorance regarding the issue.


Quoting lnrmom:

Ok. So when was the last time you were in a position where you needed that? I mean, really needed it? Probably never. News flash: we are not in a war on our soil. If we were, ok cool. That would be a different ball game. But, we're not. Armageddon has not happened. The Walking Dead is really just a TV show, I promise. And there is nowhere in the US that this type of weaponry is necessary. You said yourself that reloading is no big.

And even if it's just "warm and fuzzies" it sure makes me, as a non-gun owner, feel a lot more safe sending my kids into the world without "law abiding" gun owners having more ammo than necessary. After all, it was "law abiding" gun owners that killed two young men in FL in the past 12 months who were doing nothing wrong besides being young men. Or do we forget that? 

If you can't down an intruder with a couple shots, you don't need to be carrying a weapon. I have lived in some pretty shady neighborhoods and have been able to effectively protect myself, my children, and my property with a baseball bat. So if you need a 100 round clip to feel safe, then you have some serious problems.

It is very obvious that neither of us are going to budge on this, but at least now you can maybe consider a non-gun owner's feeling as you're ranting about these damn clips. I doubt you will, but that's on you. Have a good day.


Quoting mommyrustina:

It is not about reloading, it is about carrying so many seperate components. What if you are in a dangerous situation, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take the risk of fumbling a magazine reloading.In reality, I highly doubt I would use hundred round magazine. I am used to twenties.

Regardless, the actual question is why should you NOT be allowed to have a one hundred round magazine? How does banning them help promote the public safety?

My biggest issue is that many of the proposed bans do nothing to prevent gun violence, they just give people the warm fuzzies. I have no issue with reasonable and effective regulations. But regulations that do nothing but make guns look less "scary" do nothing except open the door to further regulations.

Quoting lnrmom:

 And it just takes so long to reload right?

Whatever. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. I still do not believe that is an adequate reason to need a 100 round clip. It's just not necessary.


Quoting mommyrustina:

One example would be that I practice a lot and it takes a lot more than ten rounds every so often to be an adequate marksman.










lnrmom
by Ruby Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Clip, magazine, I've already admitted I don't own a gun so why would I know, nor care, what that term is? I don't. Ok. So what?

And, my concerns are valid considering the news in the past couple of years. I mean, really. Do I know what the future will hold? No. Do I pretend to? No. Do I feel any less safe with my baseball bat? No. I do not carry it with me everywhere I go. I do carry it with me when I'm camping or am on a road trip though. But ask me if I feel safe walking down the street knowing that "law abiding" gun owners have access to this? No. I do not. Why? Because people are flippin crazy. People lose their minds over the silliest things then shoot first. Is anyone going to die by my baseball bat? Maybe, if I beat them to the ground with it. But the likliehood that I'll be able to stun them long enough to get away is a lot higher. I do not need someone else's blood on my hands.

And do you know how criminals get their guns? They steal them from law abiding gun owners. Shock. Shock.


Quoting mommyrustina:

I am by no means a conspiracy theorist. But do you know what the future holds? Can you say there will never be a natural disaster the likes of hurricane Katrina where people just lose their minds? Do you have fire extinguishers? I do, even though I highly doubt my house will burn down.

Again, I would not even use a hundred round magazine. And it is a magazine, not a clip, big difference. But placing bans on something just to make people feel good is silly. As I asked before, how does preventing the possession of high capacity magazines prevent gun violence?

And yes, I do consider the non gun-owners feelings, however, it is hard to give credence to their concerns when said concerns are borne of ignorance regarding the issue.

 

Quoting lnrmom:

Ok. So when was the last time you were in a position where you needed that? I mean, really needed it? Probably never. News flash: we are not in a war on our soil. If we were, ok cool. That would be a different ball game. But, we're not. Armageddon has not happened. The Walking Dead is really just a TV show, I promise. And there is nowhere in the US that this type of weaponry is necessary. You said yourself that reloading is no big.

And even if it's just "warm and fuzzies" it sure makes me, as a non-gun owner, feel a lot more safe sending my kids into the world without "law abiding" gun owners having more ammo than necessary. After all, it was "law abiding" gun owners that killed two young men in FL in the past 12 months who were doing nothing wrong besides being young men. Or do we forget that? 

If you can't down an intruder with a couple shots, you don't need to be carrying a weapon. I have lived in some pretty shady neighborhoods and have been able to effectively protect myself, my children, and my property with a baseball bat. So if you need a 100 round clip to feel safe, then you have some serious problems.

It is very obvious that neither of us are going to budge on this, but at least now you can maybe consider a non-gun owner's feeling as you're ranting about these damn clips. I doubt you will, but that's on you. Have a good day.

 

Quoting mommyrustina:

It is not about reloading, it is about carrying so many seperate components. What if you are in a dangerous situation, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take the risk of fumbling a magazine reloading.In reality, I highly doubt I would use hundred round magazine. I am used to twenties.

Regardless, the actual question is why should you NOT be allowed to have a one hundred round magazine? How does banning them help promote the public safety?

My biggest issue is that many of the proposed bans do nothing to prevent gun violence, they just give people the warm fuzzies. I have no issue with reasonable and effective regulations. But regulations that do nothing but make guns look less "scary" do nothing except open the door to further regulations.

Quoting lnrmom:

 And it just takes so long to reload right?

Whatever. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. I still do not believe that is an adequate reason to need a 100 round clip. It's just not necessary.

 

Quoting mommyrustina:

One example would be that I practice a lot and it takes a lot more than ten rounds every so often to be an adequate marksman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

dmarie2101
by Ruby Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM

gee, im so shocked and stuff.

Was father of Newtown victim ‘heckled’ by pro-gun advocates?

Heslin testifies in Hartford. (Screengrab via CTN)

MSNBC has told the Washington Post that it's reviewing its editing of a video that appeared to show gun rights advocates heckling the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim during a state legislative hearing on gun violence.

At Monday's hearing in Hartford, Conn., Neil Heslin, father of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, challenged lawmakers and lobbyists to prove why assault-style rifles—like the one reportedly used in last month's massacre in Newtown, Conn.—should be legal.

Via a transcript of Heslin's testimony:

I don’t know how many people have young children or children. But just try putting yourself in the place that I’m in or these other parents that are here. Having a child that you lost. It’s not a good feeling; not a good feeling to look at your child laying in a casket or looking at your child with a bullet wound to the forehead. I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips. ... Not one person can answer that question.

"The Second Amendment!" several people shouted in response.

“Please no comments while Mr. Heslin is speaking or we’ll clear the room," a state official can be heard warning the audience. "Mr. Heslin, please continue.”

"We're all entitled to our own opinion, and I respect their opinions and their thoughts," Heslin said. "I wish they'd respect mine and give it a little bit of thought, and realize it could have been their child that could have been in that school that day."

But MSNBC's clip of the exchange on Tuesday omitted Heslin's open challenge to the audience. The cable network segment included a graphic that read, “Mocked and Loaded: Sandy Hook Victim’s Father Heckled by Gun Rights Advocates," to hammer home the point.

Twitchy, the website founded by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, was among several to criticize MSNBC and other members of the "left-wing" media, like Piers Morgan, for selective reporting on the incident.

"What kind of sick, twisted mind HECKLES a man whose son was just murdered, as he begs for gun control?" Morgan wrote on Twitter. "Just unbelievable."

"It's pretty hard for me to imagine anything that would make me shout across the room at a father who'd lost his son, no matter how much I disagreed with his reaction to that loss," the Daily Beast's David Frum, who was among those criticized for using the "heckling" label, wrote. "There are lots of ways to express disagreement, and in such a case the best ways all begin with an expression of sympathy and condolence."

harehelper
by on Jan. 31, 2013 at 2:20 PM

But how would that help? You could ban all types of guns, period, across the board. It wouldn't stop criminals from getting them anyway, but it would certainly make sure the law abiding citizens were helpless to defend themselves. It's been shown time and time again, the very worst of these shootings, with the most loss of life, happened in places where it is illegal to carry/have a gun.

Quoting lnrmom:

 Then maybe all semi and automatic guns need to be banned. Great point.


Quoting harehelper:

Gun owners protest bans on large magazines because those bans are just a stepping stone to banning more, smaller magazines etc. Besides, there have been several mass shootings commited using small ten round magazines, such as at Virginia Tech.

Quoting lnrmom:

No they should not have heckled and any time gun advocates start hollering "because it's fun" or "2nd Ammendment" I shut down completely. Give me a solid reason why someone would need a magazine of 100? I mean seriously?





Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN