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

(minimum 6 characters)

Father of Newtown victim heckled......

Posted by   + Show Post

WTF is wrong with people? I don't give two shits what your stance is on gun control. You DO NOT heckle a grieving father. Common decency apparently isn't so common anymore.

 

Father of Newtown Victim Interrupted by Shouts of "Second Amendment!"

By

 

|

 

Posted Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, at 10:00 AM ET

 

 
MYSLATE
Save this story.
Follow all Blog articles.
Follow the The Slatest blog.
Follow stories by Josh Voorhees.
MySlate is a new tool that lets you track your favorite parts of Slate. You can follow authors and sections, track comment threads you're interested in, and more.
    
1028

160096731
Thousands of people participate in the March on Washington for Gun Control on Jan. 26, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

Photo by Yuri Gripas/AFP/Getty Images

 

Connecticut state lawmakers held a public hearing in Hartford yesterday to discuss gun control and safety in the wake of last month's tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown that killed 20 students and six staff members. Some 1,500-odd members of the public turned up to be heard at the task force meeting, and by most accounts things stayed relatively civil as those on both sides of the issue made their case. Then this happened according to the Connecticut Post:

 

"The Second Amendment!" was shouted a couple of times by as many as a dozen gun enthusiasts in the meeting room as Neil Heslin, holding a photo of his slain 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, asked why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state.
"There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened," said Heslin, who said he grew up using guns and was undisturbed by the interruption of his testimony.
"That wasn't just a killing, it was a massacre," said Heslin, who recalled dropping off his son at Sandy Hook Elementary school shortly before Lanza opened fire. "I just hope some good can come out of this."

The gun debate has raged all over the country in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, although perhaps no where louder than in the state in which it unfolded. Connecticut lawmakers have already considered a wide-range of gun-related legislation in the weeks since the shooting, including proposals that would enact a 50-percent tax on ammunition, expand the state's existing assault-weapons ban and outlaw large-capacity magazines.

 

As the Wall Street Journal explained yesterday, Monday's hearing was also the site of Connecticut-based gunmakers "most robust public statements" since the shooting, with company officials pushing back against those calling for stricter gun control. "As we've seen the number of guns in society have increased, yet the violent crime rate has decreased," Joseph Bartozzi, senior VP of general counsel of Mossberg & Sons Inc., told lawmakers. "To say it's all about guns I think simply is a disservice."

 

***Follow @JoshVoorhees and the rest of the @slatest team on Twitter.***

 

 

 

by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Replies (41-50):
annabl1970
by Platinum Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 2:58 PM
4 moms liked this

 No one is violating your rights.  This father, as others, just want  more regulations and control over  gun purchase. So we have less cases when some psychos shooting kids GET it?


Quoting soonergirl980:

I have every bit of sympathy for those families my heart breaks at their loss.

No you don't...  

However, their loss does not give them or anyone else the right to attempt to violate a Constitutional right given to me and MY kids. My cousin was killed by a drunk driver. He used a car to murder my cousin by breaking the law and driving drunk. Does that mean we should take away all cars because of the possibility that some will choose to break the law with them and kids might die? Owning cars isn't even a Constitutional right.

 

Quoting GLWerth:

It saddens me that some women in this group, ostensibly mothers, think it is OK (even laudable) to heckle a grieving father. 

They don't even seem to have the smallest bit of sympathy for his loss, but boy, do they LOVE their guns.

In my world, children are worth more than guns.

 

 


 

annabl1970
by Platinum Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM
3 moms liked this

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2JOe7HkZz



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2JOd6K9NB

GLWerth
by Gina on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM
3 moms liked this

Would an assault weapon ban have stopped him? Maybe not, but it sure could have decreased the body count. You see, people, in my estimation, are more important than guns.

But, you go ahead and hug your guns tonight, since they give you such love and affection.


Quoting soonergirl980:

 

 

Quoting GLWerth:

Ah yes, your sacred right to any "armament" you choose to have! Rocket launcher, check! Land mines? Why not! How about a suitcase nuke, after all, it IS technically an armament!

Why not just make it a free-for-all! No rules, no regulations, just a gun nut's heaven, where if you shoot someone, you get off by saying "he had it a'comin' ta him!"

Two things always amuse me about you "defenders of the second amendment".

1. You don't notice that no one is trying to take away all of your guns, just get some regulations in place and enforce the ones already on the books and, Not True we own or WANT to own several guns listed on the ban list if passed as well as several magazines that are over 10 rd limits. 

2. You really, really hate it when someone points out that there is a FIRST part to the amendment, something about a "Well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". Yeah, I get that you don't like the part about regulation, because you want that free-for-all, shoot them first and let "god" sort them out later.The USSC has already said that it is a individual right to own weapons. Very few gun rights advocates I would say even NONE WANT to see any gun related violence. It's funny it seems that there are those whom only want a clear and exact interpertation of the BOR or the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd. Want abortion legal oh yeah it's our Constitutional right because of the right to "privacy" forget the other words in that one or we want to force companies to do what we want them to do so we are going to have the federal govenment use interstate commerce as a way to do that.

Yes, children are less important to people who look at a man who has just lost his child and think "Bastard wants to regulate mah guns!".So you honestly believe that banning so called assualt style weapons would have stopped Adam Lanza?

People with normal, human emotions feel sad for his loss.  

 


 

cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM
2 moms liked this

 The protesters repeatedly shouted "SECOND AMENDMENT" while the guy was trying to speak. That's heckling.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 heck·le(hkl)

tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 Did the OP mean to post something else.  I don't see any heckling.

 I would say given the definition of the very word, it is exactly what I  meant to use.

 Umm, your post proves my point.  He answered the question asked.

Maybe the OP should remove the word heckled....some of us might agree INTERUPTING was tacky....but this was not heckling.

 

 

soonergirl980
by Silver Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM



Quoting annabl1970:

 No one is violating your rights.  This father, as others, just want  more regulations and control over  gun purchase. So we have less cases when some psychos shooting kids GET it?

Psychos shooting kids DON"T CARE about regulations or controls over gun purchases. GET IT?

Quoting soonergirl980:

I have every bit of sympathy for those families my heart breaks at their loss.

No you don't...  Are you seriously trying to tell me how I feel? Really?

However, their loss does not give them or anyone else the right to attempt to violate a Constitutional right given to me and MY kids. My cousin was killed by a drunk driver. He used a car to murder my cousin by breaking the law and driving drunk. Does that mean we should take away all cars because of the possibility that some will choose to break the law with them and kids might die? Owning cars isn't even a Constitutional right.


Quoting GLWerth:

It saddens me that some women in this group, ostensibly mothers, think it is OK (even laudable) to heckle a grieving father. 

They don't even seem to have the smallest bit of sympathy for his loss, but boy, do they LOVE their guns.

In my world, children are worth more than guns.







cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM
1 mom liked this

 And by the way, I *am* the OP, and I do mean to use the word heckled. It is appropriate considering the man was repeatedly being interrupted by ignorant asshats while he was trying to speak. No one asked the protesters to answer him. They were being rude in speaking out of turn, and they continued to shout over him "SECOND AMENDMENT" because they didn't want to hear what he had to say. That is heckling.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 heck·le(hkl)

tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 Did the OP mean to post something else.  I don't see any heckling.

 I would say given the definition of the very word, it is exactly what I  meant to use.

 Umm, your post proves my point.  He answered the question asked.

Maybe the OP should remove the word heckled....some of us might agree INTERUPTING was tacky....but this was not heckling.

 

 

pamelax3
by Gold Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM
1 mom liked this

I have not seen on gun owner on here say that their guns are more important than a child. In the setting this took place in gun owners are going to be passionate about our 2nd amendment rights, I did not take it as heckling but answering the question he asked.


Quoting GLWerth:

It saddens me that some women in this group, ostensibly mothers, think it is OK (even laudable) to heckle a grieving father. 

They don't even seem to have the smallest bit of sympathy for his loss, but boy, do they LOVE their guns.

In my world, children are worth more than guns.


 

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 The protesters repeatedly shouted "SECOND AMENDMENT" while the guy was trying to speak. That's heckling.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 heck·le(hkl)

tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 Did the OP mean to post something else.  I don't see any heckling.

 I would say given the definition of the very word, it is exactly what I  meant to use.

 Umm, your post proves my point.  He answered the question asked.

Maybe the OP should remove the word heckled....some of us might agree INTERUPTING was tacky....but this was not heckling.

 

 

 I guess that will just have to be your opinion...one not shared by myself or several other posters.

 

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 And by the way, I *am* the OP, and I do mean to use the word heckled. It is appropriate considering the man was repeatedly being interrupted by ignorant asshats while he was trying to speak. No one asked the protesters to answer him. They were being rude in speaking out of turn, and they continued to shout over him "SECOND AMENDMENT" because they didn't want to hear what he had to say. That is heckling.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

 heck·le(hkl)

tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.
2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 Did the OP mean to post something else.  I don't see any heckling.

 I would say given the definition of the very word, it is exactly what I  meant to use.

 Umm, your post proves my point.  He answered the question asked.

Maybe the OP should remove the word heckled....some of us might agree INTERUPTING was tacky....but this was not heckling.

 

 

 Oh well....goodness....excuse me....there is nothing to indicate you are the op on my quote screen.  Geesh.

Maybe YOU should remove the word heckled.  Some of us might be inclined to agree interrupting was tacky.  You can say heckled till the cows come home...all this guy did was answer a question.  If you don't like it...well too bad.,

 

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM
2 moms liked this

the responses to this thread are very telling - again lack of empathy for victims of gun violence, if your child is dead the specifics of the gun that killed does not matter.

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)



Featured