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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

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 (91-100):
Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Jan. 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM
1 mom liked this

 Disgusting

annabl1970
by Platinum Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM

 Who wants to ban a guns?


Quoting JazzyMommyx3:

I dont understand why people think this will help?
seriously like theres not other countries that would gladly sell guns on our black market to our criminals so there would still be guns 'cept no law abiding citizens to help prevent tragidies.
We have tight rules on street drugs yet thousands die everyday from them because criminals see it as a way for good money, guns would just be another branch for them.
I have no problems with deeper background checks and such but banning them from those that follow the law will do nothing but eventually make it worse.


Quoting annabl1970:

Psychos dont care about anything. You as a mother, as a same person should care about preventing them from shooting the kids. GET it?




Quoting soonergirl980:

 

 



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 7:34 PM
4 moms liked this

 Isn't it, though? But it's what happens when gun zealots can't legitimately support/argue their views. They resort to this kind of crass stupidity.  

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting AngeLnChainZ:


This is one of the most asinine memes I have seen in a while.

 

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jan. 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM

BUMP!

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM

oops. I just posted this, I will delete my thread.

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Jan. 29, 2013 at 9:05 PM

So he wasn't heckled and people still bitch?   Goodness people can't just leave well enough alone.

lga1965
by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 9:16 PM

 Exactly! And the picture belonged to the article that I posted a LINK for , but she accused me of just popping in a photo to mislead people and attack the GUN.LOL.  Gotta protect the guns,because they don't shoot anyone, people do,. People kill people with big old guns that gun lovers worship. What the hell....

Quoting Raintree:

You know what's probably not misleading at all? The sight of 20 6 year olds, crumpled on the floor and covered in blood- their own and each others.

Go ahead. Get het up over the mistreatment of the poor gun.

Quoting Lizard_Lina:

You purposely put a pic of this gun up to mislead people on what it is. So I ask you again, do you know? Do you know what guns it is like?


Quoting lga1965:

 The article gives you all of the information...read it. CAn this gun be used for hunting? If not, then nobody needs it.


Quoting Lizard_Lina:

Please, do tell what kind of gun it is, how many bullets it holds, and at what rate they are released.... Or are ypu just going for the "oh it looks scary like a machine gun" effect




Quoting lga1965:


 Here's another article about this. Please notice the gun that the woman is holding. Does the average citizen NEED one of them? NO. Hell no. If they think they do, then they probably have some serious mental disturbances. Really.




http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-parents-urge-enforcement-gun-laws-171101155.html




 




Firearms Training Unit Detective Barbara J. Mattson of the Connecticut State Police holds up a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, the same make and model of gun used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook School shooting, for a demonstration during a hearing of a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws, at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Monday, Jan. 28, 2013. The parents of children killed in the Newtown school shooting called for better enforcement of gun laws Monday at the legislative hearing. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)




 



 

lga1965
by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 9:35 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting annabl1970:

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

 Here is the paragraph that is so important to concentrate on because it explains how the NRA has influenced and the Gun Culture has grown and has such a loud voice. The NRA has a vested interest in encouragng gun ownership and they rev up the fears and the aggressions of certain gun fans, basically their members. The website and their speeches and their publications are heating uop fears and paranoia. They make people believe that there might be a threat and a need to defend themselves from the Government. To reinterpret the 2nd amendment was their goal. READ:

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.”

 

lga1965
by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM

 Yes, that IS heckling and hitting below the belt, kicking him when he is already down....down as a result of his child being killed by a gun held by an insane person whose mother owned several guns (and we have no idea WHY).. How inconsiderate and cold hearted are the people who yelled "Second Amendment": as if that is justified or even accurate ....so unkind. I suspect the people who think he was not being heckled are just as unkind.

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.

 

 

 

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Jan. 29, 2013 at 10:12 PM
1 mom liked this

Heckled isn't a strong enough word. Unscrupulous, there's a word. The people in that room showed that grieving father zero compassion. Forget the word 'heckled'. I seriously doubt that showing that man sympathy and dignity would have moved them so much that they all would have signed a petition to ban the guns they seem to cling to so dearly.

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)