Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

[ArmyCowboy]

The obsession that some folks have with their guns is a bit scarey, IMO.

I mean I understand compensation for small body parts and impotence, but this is a bit over the top.

Scary is idiots who whole hardheartedly give up freedom for free shit..... Like you.

Says the guy who whole heatedly supported the Patriot Act because he was so shit scared of Mooooslims.

Project away, one of these days the law of averages says you have to be right.

 

[eflatminor]

Neil Heslin, father of 6-year-old Newtown shooting victim Jesse Lewis, was heckled at the Connecticut State Legislature as he testified Tuesday...

I see you're buying into the lies once again...

The only problem is that it was all a lie. Mr. Heslin was not heckled.

Media Falsely Claims Gun Activists Heckled Father of Murdered Newtown Boy

Now, before you whine about the source in this story, try thinking for yourself and watching the ENTIRE UNEDITED RECORDING. It's clear, no one "heckled" this guy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I know having honor is a alien concept to you.

If what you display is "honor" then yes, this is obviously some alternative definition of the word that I was previously unaware of.

You have at it.... I will not take part in enslaving the people of this country....Maybe the brown shirt fits you but it doesnt fit real Americans.

yeah yeah ... holding a gun owner responsible for securing his weapon is "enslavement"

Hyperbole much?????

We don't have to let idiots dictate policy.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Once again NBC gets caught lying and liberals are on their knees sucking it up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Realistic, common sense, Constitutional gun control measures should include holding gun owners liable when they are grossly neglegent in securing their weapons when their weapons are used in the commission of a crime.

People who would heckle a man who just lost his son and is telling his son's story are absolute scum. We don't owe them or their opinions a second thought.

Define negligence in securing a weapon. If I leave my Glock on the sidewalk on Government St. in Mobile, maybe that is negligent. If I have one standing in the corner by the back door, it is not.

If you leave your back door open it is. If you have someone in your home who could not pass a background check and you leave it out where they have unencumbered access to it, it is.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why didnt the dad push to ban cars, since the perpetrator drove one to the scene? Why not ban sneakers, since he was wearing them?
People think "ban" equals "legislate out of existence." No such luck.

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car. And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

I can live with that for guns.

Can you?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Why didnt the dad push to ban cars, since the perpetrator drove one to the scene? Why not ban sneakers, since he was wearing them?
People think "ban" equals "legislate out of existence." No such luck.

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car. And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

I can live with that for guns.

Can you?

Show me where driving a car is a protected right under the Constitution?

Also, in order to legally carry a loaded gun in public, you must take tests and get a license.

 

[G.T.]

he wasnt heckled.

he asked a question, and that was their response, he invited it.

 

[eflatminor]

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car.

Not true. You can buy a car without a driver's license. You can operate a car on your own property without a driver's license. You only need a driver's license to operate that vehicle on PUBLIC property. Further, the federal government has NO involvement in the licensing process. It's up to each state.

So, by your own reasoning, the feds should have no involvement in the purchase of a firearm but states are free to require a license to carry a firearm in public.

Works for me!

And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

That's true for any action taken by a child where the parents are found to be liable.

I can live with that for guns. Can you?

Absolutely. Thanks for supporting the 2nd amendment.

 

[Decus]

He wasn't heckled. Twofox posted a link in a different thread where you can watch the unedited version. NBC is full of shit.

Media Deception: NBC Smears 2nd Amendment Supporters as 'Hecklers' of Sandy Hook Victim's Parent Independent Journal Review

 

[martybegan]

Realistic, common sense, Constitutional gun control measures should include holding gun owners liable when they are grossly neglegent in securing their weapons when their weapons are used in the commission of a crime.

People who would heckle a man who just lost his son and is telling his son's story are absolute scum. We don't owe them or their opinions a second thought.

Define negligence in securing a weapon. If I leave my Glock on the sidewalk on Government St. in Mobile, maybe that is negligent. If I have one standing in the corner by the back door, it is not.

If you leave your back door open it is. If you have someone in your home who could not pass a background check and you leave it out where they have unencumbered access to it, it is.

There is no statutory requirement to keep your doors closed in your house. An unauthorized person is tresspasing, regardless of If they need to break in to do the tresspass.

As for your 2nd statement, unless a court makes you said person's legal guardian, responsibility from criminal violations have always rested on the person committing the crime. Klingons have "sins of the father" laws, we do not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why didnt the dad push to ban cars, since the perpetrator drove one to the scene? Why not ban sneakers, since he was wearing them?
People think "ban" equals "legislate out of existence." No such luck.

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car. And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

I can live with that for guns.

Can you?

No. that is an infringement.

And as pointed out, erroneous. Anyone can buy a car and drive it on his own property.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why didnt the dad push to ban cars, since the perpetrator drove one to the scene? Why not ban sneakers, since he was wearing them?
People think "ban" equals "legislate out of existence." No such luck.

In order to operate a car, people have to pass a written examination and demonstrate a proficiency at operating the car. And a parent can be held liable for what his or her child does with the parent's car.

I can live with that for guns.

Can you?

Show me where driving a car is a protected right under the Constitution?

and you do have to take tests and obtain a license in order to use a firearm.

Also, in order to legally carry a loaded gun in public, you must take tests and get a license.

I didn't bring up the automobile analogy - Rabbi did. I think it is a stupid analogy too - on so many levels.

But you do not have to pass a test, demonstrate proficiency, or obtain a license to operate a firearm.

 

[eflatminor]

But you do not have to pass a test, demonstrate proficiency, or obtain a license to operate a firearm.

Nor a vehicle.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Define negligence in securing a weapon. If I leave my Glock on the sidewalk on Government St. in Mobile, maybe that is negligent. If I have one standing in the corner by the back door, it is not.

If you leave your back door open it is. If you have someone in your home who could not pass a background check and you leave it out where they have unencumbered access to it, it is.

There is no statutory requirement to keep your doors closed in your house. An unauthorized person is tresspasing, regardless of If they need to break in to do the tresspass.

As for your 2nd statement, unless a court makes you said person's legal guardian, responsibility from criminal violations have always rested on the person committing the crime. Klingons have "sins of the father" laws, we do not.

U.S. holds parents responsible for damage that minors cause in the parents' car. Same SHOULD be true of guns.

I never said these laws are in place - I said I favor such laws. I thought that was made pretty clear.

 

[martybegan]

If you leave your back door open it is. If you have someone in your home who could not pass a background check and you leave it out where they have unencumbered access to it, it is.

There is no statutory requirement to keep your doors closed in your house. An unauthorized person is tresspasing, regardless of If they need to break in to do the tresspass.

As for your 2nd statement, unless a court makes you said person's legal guardian, responsibility from criminal violations have always rested on the person committing the crime. Klingons have "sins of the father" laws, we do not.

U.S. holds parents responsible for damage that minors cause in the parents' car. Same SHOULD be true of guns.
i
I never said these laws are in place - I said I favor such laws. I thought that was made pretty clear.

Its the insurance companies that hold them liable, not the government. Plus again this only applies to the use of vehicles on public roads. and finally, you have no consitutional right to an automobile.

Forcing people to have insurance for firearm ownership is the definition of infringement.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Its the insurance companies that hold them liable, not the government

Not without the ruling of a court they don't - and the judiciary is a branch of government.

 

[eflatminor]

U.S. holds parents responsible for damage that minors cause in the parents' car. Same SHOULD be true of guns.

Wrong again.

The "US" does not hold parents responsible for their kid's actions. Only a court or alternatively, a negotiation between insurance carriers, can find a parent liable. There is no assurance that just because a kid misuses a firearm...or a car...that the parents will be found liable. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Two fails on one page. Not a good start.

 

[eflatminor]

Its the insurance companies that hold them liable, not the government

Not without the ruling of a court they don't - and the judiciary is a branch of government.

Wrong yet again. Insurance companies are contractually obligated by their customers to determine liability. Such cases only go to court if the insurance companies cannot agree on the culpability of their respective clients.

Dude, it's getting embarrassing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is no statutory requirement to keep your doors closed in your house. An unauthorized person is tresspasing, regardless of If they need to break in to do the tresspass.

As for your 2nd statement, unless a court makes you said person's legal guardian, responsibility from criminal violations have always rested on the person committing the crime. Klingons have "sins of the father" laws, we do not.

U.S. holds parents responsible for damage that minors cause in the parents' car. Same SHOULD be true of guns.
i
I never said these laws are in place - I said I favor such laws. I thought that was made pretty clear.

Its the insurance companies that hold them liable, not the government. Plus again this only applies to the use of vehicles on public roads. and finally, you have no consitutional right to an automobile.

Forcing people to have insurance for firearm ownership is the definition of infringement.

I would not advocate forcing people to carry insurance in order to own a forearm and I never came close to saying anything close to that.

I said I support holding gun owners responsible if they have been grossly neglegent in securing their weapon and that weapon is used in the commission a crime.

Now, would you like to debate the pros and cons of that position, or would you preffer to keep moving the goalposts around and arguing a different issue that you seem to think favors your position more?