Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

[Bfgrn]

How is that remotely comparable? Do you go through a background check before you buy a ticket?

That is not a background check, it is a direct and personal check.

Are you for being able to buy a gun without a background check??

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

So they are not remotely comparable.

Obviously you failed to read the article linked and have learned nothing. Even lib icon Larry Summers agrees with me on unemployment.
You are a dunce.

Are you for being able to buy a gun without a background check??

It only requires a yes or no answer.

 

[JoeB131]

If it applies to one amendment, it applies to all. The rights granted are given to the people as individuals, and removing said right requires an amendment.

And back then they didnt have the DMR to define what crazy was. They also bled themselves and thought malaria was caused by swampwater.

The specifics of what they wanted is irrelevent, it was the ideals they passed on. And the ideals were that if they thought something was important enough to include in the bill of rights, then you have to repeal that consitutional right before you can mess with it.

If your ideas are so awesome, you should have no trouble meeting the requirements to change the amendment. I'd start now if I were you.

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

If they are killed because of a weapon malfunction because of manufacturing defect.. I would agree with you.. but the ability to sue because someone took it upon themselves to do something evil with the chosen tool of a gun, is preposterous... what next?? Sue rat poison manufacturers when someone poisons someone? Sue automakers when someone mows someone down??

Idiot

Quite the contrary... the gun makers knew their products were dangerous and took NO precautions to keep them out of the wrong hands. That makes them liable.

Same theory they took down the Cigarette manufacturers under. Their behavior got a LOT better after they paid out a few billion to state governments.

 

[JoeB131]

If it applies to one amendment, it applies to all. The rights granted are given to the people as individuals, and removing said right requires an amendment.

And back then they didnt have the DMR to define what crazy was. They also bled themselves and thought malaria was caused by swampwater.

The specifics of what they wanted is irrelevent, it was the ideals they passed on. And the ideals were that if they thought something was important enough to include in the bill of rights, then you have to repeal that consitutional right before you can mess with it.

If your ideas are so awesome, you should have no trouble meeting the requirements to change the amendment. I'd start now if I were you.

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

Wrong. That would be a violation of the 2nd amendment. It's simply a backdoor attempt to outlaw firearms. If the government outlawed selling newsprint to any newspaper not on its approved list, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. You see, the SC isn't as stupid as you think they are.

It wouldn't even come up to the Supreme Court. Congress passed the immunity law for gunmakers. They can undo it, and probably should.

I'll go one better. Consumer action against companies that own gunmakers in their portfolio. Ask investment f unds to divest themselves of gun stocks. The Cerberus group is already looking to offload Freedomworks, the people who made Lanza's Bushmaster.

Please, guy, stop trying to compare your penis surrogates to real freedoms. It's laughable.

 

[JoeB131]

If it applies to one amendment, it applies to all. The rights granted are given to the people as individuals, and removing said right requires an amendment.

And back then they didnt have the DMR to define what crazy was. They also bled themselves and thought malaria was caused by swampwater.

The specifics of what they wanted is irrelevent, it was the ideals they passed on. And the ideals were that if they thought something was important enough to include in the bill of rights, then you have to repeal that consitutional right before you can mess with it.

If your ideas are so awesome, you should have no trouble meeting the requirements to change the amendment. I'd start now if I were you.

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

That violates every form of product law we have out there. The gun functions just fine in most homicides. Product liability is for when an item malfunctions.

So basically what you are saying is you do not care about the rule of law, or the consitution, if it stands in the way of some objective you are seeking. That makes you the definition of a facist.

Um, no, it really doesn't. If we had real product law, we'd regulate the shit out of who can have a gun, just like any other dangerous item.

Again, go back to the Cigarette Settlements. It wasn't the manufacturing process that ws the source of the liability, it was the conduct of the companies. They were intentionally marketting to children knowing that was the easiest group to get addicted.

 

[martybegan]

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

That violates every form of product law we have out there. The gun functions just fine in most homicides. Product liability is for when an item malfunctions.

So basically what you are saying is you do not care about the rule of law, or the consitution, if it stands in the way of some objective you are seeking. That makes you the definition of a facist.

Um, no, it really doesn't. If we had real product law, we'd regulate the shit out of who can have a gun, just like any other dangerous item.

Again, go back to the Cigarette Settlements. It wasn't the manufacturing process that ws the source of the liability, it was the conduct of the companies. They were intentionally marketting to children knowing that was the easiest group to get addicted.

The method used against the cig manufacturers was that they deliberately lied about thier product. Even so I disagree with the lawsuits against them. anyone who couldnt figure out sucking on burning leaves is bad for you is a bit daft.

There is no lying going on with gun manufacturers.Thier products work as intended, as they send a projectile down a metal tube when you pull the trigger.

 

[JoeB131]

The method used against the cig manufacturers was that they deliberately lied about thier product. Even so I disagree with the lawsuits against them. anyone who couldnt figure out sucking on burning leaves is bad for you is a bit daft.

There is no lying going on with gun manufacturers.Thier products work as intended, as they send a projectile down a metal tube when you pull the trigger.

I would LOVE to see the moment in court when the Douchebag from Freedom Works says, "Our product functioned EXACTLY as designed", and then the lawyer for the parents slaps down graphic autopsy and crime scene photos on the wall of the Jury Well, and said, "You call this 'as intended'? Have you no shame, sir!"

 

[OODA_Loop]

I would LOVE to see the moment in court when the Douchebag from Freedom Works says, "Our product functioned EXACTLY as designed", and then the lawyer for the parents slaps down graphic autopsy and crime scene photos on the wall of the Jury Well, and said, "You call this 'as intended'? Have you no shame, sir!"

Crime scene / autopsy photos show they functioned as intended by those who had willful criminal intent.

 

[JoeB131]

I would LOVE to see the moment in court when the Douchebag from Freedom Works says, "Our product functioned EXACTLY as designed", and then the lawyer for the parents slaps down graphic autopsy and crime scene photos on the wall of the Jury Well, and said, "You call this 'as intended'? Have you no shame, sir!"

Crime scene / autopsy photos show they functioned as intended by those who had willful criminal intent.

Again, you totally go with that in a civil court.

Non-crazy people would be rightfully horrified.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I would LOVE to see the moment in court when the Douchebag from Freedom Works says, "Our product functioned EXACTLY as designed", and then the lawyer for the parents slaps down graphic autopsy and crime scene photos on the wall of the Jury Well, and said, "You call this 'as intended'? Have you no shame, sir!"

Crime scene / autopsy photos show they functioned as intended by those who had willful criminal intent.

Again, you totally go with that in a civil court.

Non-crazy people would be rightfully horrified.

Yes you're smarter when it comes to what happens in a hypothetical situation you create which is already prohibited by law.

 

[JoeB131]

Crime scene / autopsy photos show they functioned as intended by those who had willful criminal intent.

Again, you totally go with that in a civil court.

Non-crazy people would be rightfully horrified.

Yes you're smarter when it comes to what happens in a hypothetical situation you create which is already prohibited by law.

A law the NRA snuck under the wire, and should be repealed.

Probably will, now that people are paying attention.

 

[DiamondDave]

Did anybody watch the footage?

He asked if anyone in the room could give him a reason to own an assault weapon, there was silence in the room after he asked, he then reiterated his question by looking around and saying "and not one person can answer that question or give me an answer"

Then he got a very subdued response from a few people.

There was no shouting.

He was not heckled.

But that doesn't fit the agenda now does it?

He got a response but not a proper answer.

Now the complaint is about the answer given in the 2 seconds they had?? Shift goal posts much??

 

[DiamondDave]

We have a cancer in this country, and they are armed.



Read it at Connecticut Post

January 29, 2013 7:05 AM

The guy was not heckled, NBC edited the tape again. Some of the people in the audience answered the question that he had asked them. This whole thread is based on a BS.

OK Einstein...you edited my OP but you left the source of the OP in your post. Show me where NBC is mentioned in the OP? The OP is not from NBC, it is the Connecticut Post. And there are numerous other publications reporting Neil Heslin was heckled. Hey Einstein, did the chairman of the hearing watch a tape on NBC before he threatened to clear the floor???

There is no low that is too low for the right.

The source of the video is originally NBC... idiot

 

[DiamondDave]

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

If they are killed because of a weapon malfunction because of manufacturing defect.. I would agree with you.. but the ability to sue because someone took it upon themselves to do something evil with the chosen tool of a gun, is preposterous... what next?? Sue rat poison manufacturers when someone poisons someone? Sue automakers when someone mows someone down??

Idiot

Quite the contrary... the gun makers knew their products were dangerous and took NO precautions to keep them out of the wrong hands. That makes them liable.

Same theory they took down the Cigarette manufacturers under. Their behavior got a LOT better after they paid out a few billion to state governments.

No, idiot.. the gun is not dangerous.. it just sits there.. if, during its use, it MALFUNCTIONS due to DEFECT, you would have a point... it did not, you do not

Did the rat poison manufacturers do all they could to keep the lady from poisoning her husband? Did the car manufacturer take all precautions to make sure a homicidal maniac did not get his hands on one to mow someone down??

And the gun does not have an addicting chemical in it that makes you crave to shoot others or yourself.. so the cig comparison is just as stupid as your other point

 

[JoeB131]

If they are killed because of a weapon malfunction because of manufacturing defect.. I would agree with you.. but the ability to sue because someone took it upon themselves to do something evil with the chosen tool of a gun, is preposterous... what next?? Sue rat poison manufacturers when someone poisons someone? Sue automakers when someone mows someone down??

Idiot

Quite the contrary... the gun makers knew their products were dangerous and took NO precautions to keep them out of the wrong hands. That makes them liable.

Same theory they took down the Cigarette manufacturers under. Their behavior got a LOT better after they paid out a few billion to state governments.

No, idiot.. the gun is not dangerous.. it just sits there.. if, during its use, it MALFUNCTIONS due to DEFECT, you would have a point... it did not, you do not

Did the rat poison manufacturers do all they could to keep the lady from poisoning her husband? Did the car manufacturer take all precautions to make sure a homicidal maniac did not get his hands on one to mow someone down??

And the gun does not have an addicting chemical in it that makes you crave to shoot others or yourself.. so the cig comparison is just as stupid as your other point

Again, I would really like to see you jokers try this argument in front of a jury about "proper functioning" and have the lawyers respond with graphic autopsy photos! That would be bitchin'.

The Cigarette comparison is actually apt, because both big tobacco and big firearms market their products irresponsibly.

When your key customer demagraphic is a crazy person like Nancy Lanza, you should honestly expect craziness to result. That's the difference between the Rat Poison manufacturer and the gun manufacturer.

 

[Bfgrn]

The guy was not heckled, NBC edited the tape again. Some of the people in the audience answered the question that he had asked them. This whole thread is based on a BS.

OK Einstein...you edited my OP but you left the source of the OP in your post. Show me where NBC is mentioned in the OP? The OP is not from NBC, it is the Connecticut Post. And there are numerous other publications reporting Neil Heslin was heckled. Hey Einstein, did the chairman of the hearing watch a tape on NBC before he threatened to clear the floor???

There is no low that is too low for the right.

The source of the video is originally NBC... idiot

THE source of the OP is the Connecticut Post. It was one of many who called it heckling.

Was the Chairman of the hearing there in PERSON when he threatened the hecklers he would clear the room, or was he watching TV somewhere in your fairy tale?

 

[martybegan]

No, I don't have to go through that much trouble.

THere are easier ways to fuck with the gun manufacturers and gun owners without amending the constitution.

Start with the manufacturers. Pass a law, anyone KILLED by a gun can sue the shit out of the gun company that made it.

Guarnutee you, they'll start paying attention to who gets their products after that.

Wrong. That would be a violation of the 2nd amendment. It's simply a backdoor attempt to outlaw firearms. If the government outlawed selling newsprint to any newspaper not on its approved list, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. You see, the SC isn't as stupid as you think they are.

It wouldn't even come up to the Supreme Court. Congress passed the immunity law for gunmakers. They can undo it, and probably should.

I'll go one better. Consumer action against companies that own gunmakers in their portfolio. Ask investment f unds to divest themselves of gun stocks. The Cerberus group is already looking to offload Freedomworks, the people who made Lanza's Bushmaster.

Please, guy, stop trying to compare your penis surrogates to real freedoms. It's laughable.

The "penis surrogate" argument is the Godwin's law of the gun control debate. Congratulations, you just lost.

 

[martybegan]

The method used against the cig manufacturers was that they deliberately lied about thier product. Even so I disagree with the lawsuits against them. anyone who couldnt figure out sucking on burning leaves is bad for you is a bit daft.

There is no lying going on with gun manufacturers.Thier products work as intended, as they send a projectile down a metal tube when you pull the trigger.

I would LOVE to see the moment in court when the Douchebag from Freedom Works says, "Our product functioned EXACTLY as designed", and then the lawyer for the parents slaps down graphic autopsy and crime scene photos on the wall of the Jury Well, and said, "You call this 'as intended'? Have you no shame, sir!"

Thats why the law is needed, because people will try to backdoor killing gun rights by going after manufacturer's of guns, even if thier product wasn't malfunctioning. Note that the law explicitly leaves out product malfunctions from the protection.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you believe in your cause so much that you are willing to heckle the father of a slain child, then at least be man enough/woman enough to admit it.

Don't be a coward and try to hide it after you are called on it. If you really believe in your cause, then stand behind it no matter who thinks you're an ass.

 

[martybegan]

If you believe in your cause so much that you are willing to heckle the father of a slain child, then at least be man enough/woman enough to admit it.

Don't be a coward and try to hide it after you are called on it. If you really believe in your cause, then stand behind it no matter who thinks you're an ass.

Heckling is inturrupting someone speech. They were responding to his question, and he was not speaking at the time of the response. It was the moderator that decided the people of his own state had no right to speak in the chamber, a fact I find much more disturbing.

Not Heckling. Here is a hint, when you have the floor and dont want people to respond to you, dont ask a question, turn to face them, and wait there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you believe in your cause so much that you are willing to heckle the father of a slain child, then at least be man enough/woman enough to admit it.

Don't be a coward and try to hide it after you are called on it. If you really believe in your cause, then stand behind it no matter who thinks you're an ass.

Heckling is inturrupting someone speech. They were responding to his question, and he was not speaking at the time of the response. It was the moderator that decided the people of his own state had no right to speak in the chamber, a fact I find much more disturbing.

Not Heckling. Here is a hint, when you have the floor and dont want people to respond to you, dont ask a question, turn to face them, and wait there.

Obviously you are free to attach any label to any observed behavior you would like. I just respect people who have the courage of their convictions a little more.