Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one heckled the father of a slain student. No one. This is a lie started by MSNBC and repeated throughout the rest of the media as though it were true. Here is what really happened: the father made the following comment which was actually in the form of a question:
“I ask if there is anyone who is in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have done of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips?” He then looked to his left where people were seated. He paused, and getting no response he then said, “Not one person can answer the question.”
At this point several people in the room gave a very brief response to the question.
No heckling. None. Just a polite answer to a question which they had been directly asked.
The problem is that MSNBC edited out the father's question, which made it appear like heckling. There is no doubt that MSNBC knowingly misrepresented the facts to smear gun owners.
The actual complete video can be seen at the following link.
MSNBC Caught Selectively Editing Another Clip ? This Time of Sandy Hook Victim?s Father | Video | TheBlaze.com
Now that you have "the rest of the story" you can make your own decisions. I did not hear anything I would classify as heckling. Instead, I felt the father asked a question hoping that no one could possibly answer. He intended to show that the failure to answer his question proved his point that there was no reason for "assault weapons" or high capacity clips. However, he did get an answer, but only after he persisted. The father made the mistake of assuming that everyone agreed with him.
The general rule is this: If you ask someone a question, expect an answer. The father asked the question and got an answer. No heckling.
MSNBC has shown - once again - they will distort the news to advance an agenda.
Nice try, but herein lies your problem: The OP is not from MSNBC, it is a Connecticut Post. And there are numerous other publications reporting Neil Heslin was heckled. As a matter of fact those who shouted were warned by the chairman, who threatened to clear the floor.
There is no low that is too low for the right.
No it was not.That was not my question.
Your question was based on a logical fallacy.
His question was based on the fact that we do not punish innocent people for the crimes of others.
Taking the guns away from people who have not committed any crimes with them is tantamount to punishing RAV4 owners by banning RAV4's because some drunk crashed into a mall and killed 20 kids.
It is not the car, the model of car that is the problem. It is the person driving the car. The same is said for the weapon. It is not the weapon, nor the model of the weapon that is the problem.
It is the person.
The logical fallacy is thinking that simply because a semi-automatic weapon can be modified, that is is some kind of military grade weapon. It is also a fallacy to wish to take away certain models of guns or clips because they look scary.
Banning weapons actually violates two Constitutional Principles. The Second Amendment, which gives us an unlimited right to bear arms, and The Sixth Amendment. If you wish to take My weapons, you must provide proof I have committed a crime, which means I get to face My accuser.
No place in our society?
They have been used to defend livelihoods in California riots, They are used in civilian markmanship contests, they are used to hunt with, they are used to control pests, and they are perfectly legal for any legal gun owner to have and use. The gun that was used in the grade school to kill children was under the control of a madman that killed his mother to get it. We, the legal gun owners, have committed no crimes and don't deserve to be treated like criminals for the actions of a deranged murderer. These guns wouldn't and shouldn't be on the battlefield. They don't have the rapid-fire capabilities of the guns used on the battlefield - they are semi-auto only. If you handicapped our soldiers with these weapons they wouldn't last very long in battle.
I wouldn't call that heckling.
Then again I wouldn't use a dead kid as a prop to pass laws that deny others their rights either.
Rights for what? Please show me exactly where the Constitution gives us the "Right" to own military assualt weapons.
The NRA gun cultists have become the new NAMBLA, demanding their constitutional rights.
Both the NRA and NAMBLA end up harming children.
Both the NRA and NAMBLA read the constitution though a demented keyhole, failing to see how public safety trumps their "rights".
Both the NRA and NAMBLA have creepy leaders.
Both the NRA and NAMBLA promoted themselves on the internet, and their members use the internet to get around law enforcement.
Both the NRA and NAMBLA use the internet to exchange information about how LE is trying to catch them.
Both the NRA and NAMBLA believe they are being unfairly targeted....
Sure, the NRA is better funded than NAMBLA, but hopefully they'll both be nonexistent soon.
"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.
They answered his question.
Yes he is grieving but the point of the meeting was not a support group for victims.
Nobody was heckled, the video clearly shows that fact.No one heckled the father of a slain student. No one. This is a lie started by MSNBC and repeated throughout the rest of the media as though it were true. Here is what really happened: the father made the following comment which was actually in the form of a question:
I ask if there is anyone who is in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have done of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips? He then looked to his left where people were seated. He paused, and getting no response he then said, Not one person can answer the question.
At this point several people in the room gave a very brief response to the question.
No heckling. None. Just a polite answer to a question which they had been directly asked.
The problem is that MSNBC edited out the father's question, which made it appear like heckling. There is no doubt that MSNBC knowingly misrepresented the facts to smear gun owners.
The actual complete video can be seen at the following link.
MSNBC Caught Selectively Editing Another Clip ? This Time of Sandy Hook Victim?s Father | Video | TheBlaze.com
Now that you have "the rest of the story" you can make your own decisions. I did not hear anything I would classify as heckling. Instead, I felt the father asked a question hoping that no one could possibly answer. He intended to show that the failure to answer his question proved his point that there was no reason for "assault weapons" or high capacity clips. However, he did get an answer, but only after he persisted. The father made the mistake of assuming that everyone agreed with him.
The general rule is this: If you ask someone a question, expect an answer. The father asked the question and got an answer. No heckling.
MSNBC has shown - once again - they will distort the news to advance an agenda.
Nice try, but herein lies your problem: The OP is not from MSNBC, it is a Connecticut Post. And there are numerous other publications reporting Neil Heslin was heckled. As a matter of fact those who shouted were warned by the chairman, who threatened to clear the floor.
There is no low that is too low for the right.
Spot on. The father of one of the murdered children in Sandy Hook made one of the more heartfelt and moving speeches I've ever heard. He was just looking for a little bit of sanity, and the right wing nutcases went off on him. It was absoutly disgusting.
The audience was asked a question and they remained respectfully quiet until he made a statement following the question that no one could answer. That is when they decided it was time to answer. There were people who could provide a reason why they would want to own an AR-15. The father's assertion that no one could answer was answered.
This is not a case of heckling - unless it could be said that the father was heckling after he asked the question.
While I can empathize with his loss and resulting grief I think he asked for a confrontation on the point of his question. He also said that the mental health system needed to be strengthened but because of his loss he wanted to find something or someone to blame for his loss. He chose the gun rather than the person who used it.
My guns have not killed anyone and neither have I, I am not the one to punish for the killer's actions.
You right wing turds are the embodiment of victim-hood. The weapon used in this massacre has no place in our communities...NONE. They belong strictly on the battlefield.
The audience was asked a question and they remained respectfully quiet until he made a statement following the question that no one could answer. That is when they decided it was time to answer. There were people who could provide a reason why they would want to own an AR-15. The father's assertion that no one could answer was answered.
This is not a case of heckling - unless it could be said that the father was heckling after he asked the question.
While I can empathize with his loss and resulting grief I think he asked for a confrontation on the point of his question. He also said that the mental health system needed to be strengthened but because of his loss he wanted to find something or someone to blame for his loss. He chose the gun rather than the person who used it.
My guns have not killed anyone and neither have I, I am not the one to punish for the killer's actions.
You right wing turds are the embodiment of victim-hood. The weapon used in this massacre has no place in our communities...NONE. They belong strictly on the battlefield.
OK I'm going to do this again and I am going to ask the same question as I have before.
This Ruger Mini14 Rifle
Is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round
This AR 15
Is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round
Both weapons fire the same round at the same rate.
Tell me what is the difference other than cosmetics and why one should be banned and not the other.
We have a cancer in this country, and they are armed.
Neil Heslin, father of 6-year-old Newtown shooting victim Jesse Lewis, was heckled at the Connecticut State Legislature as he testified Tuesday in hearings on the aftermath of the Newtown massacre. Gun enthusiasts shouted the Second Amendment! several times while Heslin, holding a picture of his son, wondered why Bushmaster assault-style weapons such as the one shooter Adam Lanza used should be sold in the state. There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened, Heslin said. Around 1,500 peopleboth pro-gun and anti, who all had to pass through metal detectorsattended the hearings at the Connecticut capitol under heightened security. Hundreds testified, with one lawyer insisting the local and national debate has been co-opted by the anti-gun agenda.
Read it at Connecticut Post
January 29, 2013 7:05 AM
You right wing turds are the embodiment of victim-hood. The weapon used in this massacre has no place in our communities...NONE. They belong strictly on the battlefield.
OK I'm going to do this again and I am going to ask the same question as I have before.
This Ruger Mini14 Rifle
Is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round
This AR 15
Is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round
Both weapons fire the same round at the same rate.
Tell me what is the difference other than cosmetics and why one should be banned and not the other.
Here is what I would do. I wouldn't ban specific weapons.
We found with the last assault weapons ban, gun manufacturers and many dealers have no intention of following the spirit of the law. Manufacturers just created new weapons with barrels that were a few millimeters shorter or were "sporterizing" a rifle by removing its pistol grip and replacing it with a thumb hole in the stock to undermine the law. And they boosted production just before the ban took effect to generate large profits. Dealers moved banned weapons through "off-the-books" sales that were falsely reported to insurance companies and government officials as thefts.
So for a ban to be effective, your Ruger Mini14 and the AR 15 would have to be included in the same category.
I would focus a ban on clip size for all weapons and ammunition.
I wouldn't call that heckling.
Then again I wouldn't use a dead kid as a prop to pass laws that deny others their rights either.
We have a cancer in this country, and they are armed.
How many Cindy Sheehans will the left prop up so they can force their agenda down our throats?
I wouldn't call that heckling.
Then again I wouldn't use a dead kid as a prop to pass laws that deny others their rights either.
No, you'd tried to pretend that dead kids are less important than your ability to own something you shouldn't have.
there's no good reason for you to have a gun.
How many Cindy Sheehans will the left prop up so they can force their agenda down our throats?
Depends.
How many dead children are the result of stupid policies.
These kids are dead because the gun industry wants to sell as many guns as humanly possible, with no regard to who eventually ends up with these guns and what is done with them.
A much simpler solution. Make the gun sellers and gun makers legally liable for every person killed by one of their products.
Betcha they get a LOT more selective about who buys their product after that.
Our right to snuggle our living children outweights your right to snuggle a mankiller of a gun.
fist meet face
The mere act of owning a weapon is not threatening anyone.
It's the USE of the weapon just as it is the USE of a fist.
Maybe we should cut off everyone's hands before they can punch someone.
So we make Ford responsible for any person killed by a drunk driver?
Those kids are dead because some nut KILLED HIS MOM and stole her guns.
I wouldn't call that heckling.
Then again I wouldn't use a dead kid as a prop to pass laws that deny others their rights either.
No, you'd tried to pretend that dead kids are less important than your ability to own something you shouldn't have.
there's no good reason for you to have a gun.
There is no good reason for you to be able to redress your grievences to the government. Shh be quiet, the government knows whats good for you...
There is no good reason for the police to need a warrant to search your house. One can always trust the authorities to do the right thing
There is no good reason for trial by jury. After all, any judge is more than competent enough to decide your fate at a trial..
I wouldn't call that heckling.
Then again I wouldn't use a dead kid as a prop to pass laws that deny others their rights either.
No, you'd tried to pretend that dead kids are less important than your ability to own something you shouldn't have.
there's no good reason for you to have a gun.
