Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

Sativa said:
all i heard was second amendment....further, do you deny that it says shall not be infringed and that well regulated refers to the militia?

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.
Click to expand...

nra-diff-rince_n.jpg
 
Damocles said:
It wouldn't, just like banning murder doesn't stop those but I would support a law against murder regardless.

Things that are banned that people still do would include drugs, theft, murder, speeding, driving without insurance... we weigh the value to society of what is being banned, then make decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.

One main difference between your idea and reality, in order to ban guns you are going to need to pass a constitutional amendment to do it and it isn't likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
When you want to discuss reality, stop talking about banning guns. Nobody is calling for that.
 
Althea said:
If people want to defend their home, go for it. There's no need to carry assault weapons in public.

Given your love for the 1700's, are you willing to go back to that era for punishments for robbery, assault, or murder with a gun?
Click to expand...

over react much?

just curious, but who is saying people should openly carry these in public?
 
Howey said:
What fucking pigs. What would they do if their child were gunned down by the crazy son of a NRA gun nut?



Wha???


Huh???
Click to expand...

Pigs? and now the kid that did the shooting was an NRA gun nut......Howey, the Scumbag's lies are getting to numerous even for me correct in a timely manner....

Typical of pinheads and lying MSNBC.....

The fact is, there was no heckling or disrespect shown to the father of the child victim....none....

The fact is, the father, in his statement, ASKED if anyone in the room could tell him why people thought it was ok for them to own 'assault type weapons' and large capacity magazines.....(that is the gist of the his question and not a direct quote)

A few moments after he finished this question, a few people in the room spoke up in an attempt to answer his DIRECT QUESTION TO THEM....no shouting, no disrespect, no yelling, no long winded bullshit from the audience ...

Thats the part you didn't hear ON ANY of the networks EXCEPT FOX....the question.....the pertinent part of the entire exchange....
They conveniently cut the question the father asked from all the coverage....so you didn't realized the voices in the audience were in direct response to the fathers
question.....

As for the mentally disturbed killer....he certainly had no connection to the NRA in any way at all.......none, nada, zilch, zero....nor did his mother.


PS...ok Thingy1...you can attack me now....ignore the post, and have at it......AND Dude, don't forget the groan........lmao
 
Superfreak said:
and yes... I do admit I was wrong on why he used that photo. He was clearly not a anti gun nut with an agenda, but a grieving father. A father being used by the anti gun nuts.
Click to expand...

He will become the new Cindy Sheehan; for as long as the left NEEDS him and then like Cindy, he'll fade into the past.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, the point initially was that these rich elite politico fat cats had armed guard for their kids at their school but didn't want the same for your kids at your school, which then devolved into some asininity about Secret Service protection for the President's children.

And, no, I don't think it reasonable or necessary to have Secret Service protection for all of our children. My kids don't need to be "hardened targets."
Click to expand...

So you would rather let them be "soft targets".
 
i really don't see the argument comparing the president's kids to ordinary citizens kids. if you want to use that argument, then shouldn't we all get SS protection? do we really want the president's children to be kidnapped? the argument is silly against giving the president's family SS protection. imagine the dilemma....
 
I haven't followed this thread. Has it already been mentioned that this story turned out to be false and the guy wasn't shouted down?
 
cawacko said:
I haven't followed this thread. Has it already been mentioned that this story turned out to be false and the guy wasn't shouted down?
Click to expand...

NO - Liberals are still wearing their sack cloth and ashes and claiming that he was disrespected.
If no one had said anything, when he asked the second time, the fucking loony left would now be saying he was disrespected; because no one responded.
 
Althea said:
When you want to discuss reality, stop talking about banning guns. Nobody is calling for that.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Somebody in this very thread said "Take all the guns away, you don't need them for hunting"... blah, blah... right after they said that because I value the lives of children, and believe them to be important enough to act to protect, that I was resentful of those who have protection for their children. Utter nonsense and wishful blather, easier to hate people when you can attempt to dehumanize them by making their motives "evil".

Anyway, it is the goal of some to take all the guns away, which is why I made a point of pointing out the necessity of Amending the constitution if they want it to happen.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Darla-----><----Grind

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither” Thomas Jefferson

Seen on the internet ~ I carry a gun; because a cop is to heavy.
Click to expand...

This is really funny,good, and true!

Damn, Darla and Grind didn't come out right!!!!!!:mad:
 
Althea said:
Says nothing about carrying assault weapons in public. Carry a musket if you want.
Click to expand...

I don't know when the last time I saw someone carrying an assault weapon in public. Defined I mean let's say down the street, or in a mall, or something like that.

Maybe the police, but not the average joe.

What's your logic here?

That's like saying, "the constitution doesn't say you can't buy ice cream from a store."
 
Sativa said:
i really don't see the argument comparing the president's kids to ordinary citizens kids. if you want to use that argument, then shouldn't we all get SS protection? do we really want the president's children to be kidnapped? the argument is silly against giving the president's family SS protection. imagine the dilemma....
Click to expand...

Your "boggle" grows from the fact that you think that is what the "argument" is. My point isn't that we should have the "same" I only point out their protection as active and that they get active protection because it is effective. If signs and locked doors were as effective that is what they would get.

Nobody suggests we should all get Secret Service protection, just that putting up signs and locking the doors isn't good enough for something we should certainly consider important. Shouldn't they be considered at least as important as our money, which we protect with armed guards?
 
cawacko said:
I haven't followed this thread. Has it already been mentioned that this story turned out to be false and the guy wasn't shouted down?
Click to expand...

Yes, right wing hacks like Hannity have tried to dismiss the facts. Can you tell me why there are numerous publications reporting Neil Heslin was heckled? Did the chairman of the hearing watch a tape on MSNBC before he decided it was heckling and threatened to clear the floor???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top