Father of Newtown Victim Heckled

[USFREEDOM911]

Let's just agree to this. Heslin may or may not have been heckled, but the NRA supporters disrespected his testimony and his dead son.

If you want to go that route, then he is the one who disrespected his own testimony and the memory of his dead son; because he's the one WHO TURNED AND ASKED THE GALLERY A DIRECT QUESTION.
He wanted an answer, he got one, end of story.

 

[Bfgrn]

So you are going to continue touting the original bullshit, despite the fact that everyone has watched the entire video and in general (save a few left wing nuts) come to the conclusion that no heckling occurred?

No one 'chanted' anything. Several people answered his question the second time around. How many lies are you going to tell?

The only ignorance being displayed is coming from you.

They did not give an answer, no matter how many times you parrot their absolutist chant. If you don't like the word 'heckled', then choose another word for wrong, inappropriate, mindless, chant, dogma etc...

Here is someone who came across the story the same way I did. He saw the CT Post article. His observations are pretty much in line with mine.

The Newtown Heckling Controversy
by David Frum Jan 30, 2013 5:19 AM EST

Here's what I saw:

I saw a father anguished by grief. He spoke at length, then posed a challenge to the people in the room. (I'm paraphrasing here) Why would anyone need an assault-style rifle anyway? There was a pause, and Heslin concluded that nobody did. That comment provoked the advocates, some number of whom began to shout "the Second Amendment" and to quote the amendment's text. At this, a look of pain crossed Heslin's face. It's very visible. The moderator ordered the gun advocates to be silent during Heslin's testimony, or else they'd be cleared from the room. Heslin finished without further interruption.

So what to think?

It's pretty hard for me to imagine anything that would make me shout across the room at a father who'd lost his son, no matter how much I disagreed with his reaction to that loss. There are lots of ways to express disagreement, and in such a case the best ways all begin with an expression of sympathy and condolence.

By that time, my Twitter feed had filled with many dozens of messages- maybe more - from people accusing me of "lying" by reproducing the CTPost headline. The common theme: Heslin wasn't heckled, because the people shouting at him were answering a question he himself had posed.

Some added the thought that the father was "fair game."

Many others hurled the word "liar" at those - like me - who had used the wording of the reporter present in the room.

By now there are many hundreds of these tweets, varying from vehement to vituperative, from accusatory to abusive.

I posted three replies:

First - (This was a reaction to the tweets on the "fair game" theme.)

Good God, there are people in my Twitter feed *condoning* the heckling of a grieving Newtown dad. How can they??

Second - (This was a reaction to the parsing of the word "heckling")

Hint: if the moderator of a public meeting says you will be cleared from room if you don't shut up, you are heckling

And this - well that one is self-explanatory.

It wasn't heckling, you see, because grieving Newtown dad was "asking for it."

Yet it remains most fundamentally true: people in that room interpreted their gun advocacy as license to shout at a grieving father. Whether you call it "heckling" or something else, it's just wrong. And the impulse to parse, excuse, condone that we saw in blogs and on Twitter afterward was very nearly equally wrong: a substitution of ideology for basic human sympathy.

When you write in the rapid media of the digital age, it's inevitable that you will make mistakes. "Heckling" was not the exact word to describe what happened in this case, and I made a mistake in repeating it.

However, that mistake is not the only - or most significant one - to occur in the public debate over this incident in Hartford.

There were gun advocates in that room who waited for their turn to be heard and who refrained from confronting a grieving man. A few did otherwise. They did wrong, and whether you call that wrong "heckling" or something else does not alter its wrongness.

And those in the wider public who use the new media of blogs and Twitter to condone and justify the people who shouted at Neil Heslin - those who'd represent the shouters as the true victims of the encounter - those who suggest that the most important part of the Newtown story is one more tedious replay of the debate over "media bias" - they do very nearly as wrong.

more

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Huh. David Frum is a prominent conservative. I will be interested in reading about how he has a brain tumor that turned him into a liberal liar or something.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

he ASKED the audience TWICE and they answered him after the second time

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They did not give an answer, no matter how many times you parrot their absolutist chant. If you don't like the word 'heckled', then choose another word for wrong, inappropriate, mindless, chant, dogma etc...

Here is someone who came across the story the same way I did. He saw the CT Post article. His observations are pretty much in line with mine.

The Newtown Heckling Controversy
by David Frum Jan 30, 2013 5:19 AM EST

Here's what I saw:

I saw a father anguished by grief. He spoke at length, then posed a challenge to the people in the room. (I'm paraphrasing here) Why would anyone need an assault-style rifle anyway? There was a pause, and Heslin concluded that nobody did. That comment provoked the advocates, some number of whom began to shout "the Second Amendment" and to quote the amendment's text. At this, a look of pain crossed Heslin's face. It's very visible. The moderator ordered the gun advocates to be silent during Heslin's testimony, or else they'd be cleared from the room. Heslin finished without further interruption.

So what to think?

It's pretty hard for me to imagine anything that would make me shout across the room at a father who'd lost his son, no matter how much I disagreed with his reaction to that loss. There are lots of ways to express disagreement, and in such a case the best ways all begin with an expression of sympathy and condolence.

By that time, my Twitter feed had filled with many dozens of messages- maybe more - from people accusing me of "lying" by reproducing the CTPost headline. The common theme: Heslin wasn't heckled, because the people shouting at him were answering a question he himself had posed.

Some added the thought that the father was "fair game."

Many others hurled the word "liar" at those - like me - who had used the wording of the reporter present in the room.

By now there are many hundreds of these tweets, varying from vehement to vituperative, from accusatory to abusive.

I posted three replies:

First - (This was a reaction to the tweets on the "fair game" theme.)

Good God, there are people in my Twitter feed *condoning* the heckling of a grieving Newtown dad. How can they??

Second - (This was a reaction to the parsing of the word "heckling")

Hint: if the moderator of a public meeting says you will be cleared from room if you don't shut up, you are heckling

And this - well that one is self-explanatory.

It wasn't heckling, you see, because grieving Newtown dad was "asking for it."

Yet it remains most fundamentally true: people in that room interpreted their gun advocacy as license to shout at a grieving father. Whether you call it "heckling" or something else, it's just wrong. And the impulse to parse, excuse, condone that we saw in blogs and on Twitter afterward was very nearly equally wrong: a substitution of ideology for basic human sympathy.

When you write in the rapid media of the digital age, it's inevitable that you will make mistakes. "Heckling" was not the exact word to describe what happened in this case, and I made a mistake in repeating it.

However, that mistake is not the only - or most significant one - to occur in the public debate over this incident in Hartford.

There were gun advocates in that room who waited for their turn to be heard and who refrained from confronting a grieving man. A few did otherwise. They did wrong, and whether you call that wrong "heckling" or something else does not alter its wrongness.

And those in the wider public who use the new media of blogs and Twitter to condone and justify the people who shouted at Neil Heslin - those who'd represent the shouters as the true victims of the encounter - those who suggest that the most important part of the Newtown story is one more tedious replay of the debate over "media bias" - they do very nearly as wrong.

more

And you can parse words, as much as you want to; but he was not heckled or anything else, but answered.
He asked the question and no one said anything, he then turned to the crowd and asked a question and this time he received an answer; with no "yelling", "screaming", or any other lie you want to try and throw into the mix.

On the other foot, if no one had said anything; then I can see the left taking the other road, puffing out their chests, and saying "SEE, the cowards can't even answer a simple question".
Therefore: Take your lies and fuck off.

 

[Bfgrn]

And you can parse words, as much as you want to; but he was not heckled or anything else, but answered.
He asked the question and no one said anything, he then turned to the crowd and asked a question and this time he received an answer; with no "yelling", "screaming", or any other lie you want to try and throw into the mix.

On the other foot, if no one had said anything; then I can see the left taking the other road, puffing out their chests, and saying "SEE, the cowards can't even answer a simple question".
Therefore: Take your lies and fuck off.

It was not an answer, no matter how many times you ignorant gun lickers continue to chant it. It was a statement of absolutist dogma. It did not answer WHY anyone needs a Bushmaster. because the 2nd amendment is not an absolute. Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

But thank you for stating the current right wing whine of victimhood...the poor wittle gun lickers are the real victims here, not the father of a 6 year old boy who was brutally murdered by a Bushmaster.

Here is a news flash for you right wing cretins...Neil Heslin does not decide.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It was not an answer, no matter how many times you ignorant gun lickers continue to chant it. It was a statement of absolutist dogma. It did not answer WHY anyone needs a Bushmaster. because the 2nd amendment is not an absolute. Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

But thank you for stating the current right wing whine of victimhood...the poor wittle gun lickers are the real victims here, not the father of a 6 year old boy who was brutally murdered by a Bushmaster.

Here is a news flash for you right wing cretins...Neil Heslin does not decide.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

And you can stand on the bodies of those dead children and tell as many lies as you can; but doing so, does not make your lies the thruth.
Since when does it have to be a "need" and instead it just is.
But then; those who can only think with their "feelings" try to justify everything with "needs".
Why does anyone need a car that can go 80 mph?
Why does anyone need a 4 bedroom house?
Why does anyone need to listen the lies the left wing spew forth?

 

[Bfgrn]

And you can stand on the bodies of those dead children and tell as many lies as you can; but doing so, does not make your lies the thruth.
Since when does it have to be a "need" and instead it just is.
But then; those who can only think with their "feelings" try to justify everything with "needs".
Why does anyone need a car that can go 80 mph?
Why does anyone need a 4 bedroom house?
Why does anyone need to listen the lies the left wing spew forth?

Way to go cretin, another prime example of what the right is all about...victimhood. The real victims are not parents like Neil Heslin. They an just obstacles that needs to be steamrolled.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[Althea]

They did not give an answer, no matter how many times you parrot their absolutist chant. If you don't like the word 'heckled', then choose another word for wrong, inappropriate, mindless, chant, dogma etc...

Here is someone who came across the story the same way I did. He saw the CT Post article. His observations are pretty much in line with mine.

The Newtown Heckling Controversy
by David Frum Jan 30, 2013 5:19 AM EST

Here's what I saw:

I saw a father anguished by grief. He spoke at length, then posed a challenge to the people in the room. (I'm paraphrasing here) Why would anyone need an assault-style rifle anyway? There was a pause, and Heslin concluded that nobody did. That comment provoked the advocates, some number of whom began to shout "the Second Amendment" and to quote the amendment's text. At this, a look of pain crossed Heslin's face. It's very visible. The moderator ordered the gun advocates to be silent during Heslin's testimony, or else they'd be cleared from the room. Heslin finished without further interruption.

Incorrect. He didn't 'conclude' that nobody needed an assault rifle. He concluded that nobody could answer his question.

And then the morons chose to answer.

Why are you offerering someone else's skewed description of a video that's available for us to view ourselves?

 

[Bfgrn]

Incorrect. He didn't 'conclude' that nobody needed an assault rifle. He concluded that nobody could answer his question.

And then the morons chose to answer.

Why are you offerering someone else's skewed description of a video that's available for us to view ourselves?

His description is close to mine. What is 'skewed about it?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Way to go cretin, another prime example of what the right is all about...victimhood. The real victims are not parents like Neil Heslin. They an just obstacles that needs to be steamrolled.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

It's a shame that you have now found it necessary to continue be insulting, for the 2nd or 3rd time; but then, it's to be expected when someone allows feelings to control their thinking.

I never mentioned victimhood, that was you.

He made a comment and then asked a SPECIFIC question. It was answered and the liberals have lied about it, by saying he was "heckled" and that the responses were "aggressive".

I find it amazing how liberals have no problem in trying to destroy what others choose to be involved in, while they try to make it appear that they are protecting something else.

Liberal hypocrisy evidently knows no bounds.

 

[signalmankenneth]

 

[Bfgrn]

It's a shame that you have now found it necessary to continue be insulting, for the 2nd or 3rd time; but then, it's to be expected when someone allows feelings to control their thinking.

I never mentioned victimhood, that was you.

He made a comment and then asked a SPECIFIC question. It was answered and the liberals have lied about it, by saying he was "heckled" and that the responses were "aggressive".

I find it amazing how liberals have no problem in trying to destroy what others choose to be involved in, while they try to make it appear that they are protecting something else.

Liberal hypocrisy evidently knows no bounds.

Insulting? Really?? Can there be a more egregious insult than accusing people of standing on the bodies of those dead children? Was Neil Heslin standing on the bodies of those dead children too???

No one answered his question. They hurled absolutist dogma at a father who had the courage to testify. The hecklers could have used the proper avenue at that hearing to state their views, like Mr. Heslin did. He was SILENT when gun advocates spoke. But the hecklers would have no part of following proper procedure, because THEY were the victims here, not the father of a murdered son. If you don't like the word heckler, then find another word or phrase for WRONG.

As I said before, backed by the right wing robes; the second amendment is NOT an absolute. There are weapons that are banned under the second amendment as dangerous and unusual weapons. In 2008, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER held: support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. The Bushmaster and it's ilk have proven they too should be banned, not by how they look, but by the human carnage they have inflicted on children like Mr. Heslin's son. There is no 'need' for assault weapons in our society. No one answered the man's question.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Insulting? Really?? Can there be a more egregious insult than accusing people of standing on the bodies of those dead children? Was Neil Heslin standing on the bodies of those dead children too???

No one answered his question. They hurled absolutist dogma at a father who had the courage to testify. The hecklers could have used the proper avenue at that hearing to state their views, like Mr. Heslin did. He was SILENT when gun advocates spoke. But the hecklers would have no part of following proper procedure, because THEY were the victims here, not the father of a murdered son. If you don't like the word heckler, then find another word or phrase for WRONG.

As I said before, backed by the right wing robes; the second amendment is NOT an absolute. There are weapons that are banned under the second amendment as dangerous and unusual weapons. In 2008, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER held: support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. The Bushmaster and it's ilk have proven they too should be banned, not by how they look, but by the human carnage they have inflicted on children like Mr. Heslin's son. There is no 'need' for assault weapons in our society. No one answered the man's question.

So it doesn't bother you, when liberals stand on the dead bodies of children; to promote their dogma.

And yes they did answer his question; but at least you've finally dropped the idea that he wasn't asking a question.

Did a "gun advocate" ask him a question?
I take it that the answer to that is "NO".
But he did ask the gallery one and you've admitted that he did.

He asked and got an answer; just because you don't agree, doesn't change the facts.

Gee; first it was "heckled", then the answers were "aggressive" and now they were "hurled".
Please let everyone know, when your heart is repaired and it's no longer bleeding all over the truth.

There are more children killed every year by automobiles and yet, none of the hypocritical liberals so much as whimper about those losses.
I wonder why that is. (rhetorical)

By the way, that different word would be hypocriticaliberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

So it doesn't bother you, when liberals stand on the dead bodies of children; to promote their dogma.

And yes they did answer his question; but at least you've finally dropped the idea that he wasn't asking a question.

Did a "gun advocate" ask him a question?
I take it that the answer to that is "NO".
But he did ask the gallery one and you've admitted that he did.

He asked and got an answer; just because you don't agree, doesn't change the facts.

Gee; first it was "heckled", then the answers were "aggressive" and now they were "hurled".
Please let everyone know, when your heart is repaired and it's no longer bleeding all over the truth.

There are more children killed every year by automobiles and yet, none of the hypocritical liberals so much as whimper about those losses.
I wonder why that is. (rhetorical)

By the way, that different word would be hypocriticaliberal.

Did Neil Heslin stand on the dead bodies of children; to promote his dogma?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Did Neil Heslin stand on the dead bodies of children; to promote his dogma?

Is that how you feel?
And here I thought this discussion was about the hypocritical liberals and how they are they ones trying to reach the high ground, by standing on a pyre of very small coffins.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is that how you feel?
And here I thought this discussion was about the hypocritical liberals and how they are they ones trying to reach the high ground, by standing on a pyre of very small coffins.

YOU are the one who mentioned standing on the dead bodies of children, not me. Is it the tactic of right wing cretins to see just how barbaric and evil you people can be? Is it some sort of 'macho' thing?

It is apparent to any mature and reasonable adult that it just reveals the fear and insecurity of right wingers. This whole gun debate has revealed just how UN-American, fear infested and self centered you people are. As a Christian, I learned about the Holy Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The conservative trinity is Me, Myself and I.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Did Neil Heslin stand on the dead bodies of children; to promote his dogma?

No, but people like you are doing so. Pretending that something happened that didn't in order to vilify your opponent. You are using the deaths of those children to further a political agenda.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

YOU are the one who mentioned standing on the dead bodies of children, not me. Is it the tactic of right wing cretins to see just how barbaric and evil you people can be? Is it some sort of 'macho' thing?

It is apparent to any mature and reasonable adult that it just reveals the fear and insecurity of right wingers. This whole gun debate has revealed just how UN-American, fear infested and self centered you people are. As a Christian, I learned about the Holy Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The conservative trinity is Me, Myself and I.

The above is quite comical given it is you that is trying to invoke emotion into the situation. Pretending it was 'heckling', then 'agressive', also 'gun nuts establishing an environment of fear and hostility' (paraphrasing)... you are simply trying to blow this into something that it wasn't in order to further YOUR political agenda. Meaning you only care about YOU and what YOU want.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

YOU are the one who mentioned standing on the dead bodies of children, not me. Is it the tactic of right wing cretins to see just how barbaric and evil you people can be? Is it some sort of 'macho' thing?

It is apparent to any mature and reasonable adult that it just reveals the fear and insecurity of right wingers. This whole gun debate has revealed just how UN-American, fear infested and self centered you people are. As a Christian, I learned about the Holy Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The conservative trinity is Me, Myself and I.

Liberals are the ones who have decided to use those deaths, to persue their agenda.
Liberals are the ones who have decided to ignore the numbers of deaths' in Chicago.
Liberals are the ones who have decided to try and make their hypocrisy appear to be the truth.
Just make sure that climb off that pyre you've built, out of those 20 small coffins; before you set fire to it.