29 Jan

Outrageous: How the left-wing media lied about Newtown ‘hecklers’

Twitchy:

National and international media are up in arms today over the story of Neil Heslin, father of slain Sandy Hook student Jesse Lewis, being heckled yesterday during a Connecticut legislative meeting. During his testimony, in which he called for stricter gun control measures, Heslin was reportedly interrupted by shouts from Second Amendment activists:

“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.

Prominent gun control advocates took to Twitter to draw attention to the incident:

And liberal social media outlets are just appalled:

Except none of it was true

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

67 Responses to Outrageous: How the left-wing media lied about Newtown ‘hecklers’

  1. Greg says: 1

    Neil Heslin’s full testimony

    I wouldn’t characterize the comments at minute 13:30 as heckling, but I don’t believe they address the question that Neil Heslin has just posed, either. They would better have been made at some other point during the hearing, out of respect for the man’s loss. The guy seems pretty much devastated.

    ReplyReply
  2. Smorgasbord says: 2

    Sometimes even good people can go bad.

    ReplyReply
  3. SPURWING PLOVER says: 3

    A-MESS-NBC the peacock needs its lying neck wrung

    ReplyReply
  4. Aye says: 4

    @Greg:

    They would better have been made at some other point during the hearing, out of respect for the man’s loss.

    So…in the dank recesses of your cranium you’ve arrived at the conclusion that actually answering the question posed…when it was posed… was somehow inappropriate or disrespectful?

    Sheer idiocy.

    Exit question: Did Rosa Parks need to ride at the front of that bus?

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    @Aye, #4:

    The question Mr. Heslin posed was why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons, or high-capacity clips. Silence followed. When he commented Not one person can answer that question, several voices started yapping about the Second Amendment.

    That wasn’t an answer.

    The general public doesn’t need fully automatic machine guns, whatever the Second Amendment might say. Most people understand that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t equate to a total lack of restrictions. The issue of the day has to do with what restrictions are rational and in the best interests of the nation and the public.

    I thought Mr. Heslin’s response was amazingly quiet and measured, given the circumstances.

    The fundamental right of people to be treated equally and respectfully regardless of their race has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the general public should have an unrestricted right to possess and carry semi-automatic weapons.

    ReplyReply
  6. Aye says: 6

    @Greg:

    …several voices started yapping about the Second Amendment.

    And therein lies the rub for you libtards. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It’s really simple. Even for you.

    And it’s a real hoot to read your scribblings wherein you try and tell my why the 2A was written. That’s a real hoot.

    The 2A is not a matter where you, or anyone else, gets to decide what I “need”. You get to decide that for yourself and those you’re the parent or guardian of. You don’t get to decide that for me.

    As long as police departments and SWAT teams and the US Secret Service feel they “need” to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons then I need to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons as well. Those law enforcement organizations are, after all, making themselves prepared to confront the very same criminal elements that I, as an ordinary citizen, need to be prepared to confront.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled that police departments have NO obligation to protect me. That obligation falls solely on me.

    Why are you libtards so determined to prevent me or my family from being prepared and protected?

    Why are you so determined to deprive me of my basic right of self-defense?

    More people die every year from knives than from long guns. Are you prepared to ban the possession of knives as well?

    It never ceases to amaze me to watch you loonz on the left attempt to pick and choose which inalienable rights you wish for others to have or not have. I guess the whole concept of inalienable just sails right over your pointy little heads.

    And, yes, the question I posed to you regarding the bus seat has everything to do with this discussion no matter how much you may wish to weasel around to avoid the issue because, you see, if one set of rights is guaranteed, then they all are. There is no “shall not be infringed” proviso associated with being able to ride at the front of a bus yet there would be squealing to the high heavens if someone attempted to make the case that the right to seat selection is not “needed”.

    ReplyReply
  7. Greg says: 7

    @Aye, #6:

    And therein lies the rub for you libtards. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It’s really simple. Even for you.

    As I’ve observed before, no fundamental Constitutional right is absolute in the real world. They’re statements of fundamental principles—pure statements of our highest ideals—which provide a bedrock foundation on which a more complex and nuanced body of law and regulation applicable to the complexities of the real world are built.

    You can easily test this assertion by assuming that any fundamental Constitutional right actually is an inviolable absolute, and then imagining what absurdities might follow from such an assumption.

    For example, assume that 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 confers an absolute right, subject to no restriction or limitation of any kind. It would follow that I—as a private citizen—have a fundamental right to own a portable heat-seeking missile launcher, which I could transport in my car to the immediate vicinity of any commercial airport.

    This conclusion is absurd. Obviously the right to bear arms should not be considered an absolute right. It, like all rights, is and should be subject to the rational, real world restrictions that serve to make that right something that actually has a real world application. In the absence of any refining law and regulation, no right can long exist in reality.

    ReplyReply
  8. Aye says: 8

    @Greg:

    SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

    Four simple words.

    Which one is confusing to you?

    And if you don’t feel that you can be trusted with a portable heat-seeking missile launcher then you are more than welcome to deny yourself the opportunity to own such a piece of weaponry.

    However, just because you don’t trust yourself to own it, doesn’t mean that you get to decide that I am not trustworthy enough to own one.

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 9

    I’m quite happy with a Second Amendment restriction that effectively denies ownership of portable ground-to-air missile launchers to virtually everyone.

    Like I said, rights cannot exist in the real world without the understanding that they each have rational limitations—assuming that we also want the continuing existence of a relatively safe and orderly society.

    I don’t think arguing in favor of an unrestricted right to bear arms protects my real world right to possess a firearm that’s actually consistent with my real world needs. It only makes firearm advocates look like extremists.

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 10

    @Greg:

    shall not be infringed

    Since there is no unless following that statement, outlining exceptions, it seems pretty absolute to those who voted on the Second Amendment.

    It would follow that I—as a private citizen—have a fundamental right to own a portable heat-seeking missile launcher, which I could transport in my car to the immediate vicinity of any commercial airport.

    You want to use this as an example of how the possession of a firearm can be limited. Obviously, history is not your forte. So let me give you a little history lesson, since your expertise seems to be grammer only:

    In the late 1700’s, the cannon was the equivilant to the heat seeking missile. There was a no more powerful weapon. The battles at Concord and Lexington were fought because the British learned that the Patriots were in possession of, wait for it, a cannon, along with other munitions. It was the intent of the British to remove from the Patriots those weapons to prevent them from using them against the British.

    Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility, but there are groups that can, including the very Mexican drug cartels that were armed by the current administration, which you support.

    So why did the authors of the U.S. Constitution give so much importance to the right to bear (own) arms that it was the second item they agreed upon, coming only after your right to free speech and to worship as you choose? Because they understood, which you seem not to, that the only ability citizens have to maintain their right to free speech and to worship as they choose, was only protected against tyrants by the right to arm themselves. Dictators, who suspend free speech can only maintain that suspension if they disarm the populace.

    You, like all liberals, seem to think that if you create even more laws regarding the owning of firearms, you will reduce crime by firearms. It will not work, has never worked, and not ONE proposal put out by the left will do anything to prevent firearm crime. It will only disarm the law abiding, which seems to be your entire purpose. A disarmed populace is also a compliant populace.

    ReplyReply
  11. Aye says: 11

    @Greg:

    …rights cannot exist in the real world without the understanding that they each have rational limitations…

    I don’t think arguing in favor of an unrestricted right to bear arms protects my real world right to possess a firearm that’s actually consistent with my real world needs.

    You can only have rights by restricting rights?

    Protecting broad, unrestricted rights doesn’t protect the rights of those who wish to exercise those same rights in a more narrow fashion?

    Your arguments, as quoted above, are undoubtedly the two dumbest things I’ve read on the Interwebz this month.

    Congratulations on that.

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 12

    @retire05, #10:

    Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility. . .

    Interesting assumption. Actually, a Rayethon Missile Systems Stinger missile and launcher system has a unit price of around $38,000 US. A quick calculation suggests I could write out a check for 8 and have money left over to pick up another using my available credit balance. That would still leave gas money to get myself to O’Hare, and my hypothetical 8 lunatic buddies to 8 other major airports.

    I guess it’s lucky that I’m not crazy and that I don’t have 8 lunatic friends. If I were a high-functioning psycho—which I don’t suspect are all that rare, given what I see on the national and international news from time to time—there would still be that pesky business of rational Second Amendment restrictions to make the entire enterprise far more difficult.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 13

    @Greg:

    a Rayethon Missile Systems Stinger missile and launcher system has a unit price of around $38,000 US. A quick calculation suggests I could write out a check for 8 and have money left over to pick up another using my available credit balance.

    Unless you are willing to post your bank statement for all to see, your mouth is writing a check your ass can’t cover. So, which is it? Are you willing to back up that claim, or do you wish to retract it?

    I guess it’s lucky that I’m not crazy and that I don’t have 8 lunatic friends.

    So we get more of your opinion? Now, I’m sure that there are others who would tend to believe that you are, in fact, crazy and since people tend to associate with the like minded, I have no doubt your friends are just as crazy as you are.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 14

    @Aye, #11:

    You can only have rights by restricting rights?

    Though it sounds paradoxical, I believe this to be true. Allowing a freedom to be exercised to the fullest imaginable extent tends to destroy that freedom altogether, because the real world consequences of the absolute become so unacceptable. The right for private citizens to own a Stinger missile system would become an obvious problem the first time a commercial jet got an engine knocked off on takeoff.

    By limiting the absolute of a fundamental right to some reasonable degree, it remains reasonable for that right to actually be routinely exercised in the real world.

    I honestly don’t see what’s dumb about this line of thought. To me it seems as if there’s a self-evident quality about it. I assume the founding fathers took it for granted that people would automatically understand the need for tempering absolute principles with reason.

    ReplyReply
  15. FAITH7 says: 15

    Aren’t true “hecklers” treated as a disturbance and usually lead away by the police? Was this Heckler lead out the door by the Police?? Arrested? Did they take him/them away??? Or perhaps I missed that part??
    Left Wing Media are pathetic liars…Pathetic Period!! So sick of their lies and straw men!!

    The ‘answer’….. that ‘no one could answer’ ….even after a short silence, then was answered, was probably something he, nor others ‘wanted’ to hear, and not the answer I might want to hear if I were in his shoes….but, the answer they all got was the TRUTH. (Greg)

    @Aye#6 – I’m with you on this one Aye.
    Aye says:
    “The 2A is not a matter where you, or anyone else, gets to decide what I “need”. You get to decide that for yourself and those you’re the parent or guardian of. You don’t get to decide that for me.”

    Excellent!! – I have read others voice the same TRUTH. Where the hell does the Government, Liberals, Progressives, Politicians, Greg, ….Anyone…. ANYONE have the audacity to tell the American People [Me/You] [this pertaining to the 2nd Amendment]… WHAT THEY ‘NEED’ ????

    I have heard about one ounce of blame hurled at this kids mother….she KNEW her son ‘mentally unstable’….what was done there???? Was ANYTHING done in THAT regard that might have averted this tragedy???

    Easier to ‘not let ‘this’ crisis go to waste’ to the anti-gun crowd… sorry, it’s the WRONG Bandwagon…

    ReplyReply
  16. Greg says: 16

    @retire05, #13:

    I have no need to prove anything regarding that statement to you or anyone else. The cost of a Stinger missile system isn’t a state secret, however. It’s public knowledge. (Google can demonstrate that to be true in around 10 seconds.) Nor is the fact that there are a great many people who would consider the amount I’ve alluded to to be a rather paltry accumulation for a person of my years. (I certainly don’t. To me it represents a lifetime of hard work and conservative spending habits.)

    My own capabilities aren’t the point, however. The point is this: If you think people with very bad intentions don’t have money at their disposal, you had better think again. Very bad people don’t lack highly destructive weapons because of any lack of money. They lack them because there are other obstacles to acquiring them.

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 17

    @Greg:

    I have no need to prove anything regarding that statement to you or anyone else.

    When you make a claim, any claim, the onus is then on you to prove it. So we can look at your claims of being financially capable of purchasing 8 missiles right now, we have to decide one of two things; either you are a pathetic braggart, or you are lying. Considering the personality you have exhibited here, I would say it is the later, not the former. The actual cost of a Stinger is moot. Your lying bragging is the issue.

    Put up or shut up. Prove your claims or admit you were just running off at the mouth.

    The point is this: If you think people with very bad intentions don’t have money at their disposal, you had better think again. Very bad people don’t lack highly destructive weapons because of any lack of money.

    Yes, people with bad intentions have the money to purchase weapons. Everyone of those people, with bad intentions, that the Administration facilitated the purchase of a weapon through the Fast & Furious scam, had the money to do so. Gun dealers don’t just hand over a firearm because they think you are cute.

    But do tell us, Greggie, exactly what part of the new gun laws that the Democrats are so hot to trot over, will prevent anyone with criminal intentions from obtaining a weapon in the usual manner that criminals obtain firearms? Stronger punishment laws for crimes committed with a fire arm? Haven’t heard a thing about that, have you? And how have extremely stringent gun laws in Chicago worked out?

    ReplyReply
  18. FAITH7 says: 18

    @Retired 05 #10 – Excellent!!

    But, do you think Greg will comprehend your very factual explanation and the intent of some intensely wise men…..

    That is, in “Greg’s” Real World….?? Where ever that is….

    ReplyReply
  19. Aye says: 19

    @retire05:

    When you make a claim, any claim, the onus is then on you to prove it.

    Retire, I’m really glad you made this point to Greg.

    It brought to mind that a few days ago you said “conservatives jumped on [you]“ and that you “took heat” regarding your stance on al Awlaki.

    Now, as you made clear to Greg above, people who make a claim, any claim, bear the onus of proving it.

    Kindly provide links to where you were “jumped on” and “took heat” because, so far, I’ve been unable to locate any record of that version of events.

    ReplyReply
  20. Greg says: 20

    @retire05, #17:

    When you make a claim, any claim, the onus is then on you to prove it. So we can look at your claims of being financially capable of purchasing 8 missiles right now, we have to decide one of two things; either you are a pathetic braggart, or you are lying. Considering the personality you have exhibited here, I would say it is the later, not the former. The actual cost of a Stinger is moot. Your lying bragging is the issue.

    You seem to have a need to personalize every discussion. It was YOU who brought up the matter of affordability, by way of this totally off the wall comment:

    Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility, but there are groups that can, including the very Mexican drug cartels that were armed by the current administration, which you support.

    If you stop making irrelevant comments about things you have absolutely knowledge of, and which have no relevance to the topic in the first place—my personal finances, for example–it won’t be necessary to waste time pointing out that you’re wrong, and then waste even more time arguing about whether I’m under some imaginary obligation to prove it.

    But do tell us, Greggie, exactly what part of the new gun laws that the Democrats are so hot to trot over, will prevent anyone with criminal intentions from obtaining a weapon in the usual manner that criminals obtain firearms?

    I haven’t seen the specifics of any new legislation to comment on. What is going on at this point is a long-overdue public discussion. I presume we’ll see specific proposals that will come out of that discussion, in the form of one or more bills. When that happens, there will be something to agree or disagree with.

    Up until that point, all I have are opinions:

    I have no problem with more stringent requirements for military-style assault weapons. I have no problem with mandatory background checks for the sale of all such weapons, without exception, at the point of every ownership transfer. If people really think there’s no difference between an “assault weapon” and other firearms which lack a certain combination of features, they could avoid the additional hassle by buying other firearms.

    I don’t object to tight restrictions on high-capacity magazines. I don’t see much need for them, and there’s a reasonable argument for limiting their general availability.

    If you catch me in the right mood, I might favor extending a capacity restriction to semi-automatic pistols. I’d have to give that one some thought. I’ve become less certain about that, because so many people are suddenly advocating a right to carry concealed weapons in public places like crowded theaters.

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 21

    @Aye:

    It brought to mind that a few days ago you said “conservatives jumped on [you]“ and that you “took heat” regarding your stance on al Awlaki.

    Kindly provide links to where you were “jumped on” and “took heat” because, so far, I’ve been unable to locate any record of that version of events.

    Why would you be able to locate any record of that version of events? Did I say that I took heat here, at FA? Why, no, I didn’t. I actually said:

    Even conservatives jumped on me, and told me I was wrong to feel that way, and that it was a good thing that a terrorist was taken out.

    The heat I took was not in any thread here at FA, and I don’t remember being part of any thread here at FA regarding that very issue. One place I took heat for that opinion was at The Corner at NRO. It was due to an article by Andy McCarthy, whom I have tremendous respect for, but who I disageed with that Obama has the right to just kill any American citizen who Obama suspects of terrorist activities against the U.S. without the guarantee of due process.

    If you want to go over to The Corner and search for my comments, be my guest.

    ReplyReply
  22. Greg says: 22

    David Wheeler, whose son was killed at Sandy Hook, testifies at a bipartisan hearing Wednesday in the Connecticut Legislature.

    You can jump ahead to the 0:46 second mark if you don’t want to listen to Lawrence O’Donnell.

    ReplyReply
  23. shall not be infringed,
    must not be touch
    should not be cross
    too bad there was some anger and it’s the father who got the it,
    but who started that anger? it’s OBAMA always pick on the law of the land to change it,
    WHICH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, he threaten to change it as other amendments he again touch,
    he touch a sensitive side of the right tolerant people, and unfortunatly fired up the gun owners,
    as he did on all issues he pick on
    a PRESIDENT is not given the job to infuriate the people and divide the people, making a mockery of the law of the land , that is hurting the AMERICANS those who believe in the laws of the land, THOSE WHO FIGHT AND GET HURT, OR DIE FOR the preservation of those laws which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,
    IF A PRESIDENT think the CONSTITUTION IS IN HIS WAY,he should not be PRESIDENT,
    that’s as simple as that
    you think the left is not corrupt? JUST CHECK HANNITY who uncover RADIO
    talking head like ED SHULT, against the right which are the tolerant CONSERVATIVES MANY TIME SUPERIOR to themselves
    it’s a bunch of lies and attack they shout on RADIO, all kind of scum words
    to demonize THE CONSERVATIVES, and there are other big dirty mouths on the left spitting constantly
    their lies to spread hate
    hate, they lost their credibility a long time ago
    they are the worse of the media
    that’s where the source of hate come from

    ReplyReply
  24. Aye says: 24

    @retire05:

    Why would you be able to locate any record of that version of events? Did I say that I took heat here, at FA?

    And did I say that you claimed these alleged events occurred here at FA? Why no, I didn’t. Arguing against points I didn’t make again, eh? Imagine that.

    If you want to go over to The Corner and search for my comments, be my guest.

    No, that’s not the way it works.

    Your claim. Your onus. Your standard.

    At this point you have a choice: Put up or shut up. Prove your claims or admit you were just running off at the mouth.

    ReplyReply
  25. again OBAMA BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR HIS OWN FAILURE,
    THE CONGRESS ARE DOING THEIR JOB NOW THEY WANT TO RESTRAIN THE WASTE IN THE WHITE HOUSE SO TO SLOW DOWN THE DEBT MOVING TOO FAST UPWARD IF THEY LET OBAMA GET AWAY WITH IT. JAY CARNEY IS THE TALKING OBAMA PARROT.
    INSTEAD OF WASTING TIME BLAMING OTHER, OBAMA SHOULD DO HIS WORK, AND TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE DESTRUCTION HE HAS ALREADY DONE TO AMERICANS TO MILITARY, TO REPUBLICANS TO CONSERVATIVES TO TEA PARTY ELECTED,
    OBAMA’S DEMOCRATS ARE SO AFRAID OF OBAMA,
    THEY KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT ON ANYTHING THEY SHOULD TELL THE PEOPLE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED,
    THEY FOLLOW TOO MUCH,

    ReplyReply
  26. retire05 says: 26

    @Aye:

    Why would you be able to locate any record of that version of events? Did I say that I took heat here, at FA?

    And did I say that you claimed these alleged events occurred here at FA? Why no, I didn’t. Arguing against points I didn’t make again, eh? Imagine that.

    No, actually you said:

    so far, I’ve been unable to locate any record of that version of events.

    I apologize for you having spent so much time searching the entire internet looking for my comments. Perhaps instead of looking for material for another one of your p!issing contests, you could find activities that would better serve all the free time you seem to have on your hands?

    Educated at the University of South Carolina, Aye earned his degrees in Business Management and Marketing.

    A descendant of five generations of woodworkers Aye enjoys reading, gardening, fishing, and, of course, woodworking. He especially enjoys reclaiming and recycling old lumber and turning it into furniture, cabinetry, built-ins, etc.

    Aye has been interested in politics since the early 1980’s, taking a much more active interest beginning in 2000.

    After spending eight years in the jewelry business, Aye worked in management with Wal-Mart for nine years. Upon leaving the nations’ largest retailer, Aye returned to the jewelry industry and later started his own business venture where he remains self-employed.

    Aye has been married to his high school sweetheart for almost 20 years. He and his wife have three children: a 17 year old son, a 15 year old daughter, and an 11 year old son.

    He and his family now live in Georgia where they are restoring a home built in 1880.

    Your claim. Your onus.

    Shall we take the standard for proof of claims in the order in which they were posted on this website?

    Or shall I just accept that it is not proof of any claim made here that you are interested in and you simply seek another p!ssing contest?

    ReplyReply
  27. johngalt says: 27

    @Greg:

    Though it sounds paradoxical, I believe this to be true.

    And you would, wouldn’t you, Greg? That by being able to restrict a right is the only way of “giving” that right.

    You are wrong about it, though.

    My rights extend to the point that I begin to infringe on another person’s rights. Particularly, my right to life and defense of it.

    My “need” to own an “assault” weapon isn’t relevant here, and the “grieving” father’s question is completely irrelevant. My “need” to own an “assault” weapon did not result in those children being murdered in Conn., Greg. It is, however, completely relevant to many people who have used such a weapon to protect themselves, in some rather scary situations as well.

    What you, and the father, and others are suggesting is that my “need” is trumped by your idea that I do not have an absolute right to protect and defend my “life”. Good luck with that one, if you decide to come looking to take my “need” away from me.

    ReplyReply
  28. Aye says: 28

    @retire05:

    Shall we take the standard for proof of claims in the order in which they were posted on this website?

    Ohh…now that’s rich.

    You wanted to establish hoops that you expect Greg to jump through to prove his point… yet, when those identical standards are applied to one of your points, you defer?

    Now you’re attempting to double down by expanding your one sided standards to an additional person? Really?

    Why is it that you demand a standard of Greg, or me, or anyone… yet you aren’t willing to live up to your very own demands?

    It’s crystal clear what is going on here. Your mouth was writing checks your azz couldn’t cash and you got called on it.

    Now you’ve been exposed as a liar, a hypocrite, or both.

    You’re welcome.

    ReplyReply
  29. retire05 says: 29

    @Aye:

    Now you’ve been exposed as a liar, a hypocrite, or both.

    Well, apparently slinging mud at me makes your day. So glad I could make you feel better about yourself. Of course, you would side with a far left liberal in order to slam me. Why am I not surprised?

    You really are a little man, Aye, and I don’t mean in height or weight.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt
    yes you have pinpoint the source, the antigun try to get away from,
    that is the right to own a gun, the law they try to infring by going around and even suggest that you are an accomplice because you want to keep your gun, any one you prefer as an individual, WHO IS UNIQUE AND HAS PREFERENCE,
    personal taste of what you alone think or want to collect because you like them for your own choice,
    and what they are doing is demonize you and you and you all to win point , and that make one legit gun owner angry and rightly so and they all feel that legitimate anger, after what has gone out of insults,
    of news paper disclosure of names and address of good people, after the attack by the radio left and medias anti guns,
    what is one to expect to show if it’s not a defensible anger very normal, THEY LABEL ALL LIKE THEY DO FOR FELONS
    they made you look like the mentally sick delusional person,
    OR DRUGGED TO THE BONE CRIMINAL, out to kill children which YOU ARE FAR FROM IT. THE SICK MENTALY ONE might have taken the idea because of OBAMA FAVORING ABORTION, IT’S VERY POSSIBLE FOR A DERANGE PERSON TO PICK UP ON WHAT IS SO OPENLY ADVERTIZE BY MEDIAS,
    THERE IS NOBODY WHO DON’T KNOW THE ADDRESS OF PARENTHOOD AND THERE ABORTION ACTION
    SO NUMEROUS THAT IT LOOK LIKE A GOOD BUSINESS
    SINCE THEY GET MILLIONS BY OBAMA WHITE HOUSE,
    AND THE MENTALLY SICKS PEOPLE ARE SPENDING TIME ON MEDIAS, THEY ALSO HAVE THOUGHTS BUT DANGEROUS JUDGEMENTS WHICH COULD MAKE THEM DECIDE ON KILLING ONE DAY, PEOPLE AND OR CHILDREN,

    ReplyReply
  31. Greg says: 31

    @johngalt, #27:

    There’s a wide variety of firearms that are better suited to the average person’s personal and home defense needs than a battlefield weapon, while posing less of a risk to the public. I see two things that elevate a military-style weapon’s risk level: a capacity for a prolonged high rate of fire without interruptions to reload, and an appearance or feature set that tends to play into an aberrant mind’s homicidal shooting fantasies.

    I favor more strict licensing requirements for such weapons, rather than a ban. There are reasons some people’s needs may differ from those of the average citizen. If you live in an isolated rural or wilderness area, for instance, such a weapon could arguably a utilitarian choice, while at the same time posing less public danger than it would in a densely populated community; if you’re a rancher living on a thousand acres in a sparsely populated border area, there’s a reason you might want a different sort of firearm than most citizens.

    I don’t think we can look at firearms issues only in terms of individual owners. The societal issue involves the collective consequences of increasing the total number of such weapons and high-capacity magazines that are out there. Given the situation as it presently exists, a doubling of the total number would effectively double the availability of such weapons to people who really shouldn’t have access to them. It seems to me that some sort of change is required, or we’ll be seeing more predictable results on the news.

    I’m really not anti-guns. We don’t live in a perfect world. I believe law abiding citizens have a fundamental right to the means to protect themselves. I just think there must be rational restrictions, so that having that means doesn’t itself elevate the average citizen’s level of risk.

    ReplyReply
  32. retire05 says: 32

    @Greg:

    Since your concern seems to be the safety of the general populace, I have made a few changes to your last post:

    “There’s a wide variety of firearms automobiles that are better suited to the average person’s personal and home defense transportation needs than a battlefield weapon high speed automobile such as a Corvett ZR1, while posing less of a risk to the public. I see two things that elevate a military-style weapon’s high speed vehicle’s risk level: a capacity for a prolonged high rate of fire speed without interruptions to reload refuel, and an appearance or feature set that tends to play into an aberrant mind’s homicidal shooting high speed chase/James Bond fantasies.

    I favor more strict licensing requirements for such weapons vehicles, rather than a ban. There are reasons some people’s needs may differ from those of the average citizen. If you live in an isolated rural or wilderness area, for instance, such a weapon vehicle could arguably a utilitarian choice, while at the same time posing less public danger than it would in a densely populated community; if you’re a rancher living on a thousand acres in a sparsely populated border area, there’s a reason you might want a different sort of firearm vehicle capable of getting from point A to point B faster than most citizens.

    I don’t think we can look at firearms vehicle issues only in terms of individual owners. The societal issue involves the collective consequences of increasing the total number of such weapons and high-capacity magazines vehicles that are out there. Given the situation as it presently exists, a doubling of the total number would effectively double the availability of such weapons high speed vehicles to people who really shouldn’t have access to them. It seems to me that some sort of change is required, or we’ll be seeing more predictable results on the news.

    I’m really not anti-guns automobile. We don’t live in a perfect world. I believe law abiding citizens have a fundamental right to the means to protect transport themselves. I just think there must be rational restrictions, so that having that means doesn’t itself elevate the average citizen’s level of risk.

    According to the CDC, the number of gun-related homicides in 2010 was 11,079 and in 2011 that number was 11,101.

    The number of those killed in motor vehicle accidents was 35,332 in 2010 and 34,667 in 2011. Obviously, we have a vehicle problem. I am now demanding that we do something about the carnage perpetrated by motor vehicles. Stricter licensing, back ground checks for anyone wanting to buy a motor vehicle, heavy duty safes for keeping the vehicle keys in when the vehicle is not in use to prevent motor vehicle theft, governors placed on all vehicles so that there is no possible way that any vehicle can exceed the posted speed limits and an accountability for the manufacturers of motor vehicles, especially the Corvette ZR1, for the deaths of Americans facilitated by their products.

    ReplyReply
  33. BILL O’REILLY
    WHAT THE BABY WOULD SAY? YOU ASK
    WELL HE WOULD SAY; MAMA WHY, EVEN THE ANIMALS WOULD NOT ABORT.

    ReplyReply
  34. Greg says: 34

    @retire05, #32:

    Such comparisons make little sense. Automobiles and firearms are designed for entirely different purposes. I have yet to hear any news stories about mass murder committed with a motor vehicle. They don’t seem to be the average homicidal lunatic’s weapon of choice.

    ReplyReply
  35. Aye says: 35

    @Greg:

    More people are killed every year by knives or other bladed objects than by long guns.

    More people are killed every year through abortion procedures than by all types of firearms combined.

    If you were really, truly concerned about saving lives, you would be advocating for ownership restrictions, licensing, etc etc for knives and the elimination of abortion.

    Yet, strangely, those arguments are not being made by you here.

    There’s a glaring lack of consistency on your part regarding what will save lives and what should be done in that regard.

    Of course, we both know and understand that your concern is not really about saving lives, instead it’s all about control and your searing desire to selectively allocate the freedom to choose.

    I have yet to hear any news stories about mass murder committed with a motor vehicle.

    Motor vehicles are used quite frequently as weapons of murder and mayhem.

    Remember, Google is your friend.

    ReplyReply
  36. Aye says: 36

    @retire05:

    Of course, you would side with a far left liberal in order to slam me.

    Another of your insidious lies. Anyone with half the brains of a goose can see that none of my responses to you or to Greg indicate that I’ve sided with him.

    Well, apparently slinging mud at me makes your day.

    Actually, what makes my day is placing you under the same harsh spotlight that you wish to shine on others.

    You love to create standards by which you expect others to measure or conduct themselves don’t you?

    Yes, from Mata to the parents of Trayvon Martin to Greg and others, you’re always ready with a whole laundry list of standards and expectations.

    Yet you consider those standards and expectations so harsh and unreasonable that you’re reduced to churlish and boorish responses when you’re measured by them.

    Mene mene tekel upharsin.

    Exit Question: If a person claims to have “[taken] heat” on a McCarthy post that they refuse to provide a link to, did it ever really happen?

    ReplyReply
  37. retire05 says: 37

    If a person makes claims on their bio, but offer no documentation for those claims, are they really true?

    ReplyReply
  38. retire05 says: 38

    @Greg:

    I have yet to hear any news stories about mass murder committed with a motor vehicle. They don’t seem to be the average homicidal lunatic’s weapon of choice.

    So, can we assume that your concern is NOT in the number of Americans who are killed, just those who are killed in large numbers from one event?

    ReplyReply
  39. johngalt says: 39

    @Greg:

    There’s a wide variety of firearms that are better suited to the average person’s personal and home defense needs than a battlefield weapon, while posing less of a risk to the public.

    That is your opinion, Greg, and you are entitled to it. However, in submitting your opinion such as you are, you are generally making assumptions for which you have little to back them up, as well as assuming an ‘elitist’ mentality in telling others what they should, and shouldn’t use, to defend themselves.

    I would suggest that you read this;
    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

    Then I would suggest that you Google, on your own, the numerous cases where a successful home defense happened due to the presence of one of those ‘evil’ “assault” weapons.

    I see two things that elevate a military-style weapon’s risk level: a capacity for a prolonged high rate of fire without interruptions to reload, and an appearance or feature set that tends to play into an aberrant mind’s homicidal shooting fantasies.

    On your first “thing”, that same “capacity for a prolonged high rate of fire without interruptions to reload” is also what makes the “assault” rifle a valued member of a person’s private armory in defending their life and property.

    On your second “thing”, while I won’t deny that deranged, or unhinged, people will see an “assault” rifle as being a symbol for them to use to base their homicidal fantasies upon, I believe that the bigger motivating factor is the target itself. As in, “gun-free zones”. Both Aurora and Newtown exampled this quite clearly. You are concentrating on the wrong reason for why both Aurora and Newtown were so tragic, Greg. But that is to be expected when you are not looking at the evidence realistically, and instead, projecting your “elitist” ideas onto the rest of us.

    I don’t think we can look at firearms issues only in terms of individual owners. The societal issue involves the collective consequences of increasing the total number of such weapons and high-capacity magazines that are out there.

    And yet, over the past four years firearms ownership, in private hands, has been growing by leaps and bounds and the gun crime rate is actually dropping. You are making the unproven assumption that more weapons equals more crime, Greg. Show me the statistics that prove your case.

    I’m really not anti-guns.

    No, you are not. What you are, though, is anti-rights, as has been shown by myself and others in various comments peppered throughout this website in various topics. You believe that you know better than everyone else how we should live our lives, and support any objective that would remove rights and freedoms from us, at the same time that it would fit within your own worldview of how people should live.

    You did that very thing in the first quote I used of yours, in suggesting that people should not use “assault” weapons for home defense, because you believe that other firearms are better for them. And while in some cases that may be true, when you display the hubris you have, and then contend that removal of rights to enforce your idea should be accepted by people, you adopt the elitist attitude that you know better than us.

    Thank you, but no thanks, Greg. I’ll keep my own choices open as to what I will use for defense of my home and person. If I believe that an “assault” rifle will better help to to accomplish such defense successfully, then that is what I’m going to want.

    ReplyReply
  40. johngalt yes, I think of the woman hiding with her twin sound to me like a small narrow space,
    and the criminal after breaking in the front door with his crowbar or the same like, after he ramsack the whole house, he decide to fbreak in that cache where she is,
    the guy is coming at her with a crowbar, how scary, and she shoot, and shoot again and again
    watching the guy still up, she had 6 bullets now she is empty, looking at the guy pleading her to stop,
    I was thinking where is his crowbar, he is still dangerous even on the floor, her command to lay face down, as she wait for the police, he still find energy to run away and eventualy collaps on the turn of the corner,
    how scary she must have been to see her gun was not doing the job to kill on the first shot,
    I’m sure her husband bought another gun after that,

    ReplyReply
  41. and for that, it got me to ask if there was different quality in the bullets,
    because I thought maybe she had cheap bullets
    I never got an answer to my question at a post where I forgot the name

    ReplyReply
  42. Greg says: 42

    @Aye, #35:

    More people are killed every year through abortion procedures than by all types of firearms combined.

    Only if you accept the premise that the personhood concept is based upon. Most of those who advocate a woman’s fundamental right to decide for herself whether she will give birth to a child don’t believe that a person exists from the first moment of conception.

    Abortions performed by competent medical providers are quite safe. There’s a mortality rate for women undergoing such procedures of 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Compare that with the mortality rate associated with live births: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000.

    If we want to kill a lot of those who are undeniably and unambiguously people, closing the doors on legal abortion is a proven way of doing so. Desperate women would seek abortions from illegal sources as they did in the past, and some would die as a result. I suppose some might consider that an acceptable consequence for anyone who insist on making a personal decision they disapprove of.

    Of course, we both know and understand that your concern is not really about saving lives, instead it’s all about control and your searing desire to selectively allocate the freedom to choose.

    We both know no such thing. What could possibly be more intrusive and controlling than a pack of predominantly male elected officials telling women with unwanted pregnancies that they MUST continue their pregnancies until they give birth? A majority of women disagree with that position.

    I stated up somewhere above that I’m not opposed to firearm ownership simply because I advocate stronger controls. I own a firearm.

    Nor does the fact that I advocate the right of women to have ultimate control of their own reproduction function mean that I advocate abortion. What I advocate is individual choice.

    ReplyReply
  43. GREG
    A MILLION ABORTION ARE NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS DANGER OF DEATH,
    COME BACK WITH BETTER ARGUMENTS,

    ReplyReply
  44. Nan G says: 44

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    Yes, bees, there are plenty of varieties of qualities in bullets.
    We buy ”practice rounds” for using at the range because they are cheap and just as accurate.
    In a pinch you can kill an animal or person with them, too.
    But there were better quality bullets and some with special qualities such as flattening on impact to do stopping power.
    Some bullets are so damaging to the body of either a person or an animal they are illegal.
    You wouldn’t want to try to clean an animal killed by one, not to eat.
    There would be fragments of lead all over the place.
    By the same token, a doctor will have a tough time saving a person shot by one of these, as he will have damage all over the place inside him.

    ReplyReply
  45. GREG
    WHAT DO YOU KNOW of when the ESSENCE of life ENTER THE EMBRYO,
    OF THE WOMAN WHO IS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE GIVEN TREASURE TO CARRY
    UNTIL HE OR SHE COME OUT, to claim her space in the world of her PARENTS

    ReplyReply
  46. Greg says: 46

    @Greg,

    Then I would suggest that you Google, on your own, the numerous cases where a successful home defense happened due to the presence of one of those ‘evil’ “assault” weapons.

    Numerous? That’s a joke. Assault weapon advocates have been repeatedly asked to provide concrete examples of situations where the fact of that particular type of weapon made a difference. There aren’t any. There are only a few cases where that’s what happened to be on hand. Maybe you have a link to a site presenting different statistics.

    I would suggest the possibility that a high-velocity military projectile might pose a certain elevated level of danger to the neighbors, if the owner is living in an apartment complex, a heavily populated suburban development, or a trailer park.

    ReplyReply
  47. Nan G
    thank you for the important info,
    but you added those are already illegal
    so why and what else do they want to ban if the ones who are bad are found illegal
    by those in the market to sell it and or those over looking the sales in their position of leadership
    like MR LAPIERRE, MEANING THEY CONTROL THEIR MARKET AND PROTECT THE GUNOWNERS ALREADY,
    WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT TRY TO PUT A SCREW IN THAT.

    ReplyReply
  48. retire05 says: 48

    @Greg:

    Abortions performed by competent medical providers are quite safe. There’s a mortality rate for women undergoing such procedures of 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Compare that with the mortality rate associated with live births: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000.

    As compared to the 100% mortality rate of the child that was aborted?

    Nor does the fact that I advocate the right of women to have ultimate control of their own reproduction function mean that I advocate abortion. What I advocate is individual choice.

    Well, if you really want to get technical, those women seeking abortions had the ultimate control of their own reproduction functions prior to the moment of conception. Pregnancy, like a hangover, is a completely avoidable condition.

    And if you truely supported individual choice, you would not have been making the argument that you, or the federal government, have the right to decide what firearm someone should be able to choose in order to provide themselves, and their families, with protection against bad people who want to do bad things. But you have made that argument, consequently, you are only “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, not personal safety.

    ReplyReply
  49. Aye says: 49

    @Greg:

    What I advocate is individual choice.

    Except when you don’t.

    ReplyReply
  50. Greg says: 50

    @retire05, #48:

    As compared to the 100% mortality rate of the child that was aborted?

    You’re engaging in selective reading, or selective understanding.

    The point was made that those who advocate choice don’t accept the premise upon which the personhood line of thought is based. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You’re getting a 100% mortality rate only because you’re defining a biological process as a child from the point of fertilization onward. You would have us think that even a zygote is a person. Based on what? Only opinion.

    Well, if you really want to get technical, those women seeking abortions had the ultimate control of their own reproduction functions prior to the moment of conception.

    Not all of them. There’s the matter of rape and incest. On top of which, your self-righteous streak is showing. Young people have been known to act impulsively and make errors in judgement. It’s not your place to demand that they be forced to live with the results. The lives they live are theirs, not yours.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>