Father who lost 6 year old son at Sandy Hook heckled by gun activists

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

"Father who lost 6 year old son at Sandy Hook heckled by tiny handful of gun activists within a group of otherwise respectful hundreds."

Fixed that for you :)

Seriously its like saying 'Christians protest soldier's funeral' when talking about the WBC.

senordesol:
"Father who lost 6 year old son at Sandy Hook heckled by tiny handful of gun activists within a group of otherwise respectful hundreds."

Fixed that for you :)

Seriously its like saying 'Christians protest soldier's funeral' when talking about the WBC.

Pretty much that. Every group has assholes, no surprise here.

What was more surprising to me was that it wasn't the Westboro Baptist Church. They truly are the first thing that comes to mind when some scum pulls off something as repulsive as this. To know that there are more rats like them, clogging the streets with their filth, makes me beyond sick. It makes me nauseous..

Karthak:
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newtown-dad-to-lawmakers-Change-gun-laws-4228992.php
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-of-sixyearold-boy-killed-in-sandy-hook-massacre-heckled-by-progun-activists-8471178.html

Seriously? Quoth Joseph N. Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

Not when it concerns the freedom of others. The fact that he was expecting the emotional equivalent of a bag of drowned kittens to hold any weight when it comes to initiating force against others by the State is fucking pathetic. That he just lost his son means he deserves to be pathetic if he wants to, but that does not change the nature of his actions. This is especially true when not a damn thing proposed concerning guns with do ANYTHING to actually limit things like sandy hook or aurora.

ravenshrike:
Not when it concerns the freedom of others. The fact that he was expecting the emotional equivalent of a bag of drowned kittens to hold any weight when it comes to initiating force against others by the State is fucking pathetic. That he just lost his son means he deserves to be pathetic if he wants to, but that does not change the nature of his actions. This is especially true when not a damn thing proposed concerning guns with do ANYTHING to actually limit things like sandy hook or aurora.

So you are suggesting that interrupting legislative hearings and heckling people who've suffered grievous personal losses and emotional trauma is perfectly acceptable if it concerns "my freedom", not in the sense that I will be incarcerated but in the sense of a potential future limitation to what kind of tools I might or might not own?

I fail to see how this is in anyway his fault, since what he did was to show up at a legislative hearing to give his account on the Sandy Hooks massacre and he was the one being heckled. If you really feel that it is alright to interrupt legislative hearings to heckle people who recently lost their kids, then you've got one of worst attitudes towards other people that I've ever seen.

senordesol:
"Father who lost 6 year old son at Sandy Hook heckled by tiny handful of gun activists within a group of otherwise respectful hundreds."

Fixed that for you :)

Seriously its like saying 'Christians protest soldier's funeral' when talking about the WBC.

I never knew the gun lobby was crazy about political correctness. Then again with the topic perhaps I'm being too generous.

ravenshrike:
Not when it concerns the freedom of others.

Now here's the trick: Pretty much everybody outside that bunch of selfish murderers of the NRA, agrees there's no right to shoot up schools, or murder anyone who walks on your lawn or into your house or anything like that.

So not only do those gun owners pull a major dickmove, but they don't even have the slighest justification for it.

ravenshrike:
Not when it concerns the freedom of others. The fact that he was expecting the emotional equivalent of a bag of drowned kittens to hold any weight when it comes to initiating force against others by the State is fucking pathetic. That he just lost his son means he deserves to be pathetic if he wants to, but that does not change the nature of his actions. This is especially true when not a damn thing proposed concerning guns with do ANYTHING to actually limit things like sandy hook or aurora.

Heckling a man who just lost his child is neither constructive dialog and nor is it helping their case. If they were truly interested in preserving their "freedoms," they would have engaged them in a more civil manner. They could have dressed up like that man did and put their case before the lawmakers in the same manner. But they didn't. They chose to make a scene and present themselves as a bunch of uncivil oafs who are less interested in dealing with the issue and more interested in waving their asses at it. It didn't earn them an ounce of respect or credibility, and nor should it. If people aren't willing to fight something decently and civilly, then they don't deserve to win.

Lilani:
If they were truly interested in preserving their "freedoms," they would have engaged them in a more civil manner. They could have dressed up like that man did and put their case before the lawmakers in the same manner. But they didn't. They chose to make a scene and present themselves as a bunch of uncivil oafs who are less interested in dealing with the issue and more interested in waving their asses at it. It didn't earn them an ounce of respect or credibility, and nor should it. If people aren't willing to fight something decently and civilly, then they don't deserve to win.

Just wait. I give it a couple of hours tops before sites like Free Republic or Conservapedia start insinuating that these hecklers were liberal stooges, planted there to make the pro-gun lobby look bad. They'll No True Scotsman the hell out of this one.

ravenshrike:

Karthak:
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newtown-dad-to-lawmakers-Change-gun-laws-4228992.php
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-of-sixyearold-boy-killed-in-sandy-hook-massacre-heckled-by-progun-activists-8471178.html

Seriously? Quoth Joseph N. Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

Not when it concerns the freedom of others. The fact that he was expecting the emotional equivalent of a bag of drowned kittens to hold any weight when it comes to initiating force against others by the State is fucking pathetic. That he just lost his son means he deserves to be pathetic if he wants to, but that does not change the nature of his actions. This is especially true when not a damn thing proposed concerning guns with do ANYTHING to actually limit things like sandy hook or aurora.

A champion of empathy over here. Well done, sir. Cobra Commander salutes your callous indifference to human emotion.
Hail Satan!

Did anyone actually watch the testimony footage?

(13:29)


(Ask apparently rhetorical question, wait for response while people sit in respectful silence, say "See, nobody can give a reason", Press cries about heckling when people give valid response [INB4 hurrrr 2nd amendment obsolete so we can just ignore it] to what they'd earlier assumed was a rhetorical question)

OMG GUN OWNERS SO MEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!

EDIT: after watching the clip I'm no longer the least bit upset about this. He wasn't heckled. If you say "Can anybody in this room tell me X?" and then they give you an answer, that's not heckling.

Blablahb:
Now here's the trick: Pretty much everybody outside that bunch of selfish murderers of the NRA, agrees there's no right to shoot up schools, or murder anyone who walks on your lawn or into your house or anything like that.

Got any evidence for these libelous accusations against my fiance?

TKretts3:
What was more surprising to me was that it wasn't the Westboro Baptist Church. They truly are the first thing that comes to mind when some scum pulls off something as repulsive as this. To know that there are more rats like them, clogging the streets with their filth, makes me beyond sick. It makes me nauseous..

Oh westboro will be on this soon. I guarantee you we will be hearing from them soon on this.

BrassButtons:

Got any evidence for these libelous accusations against my fiance?

He's hurled libel against me and a criminal case I was involved in, and never answered for it, so don't hold your breath waiting for one from him. I barked up that tree for weeks.

GunsmithKitten:

He's hurled libel against me and a criminal case I was involved in, and never answered for it, so don't hold your breath waiting for one from him. I barked up that tree for weeks.

I don't really expect an answer, but I'm still not just gonna let a statement like that slide by.

I can't believe they would interrupt this guy because they need to voice the fact that they're allowed to own guns. What happened to respectful discourse? Your really going to interrupt a grieving father stating his belief? That's just insult to injury.

Another disgusting thing is how gun manufactures representatives where supposed to be there to offer alternatives to help gun violence, they did no such thing but instead say how they pump millions into Connecticut. I'm sure that's comforting to the parents.

Friendly Lich:

TKretts3:
What was more surprising to me was that it wasn't the Westboro Baptist Church. They truly are the first thing that comes to mind when some scum pulls off something as repulsive as this. To know that there are more rats like them, clogging the streets with their filth, makes me beyond sick. It makes me nauseous..

Oh westboro will be on this soon. I guarantee you we will be hearing from them soon on this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/westboro-baptist-church-protest-newtown-victim-funeral-_n_2331880.html

They've been there and attempted to do that.

dmase:
I can't believe they would interrupt this guy because they need to voice the fact that they're allowed to own guns. What happened to respectful discourse? Your really going to interrupt a grieving father stating his belief? That's just insult to injury.

To be fair, he was quite literally asking for it.

BrassButtons:

dmase:
I can't believe they would interrupt this guy because they need to voice the fact that they're allowed to own guns. What happened to respectful discourse? Your really going to interrupt a grieving father stating his belief? That's just insult to injury.

To be fair, he was quite literally asking for it.

The phrase he said was, "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" the 2nd amendment isn't an answer to that in any way, not to mention I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question considering the question shouldn't have a simple answer.

It was only a small group the ones that the assholes of the group I'm sure. While I doont necessarioly agree a civilian needs an ar 15 or the like I don't think there should be a second amendment with limitations.

dmase:

The phrase he said was, "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" the 2nd amendment isn't an answer to that in any way, not to mention I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question considering the question shouldn't have a simple answer.

When he asked the question everyone was silent at first, probably taking it to be rhetorical. But then he said "not one person can answer that question". So either it wasn't rhetorical and he was looking to see if anyone could give him an answer or he was trying to play off of the fact that people aren't actually supposed to say anything when someone else has the floor (the people who answered him were told to be quiet) and he intended to manipulate that fact to make it look as though his question had no answer.

He was not heckled.

Lilani:

Heckling a man who just lost his child is neither constructive dialog and nor is it helping their case. If they were truly interested in preserving their "freedoms," they would have engaged them in a more civil manner. They could have dressed up like that man did and put their case before the lawmakers in the same manner. But they didn't. They chose to make a scene and present themselves as a bunch of uncivil oafs who are less interested in dealing with the issue and more interested in waving their asses at it. It didn't earn them an ounce of respect or credibility, and nor should it. If people aren't willing to fight something decently and civilly, then they don't deserve to win.

Someone posted a link to that event.

He did pretty much provoke it. No one heckled when he asked that question because no one expected that he wanted answers in this situation. But he used that silence as an argument that no one had an answer. Of course people are going to react if they are played right in front of their eyes so obvious.

He did not fight decent so why are no one reporting this? Because he is a victim. That is the sole reason. He is a victim and thus he is immune to criticism. But because he is also a victim he is the last person who should have a say in this case.

BrassButtons:

dmase:

The phrase he said was, "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" the 2nd amendment isn't an answer to that in any way, not to mention I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question considering the question shouldn't have a simple answer.

When he asked the question everyone was silent at first, probably taking it to be rhetorical. But then he said "not one person can answer that question". So either it wasn't rhetorical and he was looking to see if anyone could give him an answer or he was trying to play off of the fact that people aren't actually supposed to say anything when someone else has the floor (the people who answered him were told to be quiet) and he intended to manipulate that fact to make it look as though his question had no answer.

He was not heckled.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/29/170554930/video-newtown-parent-gun-owners-disagree-on-weapons-ban

1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Edit: and as far as the pause before he started speaking again he wasn't expecting an answer because his words indicate there is no answer especially not one answered by second amendment

BrassButtons:
[quote="dmase" post="528.399644.16398107"]
When he asked the question everyone was silent at first, probably taking it to be rhetorical. But then he said "not one person can answer that question". So either it wasn't rhetorical and he was looking to see if anyone could give him an answer or he was trying to play off of the fact that people aren't actually supposed to say anything when someone else has the floor (the people who answered him were told to be quiet) and he intended to manipulate that fact to make it look as though his question had no answer.

He was not heckled.

It's like asking "can anyone really give evidence god exists? Nobody really can." it's not a real question in that there is no answer that is objective, any answer anyone could give would merely be an opinion (as was his comment to be fair).

He wasn't looking for people to answer, it wasn't a question to the crowd, it was a man talking about the fact that there was no reason for his son to have died. While some part of him would have wanted someone to shout an amazing 100% logical reason that wasn't the point of that question. The silence was for effect more than waiting for an answer.

When those people decided that they had to answer in defence of gun rights by shouting out like ignorant school kids they looked like hecklers. All they had to do was wait until he'd finished, stood up and asked to address his point and had a reasonable argument on why he was wrong. Shouting out just made them sound like kids going "nuh-uh". It was childish and utterly pointless.

dmase:
1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Dmase's Video - 1:18:
"And he asked the assembled gun owners why such weapons should not be banned and he got an answer.

2/10. Best I can do.

dmase:

1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Actually he was asking a question--check the longer video embedded upthread. He asked if anybody in the room could explain why assault weapons are needed, and then paused. Nobody answered because they probably thought it was rhetorical. And then he started to argue that the silence meant his question was unanswerable, at which point people realized he wasn't being rhetorical and spoke up.

Karma168:

It's like asking "can anyone really give evidence god exists? Nobody really can."

No, it's not. It's like asking "can anyone in this room give evidence that gos exists?", and then when nobody answers saying "and not one person can answer that question". The first question can be taken as rhetorical, until you use the lack of response as an argument. Though I suppose you could argue that it was meant to be rhetorical, and that he was arguing dishonestly.

Mr.BadExample:

dmase:
1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Dmase's Video - 1:18:
"And he asked the assembled gun owners why such weapons should not be banned and he got an answer.

2/10. Best I can do.

Maybe he meant it was a rhetorical question? You know, a question which actually isn't really a question because you don't expect an answer.

Mr.BadExample:
(Ask apparently rhetorical question, wait for response while people sit in respectful silence, say "See, nobody can give a reason", Press cries about heckling when people give valid response

You're not supposed to answer rhetorical questions, yes. That's why the NRA goons were threatened with being cleared from the room when they began their crying.

Especially not if it's utterly irrelevant bullshit like reciting the second amendment. The second amendment says nothing about shooting up schools with assault rifles. Of course, try explaining that simple difference to a bunch of homicidal rednecks sitting in a hearing with NRA shirts to make them look like a bunch of SA members...

I saw this different from all y'all. He was asking a real question from the audience and he made sure to use "anyone in this room" and "anyone here" to make sure that you know it isn't a rhetorical question. Nobody answers the question and he uses that to his advantage. When everyone sees they lost some ground there they sort of mini-panic and start throwing out answers to retroactively answer the question. The answers to the question were pretty weak sauce anyway, I heard a lot of "second amendment protects all guns" which is quite technically wrong as the pistol could be the only gun allowed and people would still have the right to keep and bear arms. He gave a question and they just didn't answer it in time. At the very least they should have something better to throw out on command than "second amendment protects all guns."

BrassButtons:

No, it's not. It's like asking "can anyone in this room give evidence that gos exists?", and then when nobody answers saying "and not one person can answer that question". The first question can be taken as rhetorical, until you use the lack of response as an argument. Though I suppose you could argue that it was meant to be rhetorical, and that he was arguing dishonestly.

Really it comes down to the semantics of his second sentence. If he hadn't said 'and' it would be perfectly fine. Are going to pull him up over one word? It's clear the point he was trying to make, even if he did screw up the syntax.

BrassButtons:
EDIT: after watching the clip I'm no longer the least bit upset about this. He wasn't heckled. If you say "Can anybody in this room tell me X?" and then they give you an answer, that's not heckling.

Got any evidence for these libelous accusations against my fiance?

He doesn't. His argument is essentially "You believe in your Constitutionally protected civil rights that I don't like, therefore you believe in a right to commit crimes that involve the thing that falls under that protected right."

In essence, it would be like if I said that if you believe in the 1st Amendment or agree with the ACLU in any situation, you fundamentally agree with the worst of the worst things said by WBC, the KKK, and X-Box Live, because you aren't trying to ban speaking about certain topics.

Karma168:
Really it comes down to the semantics of his second sentence. If he hadn't said 'and' it would be perfectly fine. Are going to pull him up over one word? It's clear the point he was trying to make, even if he did screw up the syntax.

The way he worded the question ("I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason...") and the pause afterward both point to the question not being rhetorical. Even if his second sentence did not start with "and" I would have the same opinion. Either he was not being rhetorical, or he was not being honest. Either way I think the people who responded to him had sufficient reason to believe that he was not being rhetorical, and characterizing what happened as "heckling" is highly inaccurate.

Blablahb:
Of course, try explaining that simple difference to a bunch of homicidal rednecks sitting in a hearing with NRA shirts to make them look like a bunch of SA members...

Hey, more libel. Nice to know we can count on you for such rational, evidence-based discourse.

Blablahb:
The second amendment says nothing about shooting up schools with assault rifles. Of course, try explaining that simple difference to a bunch of homicidal rednecks sitting in a hearing with NRA shirts to make them look like a bunch of SA members...

The First Amendment also says nothing about spreading false information and slandering people on the Internet either.

And besides, shooting up a school is already illegal. Turns out criminals don't follow the law, shocking...

Mr.BadExample:

dmase:
1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Dmase's Video - 1:18:
"And he asked the assembled gun owners why such weapons should not be banned and he got an answer.

2/10. Best I can do.

BrassButtons:

dmase:

1:25, that's no pause and he wasn't asking the audience a question at all.

Actually he was asking a question--check the longer video embedded upthread. He asked if anybody in the room could explain why assault weapons are needed, and then paused. Nobody answered because they probably thought it was rhetorical. And then he started to argue that the silence meant his question was unanswerable, at which point people realized he wasn't being rhetorical and spoke up.

Karma168:

It's like asking "can anyone really give evidence god exists? Nobody really can."

No, it's not. It's like asking "can anyone in this room give evidence that gos exists?", and then when nobody answers saying "and not one person can answer that question". The first question can be taken as rhetorical, until you use the lack of response as an argument. Though I suppose you could argue that it was meant to be rhetorical, and that he was arguing dishonestly.

I looked around and couldn't find the longer video, only to see it's embedded in the thread so what I said about the pause thing wasn't correct.

However after the pause whenever jumps up and second amendment he says and "no one can answer that"(not what you quoted mr. bad example in your post), he wasn't looking through the audience checking to see if anyone would answer because he wasn't expecting an answer. He was using that to mean there is no good answer, not asking why can't anyone answer that? It was a rhetorical question, to add in that type of forum no one is supposed to speak except those called to the front sitting in front of the assembled politicians, obvious from the fact that the politicians then said everyone will be ejected if their isn't silence.(paraphrased)

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked