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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

And surprise surprise, defamination and slander are crimes.

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

Can hardly set a fox to watch the geese you know. Allow everybody to have murder weapons and there will be murders. Allowing everyone to have firearms and expecting a ban on using them for killing to actually work is nothing short of naive.

We all know that those SA wannabees in that room, weren't in that room because they were afraid they can no longer shoot a rabbit a year. They want to murder people with firearms, for whatever deluded reasons like "But I should be able to murder a burglar" they have to offer, and that's why they were attacking that guy during a hearing.

It's a catch 22 situation for the gun lobby: If it's about murdering people, they're part of the reason why there should be a ban and can be ignored. If it's not about murdering people, they'll be in favour of heavy restrictions on firearms ownership because their reason for gun ownership isn't endangered by such restrictions.

As a result, basically nobody can be opposed to gun ownership restrictions without being a hypocrite.

dmase:

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)

It sure looked to me like he was trying to say that nobody there had an answer to his question. And several others in this thread appear to have reached the same conclusion. If we could all interpret his words and actions that way, then people who were in that room could have done the same--which means offering up an answer was not heckling, but simply answering his question.

And if he knew that people weren't supposed to talk, then phrasing the question the way he did seems dishonest to me.

Smagmuck_:

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...

As I said a few weeks ago

Me:

2- Criminals do not obey laws, this is true and a fact that is beloved by people who drop smug macros into discussions. However, if we stop and consider the actual ramifications of this, it becomes pretty goddamn irrelevant.
- If someone has an illegal firearm, that is a crime and they can be stopped there and then as opposed to simply letting them walk on.
- It will slow down or limit the permeation of these weapons, eventually shifting the trend to one of decreasing firearm ownership (not eliminate, no one is claiming that it will eliminate them)
- Someone who fits the profile of a spree killer (isolated, angry, feels like they have been wronged) suddenly aquiring a weapon becomes a bigger red flag and they are more likely to be stopped.
- From what I can see, it is rarely career criminals that conduct these crimes and so average joe blog on the street is unlikely to know where to get a hold of illegal assault weaponry.
- Someone who is in need of mental help, and is likely to commit violent suicide by attacking those near themselves, is less likely to have a weapon to hand when they snap.
- Criminals, are, for the most part, profit motivated human beings. Someone who is already hiding from the law is not going to assist someone who will draw attention to themselves
- Criminals are often quite reasonable and are unlikely to support the person who is likely to gun down more than a dozen children.
- Not all people who commit these crimes use their own weapons, so if their friends and family do not own them, it is harder for the criminal to obtain it.

So basically, edit a tape of testimony to make outbursts seem as if they interrupted, when in fact they answered a question. Then shriek "have you no decency" and make insinuations and outright accusations of murder no less, based on this "evidence"? It's good to see that the people who decried Breitbart a couple years back for editing a tape to make it seem more racist are on the case and intellectually honest.

BrassButtons:

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.

Seriously, it's Blab, just ignore him and life gets better. As much as wanting to finally shut him up can be tempting, it's just not worth it because he'll keep sticking to his guns as hard as every group he critises.

Blablahb:
And surprise surprise, defamation and slander are crimes.

So are you admitting to committing a crime then?

Can hardly set a fox to watch the geese you know. Allow everybody to have murder weapons and there will be murders. Allowing everyone to have firearms and expecting a ban on using them for killing to actually work is nothing short of naive.

So, ban everything then. Got it.

We all know that those SA wannabees in that room, weren't in that room because they were afraid they can no longer shoot a rabbit a year. They want to murder people with firearms, for whatever deluded reasons like "But I should be able to murder a burglar" they have to offer, and that's why they were attacking that guy during a hearing.

Define Murder.

It's a catch 22 situation for the gun lobby: If it's about murdering people, they're part of the reason why there should be a ban and can be ignored. If it's not about murdering people, they'll be in favor of heavy restrictions on firearms ownership because their reason for gun ownership isn't endangered by such restrictions.

As a result, basically nobody can be opposed to gun ownership restrictions without being a hypocrite.

I don't think you know what a "middle ground" is.

Because there is one.

Shaoken:

BrassButtons:

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.

Seriously, it's Blab, just ignore him and life gets better. As much as wanting to finally shut him up can be tempting, it's just not worth it because he'll keep sticking to his guns as hard as every group he critises.

You know, I can decide for myself what counts as a worthwhile use of my time ;)

BrassButtons:

Shaoken:

BrassButtons:

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

Seriously, it's Blab, just ignore him and life gets better. As much as wanting to finally shut him up can be tempting, it's just not worth it because he'll keep sticking to his guns as hard as every group he critises.

You know, I can decide for myself what counts as a worthwhile use of my time ;)

Blablahb once said that every person who owns a gun for defense, whether home or personal, is a murderer waiting for a victim. There is literally no point in arguing with him when it comes to guns. And that sentiment goes double if you're in the NRA. I mean, if you wanna try and argue the point with him, go ahead. Just remember, you have been warned.

Smagmuck_:
I don't think you know what a "middle ground" is.
Because there is one.

What's the middle ground then oh big expert?

Because all I see are the only working measures against spree shootings being blocked or sabotaged using silly arguments like "But I need to be able to murder people" or "But I'm scared". One even claimed there were animals on his farm that could kill entire families if they weren't armed to the teeth. What do they grow on that gun-loving farm? Mass Effect's Reapers?

wintercoat:
Blablahb once said that every person who owns a gun for defense, whether home or personal, is a murderer waiting for a victim.

Putting words in my mouth if you lack any sort of argument is a good idea.

However I pointed out how 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners (quite significant a percentage wouldn't you agree?), and firearms ownership is THE enabling factor for such crimes. Nobody ever managed to attack those observations, apparently leading to quite some frustration among those who seeks to promote gun ownership and crime.

Blablahb:

Smagmuck_:
I don't think you know what a "middle ground" is.
Because there is one.

What's the middle ground then oh big expert?

Because all I see are the only working measures against spree shootings being blocked or sabotaged using silly arguments like "But I need to be able to murder people" or "But I'm scared". One even claimed there were animals on his farm that could kill entire families if they weren't armed to the teeth. What do they grow on that gun-loving farm? Mass Effect's Reapers?

wintercoat:
Blablahb once said that every person who owns a gun for defense, whether home or personal, is a murderer waiting for a victim.

Putting words in my mouth if you lack any sort of argument is a good idea.

However I pointed out how 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners (quite significant a percentage wouldn't you agree?), and firearms ownership is THE enabling factor for such crimes. Nobody ever managed to attack those observations, apparently leading to quite some frustration among those who seeks to promote gun ownership and crime.

As usual let's beak this down:
"But I need to be able to murder people"
Nobody wants to murder anyone, we want to be safe in case someone breaks into our house and if they get shot to death that is in the majority of states NOT murder. It is defending yourself and your property and it completely legal. Murder is illegal. Therefore by the definition of murder it is NOT murder.

"One even claimed there were animals on his farm that could kill entire families if they weren't armed to the teeth."
He never said they could kill entire families, and he didn't need to be armed to the teeth. He needs a gun to defend his farm and the animals on it from other animals that might want to eat them.

"However I pointed out how 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners (quite significant a percentage wouldn't you agree?),"
I would like proof of this claim.

Xan Krieger:

As usual let's beak this down:
"But I need to be able to murder people"
Nobody wants to murder anyone, we want to be safe in case someone breaks into our house and if they get shot to death that is in the majority of states NOT murder. It is defending yourself and your property and it completely legal. Murder is illegal. Therefore by the definition of murder it is NOT murder.

I've already tried to explain this to him. Repeatedly. It will never sink in.

He's even accused me of attempted murder, borderline libel and laughable since I was already quickly and decidedly cleared in a court of law.

Am I missing something here? To me it doesn't look like he was heckled at all.

Gold:
Am I missing something here? To me it doesn't look like he was heckled at all.

It was edited video to make it look like he was heckled. OP needs to update it, or there'll be confusion.

GunsmithKitten:
've already tried to explain this to him. Repeatedly. It will never sink in.
He's even accused me of attempted murder, borderline libel and laughable since I was already quickly and decidedly cleared in a court of law.

It's not really classy to go accusing me of things like that, while you're the one who choose to threaten someone with a gun, and chooses to carry guns with the intent of perpetrating murder on someone who you might consider a threat.

That's your choice. I'm merely describing your choice. If you don't like what you hear, get rid of your guns and become a respectable citizen.

Although I guess for gun owners it makes even more sense to not adress the problem, but shoot the messenger.

Xan Krieger:
Nobody wants to murder anyone, we want to be safe in case someone breaks into our house and if they get shot to death that is in the majority of states NOT murder.

No that's confusing. First you say nobody wants to murder anyone, then you say you need guns to murder people with. Why contradict yourself in the same sentence?

Xan Krieger:
He never said they could kill entire families

Oh yes he did. No guns, his family would be killed. Not just that, but apparently whatever animal that was would also cross an ocean and kill my family as well, unless he had guns. Even for a gun violence advocate it was one of the more weird claims I've ever seen.

When I asked some more it turned out he wanted guns to murder people with though, so we can disregard the story safely.

Xan Krieger:
He needs a gun to defend his farm and the animals on it from other animals that might want to eat them.

Sounds more like some farmer needs to get off his lazy arse and start building a decent fence then. But in that sort of a situation, a total gun ban can be instituted without that becoming a problem; a farmer can apply for a weapon permit, and once he's proven he actually needs one, he can have a permit for a hunting rifle that's not automated. Voila, problem solved.

Xan Krieger:
I would like proof of this claim.

As proof I would like to point out that the only way to shoot someone with a firearm, is by having a firearm, thus 100% of all gun crime must be perpetrated by people who have firearms.

Blablahb:
And surprise surprise, defamination and slander are crimes.

So is murder. The free speech version of what you seem to approve of would be making laws against speaking in certain ways or on certain topics because they can be used to commit defamation or slander, and then choosing largely ridiculous restrictions.

Or to put it simply, here's applying your own logic to the 1st amendment -- it should be illegal to speak about race or gender because someone might do so to say hate speech. It should be illegal to say anything controversial in the slightest, especially about any individual or corporate entity, because people doing so might choose to commit slander or defamation.

Also, let's have an assault words ban: Sentence word count must not be prime. Also, any sentence whose words contain two or more words that have a prime number of letters should also be illegal. (Yes, I did intentionally make each of the prior two sentences illegal under itself.) If you disagree it's because you believe that you have a right to commit slander and defamation, and explicitly agree with the worst things said by WBC, the KKK, etc.

Blablahb:
Can hardly set a fox to watch the geese you know. Allow everybody to have murder weapons and there will be murders. Allowing everyone to have firearms and expecting a ban on using them for killing to actually work is nothing short of naive.

Allow everybody to have free speech and there will be defamation and slander. Allowing everyone to have free speech and expecting a ban on using it for defamation and slander to actually work is nothing short of naive.

Blablahb:
It's a catch 22 situation for the gun lobby: If it's about murdering people, they're part of the reason why there should be a ban and can be ignored. If it's not about murdering people, they'll be in favour of heavy restrictions on firearms ownership because their reason for gun ownership isn't endangered by such restrictions.

As a result, basically nobody can be opposed to gun ownership restrictions without being a hypocrite.

If it's about defamation and slander, they're part of the reason why there should be a ban and can be ignored. If it's not about defamation and slander, they'll be in favour of heavy restrictions on speech because their reason for wanting to exercise free speech isn't endangered by such restrictions.

As a result, basically nobody can be opposed to heavy restrictions on speech without being a hypocrite.

Blablahb:
However I pointed out how 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners (quite significant a percentage wouldn't you agree?), and firearms ownership is THE enabling factor for such crimes.

That is a tautology -- you can't commit a gun crime without having a gun, but a gun ban won't reliably change that -- much like banning murder won't keep people from murdering, banning guns won't keep people from owning them anyways. You can however commit almost all of the same crimes using a different weapon without much difference (except that no longer involving a gun it wouldn't be "gun crime"). In fact, pistols are the most common murder weapon in the US. Knives and bludgeons are ahead of the next class of firearm. So wanting to ban certain types of rifles to reduce gun murder literally means it would be more effective to ban knives and anything that could reasonably be used as a bludgeon. I assume you own no such dangerous murder weapons as knives or anything hard, heavy, and able to be swung, right?

Blablahb:
But in that sort of a situation, a total gun ban can be instituted without that becoming a problem; a farmer can apply for a weapon permit, and once he's proven he actually needs one, he can have a permit for a hunting rifle that's not automated. Voila, problem solved.

But in that sort of a situation, a total ban on controversial speech can be instituted without that becoming a problem; you can apply for a speech permit, and once you've proven you actually need one, he can have a permit to speak about specific approved topics. Voila, problem solved.

Also, define "automated." Are you referring to automatic weapons (that is, weapon that fire reptedly whilst one holds down the trigger)? If so, those are already heavily regulated. Do you mean semi-automatic weapons (that is, those firearms that fire once per trigger pull, but are reset into position to fire again as a result)?

wintercoat:

Blablahb once said that every person who owns a gun for defense, whether home or personal, is a murderer waiting for a victim. There is literally no point in arguing with him when it comes to guns. And that sentiment goes double if you're in the NRA. I mean, if you wanna try and argue the point with him, go ahead. Just remember, you have been warned.

Perhaps my response to Shaoken was too subtle. Let me try to be more blunt: I neither need, nor want, anyone to "warn" me about whether or not my posts are a good use of my time. I don't need to be told that someone like Blahblahb isn't going to change his mind. This isn't my first day on this forum, or forums in general. I'm not new to the concept of arguing against people like Blahblahb. I'm not new to the concept of arguing against Blahblahb himself. I know exactly what to expect. I've known what to expect from him for months now. I posted my replies to him, not because I'm naive about the results, but because I felt like it. I'm a big girl. I don't need other people to hold my hand, here.

Blablahb:
And surprise surprise, defamination and slander are crimes.

Your comments about the NRA and GunSmithKitten are both libelous (the written form of slander) and constitute a defamation of character. Which, in many countries, makes you a criminal.

BrassButtons:

wintercoat:

Blablahb once said that every person who owns a gun for defense, whether home or personal, is a murderer waiting for a victim. There is literally no point in arguing with him when it comes to guns. And that sentiment goes double if you're in the NRA. I mean, if you wanna try and argue the point with him, go ahead. Just remember, you have been warned.

Perhaps my response to Shaoken was too subtle. Let me try to be more blunt: I neither need, nor want, anyone to "warn" me about whether or not my posts are a good use of my time. I don't need to be told that someone like Blahblahb isn't going to change his mind. This isn't my first day on this forum, or forums in general. I'm not new to the concept of arguing against people like Blahblahb. I'm not new to the concept of arguing against Blahblahb himself. I know exactly what to expect. I've known what to expect from him for months now. I posted my replies to him, not because I'm naive about the results, but because I felt like it. I'm a big girl. I don't need other people to hold my hand, here.

Blablahb:
And surprise surprise, defamination and slander are crimes.

Your comments about the NRA and GunSmithKitten are both libelous (the written form of slander) and constitute a defamation of character. Which, in many countries, makes you a criminal.

This be the internet, laddie, which means the thick white wall of anonimity protects him.

Though yes, what he's done by accusing me of intention of to commit what is a violent felony, would be actionable in court, as decides being patently untrue can do harm to me personally and professionally.

GunsmithKitten:
This be the internet, laddie, which means the thick white wall of anonimity protects him.

Though yes, what he's done by accusing me of intention of to commit what is a violent felony, would be actionable in court, as decides being patently untrue can do harm to me personally and professionally.

BrassButtons:
Your comments about the NRA and GunSmithKitten are both libelous (the written form of slander) and constitute a defamation of character. Which, in many countries, makes you a criminal.

I don't think attacking me as a person, because you're out of arguments and unable to refute anything I say, is a constructive discussion. Either argue something, or don't post. Tone down the hostility for a start. It may be normal for the gun lobby, but that doesn't make it normal.

Schadrach:
Also, define "automated." Are you referring to automatic weapons

No, both fully and semi-automatic weapons. Neither is needed for legitimate uses of firearms, while both aid heavily in crime. So both should be banned.

That should absolutely collapse the amount of firearms crime pretty much overnight. In addition, legislation would be needed to hold owners of a weapons permit to much higher standards. Threatening someone with a firearm held under permit for instance should be a serious and get far more punishment than a regular threat, because someone went through the proces of getting a firearm knowing that's not allowed, and did it anyway.

Other positive effects include that from that point on, law enforcement once again has an advantage, while right now, US policemen are often less well-armed than the people they face, and everyone can be a gun owner. As a result they're rather paranoid in their handling of situations, always a hand on their gun, and many police officers pay with their life for gun ownership of others. Under such a weapon ban, very few people confronted by police will be armed, reducing violence. Not just that, but that allows police to handle more professionally and de-escalate a situation instead of escalating it, resulting in better law enforcement. Finally when push comes to shove, the rare case who has decided to use their firearm held under permit against the police, will be well aware that a non-automated hunting rifle is no match for the police, leading them to choose gun violence in even fewer cases.

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
've already tried to explain this to him. Repeatedly. It will never sink in.
He's even accused me of attempted murder, borderline libel and laughable since I was already quickly and decidedly cleared in a court of law.

It's not really classy to go accusing me of things like that, while you're the one who choose to threaten someone with a gun, and chooses to carry guns with the intent of perpetrating murder on someone who you might consider a threat.

That's your choice. I'm merely describing your choice. If you don't like what you hear, get rid of your guns and become a respectable citizen.

Although I guess for gun owners it makes even more sense to not adress the problem, but shoot the messenger.

Xan Krieger:
Nobody wants to murder anyone, we want to be safe in case someone breaks into our house and if they get shot to death that is in the majority of states NOT murder.

No that's confusing. First you say nobody wants to murder anyone, then you say you need guns to murder people with. Why contradict yourself in the same sentence?

Xan Krieger:
He never said they could kill entire families

Oh yes he did. No guns, his family would be killed. Not just that, but apparently whatever animal that was would also cross an ocean and kill my family as well, unless he had guns. Even for a gun violence advocate it was one of the more weird claims I've ever seen.

When I asked some more it turned out he wanted guns to murder people with though, so we can disregard the story safely.

Xan Krieger:
He needs a gun to defend his farm and the animals on it from other animals that might want to eat them.

Sounds more like some farmer needs to get off his lazy arse and start building a decent fence then. But in that sort of a situation, a total gun ban can be instituted without that becoming a problem; a farmer can apply for a weapon permit, and once he's proven he actually needs one, he can have a permit for a hunting rifle that's not automated. Voila, problem solved.

Xan Krieger:
I would like proof of this claim.

As proof I would like to point out that the only way to shoot someone with a firearm, is by having a firearm, thus 100% of all gun crime must be perpetrated by people who have firearms.

As per my style the post breakdown
"o that's confusing. First you say nobody wants to murder anyone, then you say you need guns to murder people with. Why contradict yourself in the same sentence?" I did not say I needed guns to murder people with.

"Oh yes he did. No guns, his family would be killed. Not just that, but apparently whatever animal that was would also cross an ocean and kill my family as well, unless he had guns. Even for a gun violence advocate it was one of the more weird claims I've ever seen."
We'll have to pull up that old conversation

"When I asked some more it turned out he wanted guns to murder people with though, so we can disregard the story safely."
Again I don't recall him saying he wanted to murder people, maybe he said he wanted to defend his property but that's not murder.

"Sounds more like some farmer needs to get off his lazy arse and start building a decent fence then. But in that sort of a situation, a total gun ban can be instituted without that becoming a problem; a farmer can apply for a weapon permit, and once he's proven he actually needs one, he can have a permit for a hunting rifle that's not automated. Voila, problem solved."
Hungry animals can be smart animals and the moment they spot a weakness in the fence is the moment they strike.
As for the rest, why not one that's semi-auto? If you miss the first shot or the first fails to take down the attacking animal then it makes sense to have a second shot ready to go.

"As proof I would like to point out that the only way to shoot someone with a firearm, is by having a firearm, thus 100% of all gun crime must be perpetrated by people who have firearms."
That is not proof that 100% of gun crime is committed by gun owners. I don't own a truck but I have driven them, I was in control of the truck despite not being the truck owner.

Man looks to and questions room full of people, who remain silent, then uses it to confirm his point that no one has an answer, yet is then answered by people who felt provoked into a response. Both sides were out of decorum and the panel refused to chastise the speaker for obvious reasons.

That's all that happened. World class news & reporting here at the Escapist, I see.

I'm sorry but this guy wasn't heckled. He asked a question. Everyone remained silent as they should have. He asked the question again and still everyone remained quiet. It wasn't until he claimed victory for his point that people shouted out why he was wrong. If you don't want to hear an answer to your question, don't ask questions.

I'm always disturbed when people start doing things because of a tragedy or in memory of their kids. I always wonder "Why weren't you concerned before hand? Oh, because it didn't affect you before but now it does." In my personal opinion that's BS and I can't stand people like that.

Blablahb:
I don't think attacking me as a person, because you're out of arguments and unable to refute anything I say, is a constructive discussion. Either argue something, or don't post. Tone down the hostility for a start. It may be normal for the gun lobby, but that doesn't make it normal.

Oh good, you don't have me on ignore. So, care to present your evidence against my fiance? At the very least can you tell me who you're accusing him of murdering? Or are you going to admit that your statements were libelous?

Blablahb:
What's the middle ground then oh big expert?

Well the laws we have in place right now seem to need nothing more than a bit of tweaking and some harder enforcement.

Oh, you committed a felony? No gun for you.
You were committed to a mental ward at some point in your life? No gun for you.
Diagnosed with mental disorders? No gun for you.
Failed your background check? No gun for you.
Lied on your ATF form? Here, let us kick in your door and throw you behind bars so you can get intimate with Bubba.

And so on and so forth.

God forbid Johnny Q. buys an AR to keep those pesky hogs out of his crop.

Because all I see are the only working measures against spree shootings being blocked or sabotaged using silly arguments like "But I need to be able to murder people" or "But I'm scared". One even claimed there were animals on his farm that could kill entire families if they weren't armed to the teeth. What do they grow on that gun-loving farm? Mass Effect's Reapers?

Sir, have you ever encountered a wild Boar, a Cougar, Mountain Lion or Bear in your life?

Blablahb:
I don't think attacking me as a person, because you're out of arguments and unable to refute anything I say, is a constructive discussion. Either argue something, or don't post. Tone down the hostility for a start. It may be normal for the gun lobby, but that doesn't make it normal.

If they shouldn't do it, neither should you.

Smagmuck_:

Blablahb:
What's the middle ground then oh big expert?

Well the laws we have in place right now seem to need nothing more than a bit of tweaking and some harder enforcement.

Oh, you committed a felony? No gun for you.
You were committed to a mental ward at some point in your life? No gun for you.
Diagnosed with mental disorders? No gun for you.
Failed your background check? No gun for you.
Lied on your ATF form? Here, let us kick in your door and throw you behind bars so you can get intimate with Bubba.

And so on and so forth.

God forbid Johnny Q. buys an AR to keep those pesky hogs out of his crop.

Because all I see are the only working measures against spree shootings being blocked or sabotaged using silly arguments like "But I need to be able to murder people" or "But I'm scared". One even claimed there were animals on his farm that could kill entire families if they weren't armed to the teeth. What do they grow on that gun-loving farm? Mass Effect's Reapers?

Sir, have you ever encountered a wild Boar, a Cougar, Mountain Lion or Bear in your life?

Blablahb:
I don't think attacking me as a person, because you're out of arguments and unable to refute anything I say, is a constructive discussion. Either argue something, or don't post. Tone down the hostility for a start. It may be normal for the gun lobby, but that doesn't make it normal.

If they shouldn't do it, neither should you.

Just to help you when it comes to animals
image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogzilla
800lbs of a type of hog known for being agressive towards humans.

He asked 'why' not 'how'. He asked a question and he got a loud, dumb answer.

"Why do you need an assault weapon?"

"The second amendment!"

That explains the how but it still leaves open the why that he asked for. I think the lack of any sort of rational answer does make it heckling. They were just shouting something to shout something at him. If they shouted a good point, it might have been different.

Notsomuch:
He asked 'why' not 'how'. He asked a question and he got a loud, dumb answer.

"Why do you need an assault weapon?"

"The second amendment!"

That explains the how but it still leaves open the why that he asked for. I think the lack of any sort of rational answer does make it heckling. They were just shouting something to shout something at him. If they shouted a good point, it might have been different.

Heslin actually says, "I ask if there's anybody in this room than can give one reason or challenge this question why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips."

The Second Amendment doesn't need to answer why (although it does provide the basis for a reasonable response). An enumerated right is a valid challenge to the question.

Would someone explain to me why we need protections against unreasonable searches? What do you have to hide?

Xan Krieger:

800lbs of a type of hog known for being agressive towards humans.

"DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic pig (Hampshire breed). However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen."

A single freak animal, which has already been killed, makes for kind of a weak argument. Just saying.

Mr.BadExample:

Notsomuch:
He asked 'why' not 'how'. He asked a question and he got a loud, dumb answer.

"Why do you need an assault weapon?"

"The second amendment!"

That explains the how but it still leaves open the why that he asked for. I think the lack of any sort of rational answer does make it heckling. They were just shouting something to shout something at him. If they shouted a good point, it might have been different.

Heslin actually says, "I ask if there's anybody in this room than can give one reason or challenge this question why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips."

The Second Amendment doesn't need to answer why (although it does provide the basis for a reasonable response). An enumerated right is a valid challenge to the question.

Would someone explain to me why we need protections against unreasonable searches? What do you have to hide?

The example you presented is the precise basis of an amendment. It's not the same as what he asked. If you are asking why there is protection from unreasonable search and seizures you can respond with the wording of the amendment because the wording of the amendment presents precise opposition to that statement. What he asked was why people need a specific type of weapon. If he asked, 'why do we have the right to keep and bear arms in this country' they would be justified in responding 'Second amendment!' and your example would fit. So yeah, they were just saying something to say something because they certainly didn't respond to his question satisfactorily. They probably could have calmly spouted their NRA talking points and been done with him if they didn't immediately panic and spit out their first, gut reaction defense.

Guh, I need to say something quick! "First amendmuh! Muh muh muh! Blarfflahfla!"

It doesn't make them look good because everything someone shouts while standing up in a quiet, reserved court room immediately just ends up sounding like a load of crap flying out of their mouth at high speed.

Blablahb:

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.

You know, I heard about the *undisputed fact* that MSNBC EDITED the video in order to make news out of non-news. Then I was like, I wonder if the Escapist Forums are talking about this. If there was no thread, I was going to make one, and ask, how, with a straight face, the apologists for the extreme left here were going to justify the media lying to us, and manipulating a grieving father to push an agenda.

Sure enough, the edited version of the video (in other words, the LIE) is the only thing taken into account by the thread creator and all the usual suspects who, apparently, don't care about context.

This thread writes it in stone. You don't care about truth, or context, or what's right. All you care about is taking 3 seconds to read headlines, and going apeshit because that makes you feel good. Strike a huge win for the good guys on this one, putting it in the bank.

The sad thing is, you lost. You're proven wrong and it's indisputable. Yet, you won't apologize, you won't backtrack, or admit anything. You WILL find some wacky work around for this bold-faced lie. Right? It's okay to lie as long as it's your lie, right?

Notsomuch:
He asked 'why' not 'how'. He asked a question and he got a loud, dumb answer.

"Why do you need an assault weapon?"

"The second amendment!"

That explains the how but it still leaves open the why that he asked for. I think the lack of any sort of rational answer does make it heckling. They were just shouting something to shout something at him. If they shouted a good point, it might have been different.

So you're arguing not that the act of vocally responding was wrong, but lean back and judge what is and isn't a valid answer to a question?

The bias and manipulation in reporting false context is one thing, but to nitpick and get into semantics over what is a "reason" to own one of those weapons they were discussing and allow yourself to judge it as "heckling" takes things to an asinine level. It was not heckling. You may have also heard some providing context to the whole point of the amendment: "shall not be infringed." The people did not have microphones and were unprepared to make official arguments, so they couldn't elaborate.

Regarding the second amendment: banning rifles is infringement. There is no just reason for doing so and it's preventing access to something that is in large-part irrelevant to crime. Rifles are not used in the vast majority of crimes; pistols are. It's absurd to even put up with these questions that frame this conversation as a matter of needs and wants rather than what is right and wrong. It is not right to use government as a ban-hammer on the people and dust one's hands of the very real issue of violence. It was not right with alcohol, it was not right with marijuana. People are capable of being responsible and governments deny this with these bans.

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?"

So since MSNBC edited the tape, and your story is a lie, are you going to edit your sensationalist headline to this thread?

boots:

Xan Krieger:

800lbs of a type of hog known for being agressive towards humans.

"DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic pig (Hampshire breed). However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen."

A single freak animal, which has already been killed, makes for kind of a weak argument. Just saying.

Thought more people would've been surprised that it was killed by Chris Griffin, the lack of Family Guy fans here saddens me.

Not sure if I'd call it heckling, but as others have pointed out, it was still inappropriate to respond, regardless of whether the question was rhetorical or not, based solely on the rules of the forum.

Xan Krieger:

boots:

Xan Krieger:

800lbs of a type of hog known for being agressive towards humans.

"DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic pig (Hampshire breed). However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen."

A single freak animal, which has already been killed, makes for kind of a weak argument. Just saying.

Thought more people would've been surprised that it was killed by Chris Griffin, the lack of Family Guy fans here saddens me.

Eh... Chris is the character least attached to his name (unlike, say, Stewie, Meg, or Quagmire). I agree, though, with boots that a freak occurrence of nature is not really a reasonable justification for expansive gun ownership in a society.

On topic: The nature of a official hearing does create an expectation of behavior similar to that of a courtroom, especially of the gallery. Rhetorical questions are a common technique to make a point. The only people who are to respond to questions, regardless of the source, are the witnesses or those who are conducting the hearing. The outburst was inappropriate.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked