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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

The Gentleman:

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.

No one said it was appropriate or graceful or tactful. But to call it "heckling" and to spin it as a bunch of ravenous gun nuts just harassing some grieving father is an outright lie. They were silent and respectful for the first time he asked the question. The second time, it is highly debatable whether or not it was rhetorical. It may have been, but it didn't sound rhetorical. He opened up the door for a response of some sort. I'm guessing you are anti-gun, because if the sides were switched, you could easily find a way to argue that this was not heckling. Put yourself in those shoes and try it, it might be fun.

AgedGrunt:

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?

Yep, and how it was conveyed.

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.

We're saying the same thing here. They were unprepared, stuck their foots in their mouths and said the first thing that came to their mind just to say something. If they were prepared to offer interesting discourse with an official response they wouldn't be hecklers.

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.

If you can't use an assault rifle you still have the right to bear arms. You just have to bear other arms. The government could ban all guns down to the weapons that the Americans used against the British and you would still have the right to bear arms as it was laid out in the Constitution. So yeah, Shouting 'second Amendment' or just saying what is within the amendment is not a valid response to the question he asked.

Notsomuch:
Yep, and how it was conveyed.

We're saying the same thing here. They were unprepared, stuck their foots in their mouths and said the first thing that came to their mind just to say something.

Yes, by "conveyed" and the response "just to say something", do you mean the part where the man turned around and faced the crowd, posed a question, waited in silence while looking at them, and then returned his judgment to the panel to offer that no one was capable of responding to him? We did watch the same video, the raw footage, correct?

Or maybe by conveyance you are asserting that anyone who has the floor can skirt the same decorum rules and (through a mea culpa I contend) end up baiting the room?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it was intentional, he is in grief and his plea to others in the room looked totally heart-felt. However, your position denies that others, who also lost their children I might add, can have the same passion to be outspoken, and ridicule them over what is little more than people trying to have a conversation.

It was against decorum for others to speak. A heckle is language of provocation or harassment; those were not provoking remarks, they were reactions. You even acknowledge the replies, so to use that word is fabrication. If MSNBC didn't edit the footage they would have looked like gimps to throw tantrums over this, that's why they had to mislead people. Somehow that's still not enough and people just want to remain cynical about others they disagree with.

AgedGrunt:
Yes, by "conveyed" and the response "just to say something", do you mean the part where the man turned around and faced the crowd, posed a question, waited in silence while looking at them, and then returned his judgment to the panel to offer that no one was capable of responding to him? We did watch the same video, the raw footage, correct?

We all watched the same video, and the amount of doublethink in that paragraph is astounding. He never adressed the rest of the room or turned to them to sollicit a response. He had a tendency to turn to his left for most of his story.

And anyone who has a brain, has noticed what's on his left and why he does that...

Blablahb:

AgedGrunt:
Yes, by "conveyed" and the response "just to say something", do you mean the part where the man turned around and faced the crowd, posed a question, waited in silence while looking at them, and then returned his judgment to the panel to offer that no one was capable of responding to him? We did watch the same video, the raw footage, correct?

We all watched the same video, and the amount of doublethink in that paragraph is astounding. He never adressed the rest of the room or turned to them to sollicit a response. He had a tendency to turn to his left for most of his story.

And anyone who has a brain, has noticed what's on his left and why he does that...

If saying "I ask if anyone in this room can give me one reason..." isn't addressing the rest of the room, then what is it?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to support your accusations against my fiance.

itsthesheppy:

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!

*shrugs* When it comes to restriction of actions by the government, empathy without a single scrap of scientifically valid and reliable evidence should never be used as a basis for decisions. If I actually lacked empathy I would have said that he was worthless piece of meat for acting as he did. I did not. To be unaffected by the death of your kid would be monsterous. Doesn't change that drowned kittens arguments need to be vigorously opposed.

Blablahb:
He never adressed the rest of the room or turned to them to sollicit a response.

Transcript
Neil Heslin: "I ask--there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why -- anybody in this room -- needs to have an assau- one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips?

[Heslin looks over shoulder. Five seconds go by before he turns back and continues]

Heslim: "And not one person can answer that question."

Also important to note: once people felt assured enough to give a response, he seemed satisfied enough that he got an answer.

Seems like more and more like an argument clinic with you. Let me break this down:

"I ask": Interrogative, asking a question.

"Anybody in this room: Subject. Who the question is referred to.

"Give me one reason or challenge this question": Imperative. A command or request.

I don't really understand why people think blurting out "second amendment" over and over again makes gun advocacy any less stupid.

AgedGrunt:
Also important to note: once people felt assured enough to give a response, he seemed satisfied enough that he got an answer.
Seems like more and more like an argument clinic with you. Let me break this down:
"I ask": Interrogative, asking a question.
"Anybody in this room: Subject. Who the question is referred to.
"Give me one reason or challenge this question": Imperative. A command or request.

Sounds like you're much better suited at giving clinics at how to post in a demeaning way without being right.

Because what he asked was a rhetorical question. Like I said he never demanded a response, or turned towards the audience like was claimed.

Blablahb:

Because what he asked was a rhetorical question. Like I said he never demanded a response, or turned towards the audience like was claimed.

How is it a rhetorical question if he specifically addressed it to the people in the room, paused for several seconds, and then said that nobody had an answer? You HAVE watched the full, unedited video, haven't you?

And how about you actually acknowledge the accusation of murder you made against my fiance, hmm? You were perfectly happy to make the accusation--are you not willing to stand by what you said? Or, if you don't stand by it, are you not adult enough to admit you made an error?

Blablahb:
Because what he asked was a rhetorical question. Like I said he never demanded a response, or turned towards the audience like was claimed.

There is video evidence of him turning towards the audience after asking said question. The transcript mentions it. It does not cease to exist just because you say so.

Ampersand:
I don't really understand why people think blurting out "second amendment" over and over again makes gun advocacy any less stupid.

I'll remember that the next time someone yells "first amendment!" when people debate over the need for free speech, religion, petitioning, press, etc.

But I guess it's ok when enough people come together and agree that these things are just silly and stupid and you do not need them. It's two wolves and a sheep discussing who to eat for dinner.

Blablahb:
Sounds like you're much better suited at giving clinics at how to post in a demeaning way without being right.

Because what he asked was a rhetorical question. Like I said he never demanded a response, or turned towards the audience like was claimed.

There was nothing demeaning about it. The scene was clearly laid-out, broken-down and formatted for you and you are giving conjecture. There's nothing more to add and let's not get into "yes it is/no it isn't". It's simply felt like you disagree with what you saw and have made up your mind.

And I don't necessarily blame you. It was the media that manipulated and demonized. In essence, people are inclined to believe the first version they see and hear, and are much more resistant to changing their mind. What happened is called yellow journalism and it's a travesty society may never be rid of. It works too well.

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.

Bull crap no wonder gun rights supporters dress like that. That is stereotyping, and using biased to make that crap logic statment that all gun owners are murders. James Holmes was not a gun owner nor a NRA, He was mentally insane physopath. That is like saying everyone in the democrat partly is a Stalin loving Communist. If they dont have a justification for it they do now thanks to the mentality of gun control supporters

Let me ask you this, and don't try to avoid it when was the last time an NRA member shot a school.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked