Gun advocates heckle father of boy slain in Newtown massacre
The Connecticut Post has published an article about the Gun Violence Protection Working Group's hearings addressing gun control in wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Gun advocates heckle father of boy slain in Newtown massacre
Neil Heslin holds a picture of himself with his son Jesse as he testifies. His son was among the 20 first graders killed in Newtown, Conn. (Jessica Hill / Associated Press)
The Connecticut Post has published an article about the Gun Violence Protection Working Group's hearings addressing gun control in wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Some 1,500 people made their way to the Legislative Office Building at the Capitol complex in Hartford. Neil Heslin—whose son was killed in the rampage—spoke about the need for change.
"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.
Heslin continued to speak, unwavered by the cries from the crowd.
"That wasn't just a killing, it was a massacre," said Heslin, who recalled dropping off his son at Sandy Hook Elementary school shortly before Lanza opened fire. "I just hope some good can come out of this." [Connecticut Post]
Comments (203)
@masterncommander...the govt does not give you freedom— Iknowyourider- Would he rather that his son had been killed by one of Lanza's handguns? Makes no sense.— erikmartin2
- didnt happen. do your research and stop believing one article you read— keapitreal
- This article is a joke. He was never heckled. He asked the attendees a question and they answered. Typical.
- i am not a gun freak. I've never owned a gun and only shot one doing some target practice many, many years ago but I strongly disagree that we need more laws on the books taking away my right to purchase the gun that I want, should I ever decide to do so. I pay may taxes to my government faithfully, in part for them to protect my rights. If/when the time comes that my government turns against me, which seems to be happening slowly but surely, we NEED a way to defend ourselves against its tyranny. If you are foolish enough to believe that the US Government could not turn tyrannical then you need to have your head examined. One of the main reasons we are not living under tyranny right now is because of all of the guns that exist in this country. Take the guns away and what do we as average citizens have to defend against our own fully mechanized military? We'll have rocks. That'll help. People will sieze any power they can get if they know that the power comes unfettered and it only takes one person with the proper powers of persuasion to send us down the wrong path. Read your history.— mboyd10
- You may want to check the history books you've been reading. I think there's a lot better chance of the US government dissolving into smaller autonomous regions than becoming some monolithic tyrannical state (for the record, I don't believe either is likely in the near term). The country is virtually ungovernable now let alone if supplies of cheap, plentiful enegy keep trending in the direction they've be going since the 70s. Another factor is that, historically speaking, despotic regimes tend to arise in countries that don't have any tradition of democracy to start with. This was certainly true of the the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Moaist China. You know, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." So relax, dude. Big Brother is not going to put you in a concentration camp. He'll just numb you with advertizing, look through your emails, listen to your phone calls and just all-around dumb you down. That's proven to be a lot more effective strategy and your guns can't do a damn thing about that. — abendteuer
- from the 2nd amendment: an "ordered militia"— ptahan
- Actually this article is misleading. I watched the whole video of the Connecticut hearing and what really happened was Mr. Heslin said "I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips?" It was a direct question to the audience but nobody from the audience answered him because the council was telling people not to applaud and stay silent. Mr Heslin then went on to say "not one person can answer that question." That is when someone from the crowd quoted the 2nd amendment. Nobody heckled this man and through his entire testimony other than his question to the audience the audience sat quietly not interrupting him one time. In fact Breitbart did an article on this because MSNBC edited the original footage to make it seem like the crowd verbally attacked him. Here is a link to that article if anyone is interested.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/29/Media-Lies-About-Sandy-Hook-Victim-Being-Heckled— scooby86 - Shame! Shame! Shame on you who prefer Amendment 2. Your right to own a gun or the lives of any other human beings.That's a little more serious than do I have a right to have tater tots instead of the french fries. You are indeed selfish.— DonnaMissesPhilly
- That's not heckling; that's an answer. Well, part of one: Lanza was a thief and his mother lax in protecting her guns. If no one ever stole a car and committed a crime with it, the gun control people would have a point.
- Whatever your position on the issue, the 2nd Amendment doesn't trump the 1st Amendment. Those on both side have the right to state their positions publicly. Why the need to heckle if you're confident in your position?— Boru
- Nothing is worse than a few members of the loud minority using the country and the Constitution as a shield so they can continue their action-hero fantasies at the gun range. Cowardly too.— Santa Satan
- Such shoddy journalism. We are a nation of 315 million people.. and We as Americans do not deserve to have any infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights because of 1 violent kook in Sandy Hook— Dutch10
- I saw the uncut video. He wasn't heckled. He asked the question why anyone would need assault weapons and people did respond with 2nd amednment shal not be infringed then it was over.— not_retired
- If guns made us safer. Shoulden't America be the safest place on earth?— magicmike
- I agree I hope some good can come from this as well. We should teach our children from a very young age to flee, in the event a gun is brandished in any circumstance. Just as we were taught during the cold war to close the blinds and crawl under our desks. We should be teaching our children to flee and duck for cover. Not to become a victim. If the poor little babies were taught to runaway it would have presented a totally different problem for the untrained shooter. New gun law work for law abiding gun owners like myself. Criminals or delusional people bent on causing mayhem will not be deterred by tougher gun laws. They will most likely steal the gun or purchase it on the street. Enforce the gun on the books and have mandatory sentences for people caught with guns, without a permit to carry, or people that commit a crime with a gun. 5-20years is a good starting place.— IPDAILY2
- People object to the so called "Assualt Rifle" because it can hold a magazine of 30 or more rounds and cause a lot of damage correct? Tell me this, is it better to have to much ammo or to little ammo when a thug kicks in your door wanting to rob,rape and kill you and your family? By the time you would call the cops and wait for them to respond the only thing they will be able to do for you is zip up your body bag.— Taxpaying Voter
- I believe in the Second Amendment right to legitmately own and carry firearms if licensed to do so, I also believe that anyone who would heckle the father of a child slain by a madman with a gun, does not have the brains, commonsense or human decency to own a firearm. Maybe, not even a drivers licence.— BillyBob369
- I like the part of the 2nd amendment that always gets left out. A WELL REGULATED MILATIA. Yet anytime someone wants regulations people loss their minds.— cuso20
- Regulated, in the language of the day, meant supplied and trained, not restricted. — DeltaV
- Right DeltaPee, because you were there right? You're a clown.
You're not a militia nor is any one man. We have no need for militias.
mi·li·tia (m-lsh), n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
— masterncommander - DeltaV, You're absolutely right, but you're throwing pearls at the pigs. They don't want the truth. They want the pretty lies the Brady bunch feeds them. — DonQ
- Red Sonja - I applaud your diligence in owning a registered, concealed firearm for personal protection. But when you say "that doesn't give him or anybody else the right to take away a WOMAN'S RIGHT to SELF-DEFENSE!" you are missing a HUGE point. Most Americans are not for eliminating a persons rights to firearms.
What this father asked and what many others want to know is why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state. There is no need for citizens to have access to military-grade assault rifles. NONE.
— intheweeds - "There is no need for citizens to have access to military-grade assault rifles."
That is not what is being discussed here. Military grade automatic weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA of 1934. Being discussed now are semi-automatic rifles which only differ from normal 'hunting rifles' or target rifles by cosmetics, non functional features. You're holding up a firecracker and a stick of dynamite and saying they're the same.— DeltaV - I'm very sorry for all these massacres...I'm sorry these man had his fine son taken by a criminal... But I didn't hurt nobody. Why am I being punished, ridiculed, considered worse than a predatory pediphile?
% of "Assault Weapons" used in crimes = 2%, % of guns bought at "Gun Shows" used in crime... less than 1%. Bill Clinton's Attorney General Office even said that the 10 year assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban (1994-2004) did almost nothing to stop crime. All this is "feel good legislation". It WILL NOT STOP these random massacres!!!
Let gun course/legally certified teachers carry guns and put armed school police between our little innocent lambs and every preditor out here!— John Law - The loudest voices on this issue always go to the extremes of the spectrum. It's either a gun ban or the ability to purchase any and all arms available. I think that there are some common sense bans that make sense, but have a better solution to prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again. Preventing things like this will never happen, but reducing their frequency should be the goal.
The common thread that I see in a lot of these mass murders, is that the doer was either mentally ill, is a minor that accessed someone else's weapon, or is a repeat offender. Background checks should occur, especially looking for any signs of mental illness. If a registered gun owner allows their weapons to be unsecured and accessible to anybody, they should be charged as an accessory to whatever criminal acts occur. If a criminal is found to be in possession of a weapon and are in violation of their parole, they should have the book thrown at them. The gun laws that are on the books should be enforced and mandatory sentances should be imposed for anyone using a weapon while comitting a crime with no chance for an early parole.
2nd Amendment defenders always talk about the number of responsible gun owners out there and how the actions of a few shouldn't ruin it for the rest of them. I agree and I think that these types of ideas wouldn't ruin it for any responsible gun owner. If you want a gun, you should be responsible for it 24/7, including making sure that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.— Jamo - I hear all the time... that people only had muskets when the Constitution was written. But think about it, That's all the military had too. Today the military has much more firepower available to them than the public.Enough with the "assault rifle" Classification. They are SEMI-automatic rifles, the military has the assault rifles, they are AUTOMATIC.— Pineapple Betafish
- So the government has fighter jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons. Does that mean that you should have them too?
BTW, rifles like an AR-15 ARE ASSAULT RIFLES.
If you want to play with tactical rifles, join the military.....or are you too chickens__t?— masterncommander - "BTW, rifles like an AR-15 ARE ASSAULT RIFLES."
No, they are not. They fire one round with every one trigger pull. They operate the same as any hunting rifle, target pistol; the differences are entirely cosmetic.
They do not fire automatically like a military assault rifle.
As for jets, tanks, and nukes: we have the right to bear arms, which are weapons designed to be carried, used, and operated by one person. While the right to bear artillery would be interesting (and early in the revolution, private cannon did play a role), I think you would be hard pressed to find many who believe in that.— DeltaV - Um, YES THEY ARE. Spare us your NRA fluff and your excuses. THEY ARE ASSAULT RIFLES.
A well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms. Not a single person. A family is a not a militia.— masterncommander - And BTW - I don't necessarily feel a ban on 'a22ault type' ri1les will either do anything significantly positive, other than marginally, and will not pass in Congress. But there still needs to be a crackdown - particularly at g1n sh0ws, where lawless rednecks and such continue to flaunt laws -- for profit.— Murrayman
- HFV seriously, I don't care what you call me. "You want to take away my God Given right to defend myself because I disagree with you're baloney?" Its not that -- I'm questioning whether, Constitutionally, the government has the right to LIMIT your right. Guess what? There is case history to show -- that they do. You can't have certain types of weapons, and this has been found to not infringe upon your right. I don't want the govt to infringe upon rights. But I'm examining history - there is precedent showing that "right to bear arms" doesn't mean "right to bear ALL TYPES of arms". What I want, though, is to continue to have a forum that allows people to see that the right wingers are delusional and fearful, and therefore needing to be regulated -- and you are helping with that so much - particularly your suggestion that SH was a conspiracy perpetrated in part by the media and the police.
— Murrayman 
The only thing more unimaginable than the heckling of Mr. Heslin is the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary itself. Mr. Heslin deserves immense credit for keeping his composure under this horribly insensitive circumstance. Where is our decency? It does not matter WHERE you stand on the gun issue. Where is our decency?- This wasn't the time or place for a 2nd Amendment debate. I hope the "protestors" die.— Ino_Karate
- Hobo Floto, you repeat ad nauseum that the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere and neither is the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution realized that times and circumstances change and that the writers themselves are not infallible. That is the entire reason that we have any amendments in the first place. An intelligent conversation or civilized debate where each side brings a well thought out argument will go a lot farther than digging in your heels, covering up your ears, and acting like a child. This is obviously not an endorsement for either side of the debate in philly.com's comments section because both sides act foolish, but your petulant repetition of the same thing over and over are the actions of a troll and only serve to lower the bar for discourse on this issue.— Jamo
- I'll take a double Jamo...Thanks — Hobo Floto Voto
- Wokmaster...sorry i called you and Murray Obama Donkey brains...PhillTaz is right. Name calling has no place in our spirited debates.
— Hobo Floto Voto - this is probably exactly what it sounds like in congress. people distorting what everyone else is saying so they can push their own private agenda. no wonder this country is going down the tubes.— hooded_crow
- Lisa Dougherty...Because this is a free country and the Constitution says so.
— Hobo Floto Voto - To what well-regulated militia do these immature nuts think they belong to?
To the extent that the right to keep and bear is protected, people are to be part of the militias of the several states, when called to actual Service of the United States by the Commander in Chief (that's the President of the US, not the NRA). The President didn't call you up, and shooting at silhouettes at targetmaster isn't actual service.
Grow up, the self-indulgent delusion that you are in any way protecting the country or the constitution is a danger to civilized and innocent people. We'll be sure and let you know if the largest, most sophisticated military on the planet gets in over its head. And if the govt wants to oppress you, they're not going to bother taking your guns, they'll just turn off your cable, electricity, water.
What century are you living in, where your assault rifle is going to somehow prevent gov't overreaching, corruption or whatever you think is just outside your door?— no_shootouts - There is not one argument that would make sense in allowing everyday citizens to own assault rifles.
People that argue otherwise are idiots.— Lisa Dougherty - WORKMASTER, you are a piece of work. If someone does not agree with you then it is insult after insult. People like you are ones that start wars! Say your opinion and move on, when you constantly argue with someone elses opinion that is going back to the first grade playground. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and yours is no more right or wrong that someone elses! Remember what opinions are like? And guess what, yours stinks just as much as the next guys!!— PhillyTaz
- "Say your opinion and move on, when you constantly argue with someone elses opinion that is going back to the first grade playground."
Thanks for the laugh!! How about Hobo? Taxman/professor? You're real grievance is that I disagree with you. Otherwise you wouldn't sound like such a partisan stooge.
By the way, I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of a gun nut. It's a fruitless exercise. I just try to counter their collective ignorance with facts. Don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.— wokmaster - x— Falls Ed
- Yeah, I guess you are right. The fact that father's of Adam Lanza and James Holmes were both scheduled to testify in the Libor Scandal, and the fact that both had a son involved in mass murder using "assault rifles" was just some weird coincidence.— Olden Grey
- Reading some of the comments sent in really shows how stupid we are as a nation,the 2A gives right to own "state of the art weapons" where in hell does it say that? Maybe they should have stayed in school instead of going hunting for deer season. Any elected official who is taking money from the NRA is on their payroll and should be removed for not serving the people.People who have lost family to this kind of violence as a right to speak up not shut up.For most of these anti-government posters why are you hiding behind articles of our rights made by government if you hate it so much, we have 2 borders use them,get out!— phillypepper
- A shame for his loss, but he's targeting the wrong people. Banning any type of guns is like putting a band aid on a wound. The root cause of any shooting falls within the mentality of the shooter. While watching violent video games 10 hours a day won't effect most, it obviously does others whose mental competency should be questioned.— dogman5
- Sandy Hook = Tragic event turned into political opportunity.— Hobo Floto Voto
Okay, so you don't "need" guns, fine. When the government takes away your right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully assemble, etc. You'll wish you had one. Are there any of the Bill of Rights that you pansies will fight for?- It is quite convenient that a horrific massacre occurs days before the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is up for voting. Sorry if I don’t blindly believe everything I see and read…especially with conflicting, changing and different information.— Hobo Floto Voto
- Or.. the fact that the fathers of BOTH Lanza and Holmes were due to testify regarding the Libor Scandal (perhaps the biggest financial scandal of all time).
- Ladies and gentlemen, we have 2 members of the "Sandy Hook Hoaxers" gracing us with their NUTTY conspiracy theories. — wokmaster
- I don't believe there was a conspiracy...
I just question things, especially when logic dictates that I do. Enough if the conspiracy theorist NUTTY baloney.
The most despicable part of this is that you and others like you; are using this tragic event turned into political opportunity to change the US Constitution.
— Hobo Floto Voto - Take a deep breath, dude. You are contradicting yourself every other post.
First: "It is quite convenient that a horrific massacre occurs days before the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is up for voting. Sorry if I don’t blindly believe everything I see and read…especially with conflicting, changing and different information."
Then: "I don't believe there was a conspiracy...".
Huh??
— wokmaster - "Gun advocates heckle father of boy slain in Newtown".
Boy, if that isn't a loaded title for an article.... Oh, well. Of course, the father was in the state Legislative Building in Hartford questioning the ownership of guns....but I digress.— Falls Ed - "wok...the media reported several times that the AR was in his trunk...it actually showed the video of the cops unloading it. Then the story changed. Nobody is lying. Look it up." So --- the cops and media, along with whomever else, are in on it, just as the FDNY was in on the 9/11 conspiracy. What's scary is that HFV could obtain Lanzaesque firepower -- in, what, 24 hours? Less?— Murrayman
- "What's scary is that HFV could obtain Lanzaesque firepower -- in, what, 24 hours? Less?"
Exactly. And this, folkes, is why we need to fight the NRA and their useful idiots at every turn.
— wokmaster - The anti gun crowd is making some well thought out, logical statements. Following that line of thinking... "Navy Seals didn't kill Osama, guns did."
- "Well regulated, using the way the word was used at the time, meant well supplied and well trained.
In the words of our time, that means the 2nd says that 'a well supplied and trained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...'." -- lol. This is what we're dealing with. These people can't see the extremity of their judgment. Now we're being told that regulated doesn't actually mean "regulated" -- it means, in one deduction, that people should be able to have any weapon they want. You can't make this up.
— Murrayman - Hobo Floto Voto has 90,000 questions, yet he still concludes that no AR was used. You'd think someone with so many questions would hold off on making conclusions? The media told him. Once they tell a story they can't update the story, change the story, based on new information. Whatever is first reported is the only truth. PhillySM -- you have a scary craziness. I want you checked out.
— Murrayman - I dont understand why is there a need for assault style gun weapons. Is Al Qaeda in your neighborhood now?— z03mbm
- The second amendment states that *militias* have the right to bear arms. That's what it was designed for. The founding fathers never envisioned an America where every average schmuck carries a weapon.
You gun enthusiasts are delusional and incredibly insecure.— Bradley85 - Any gun nuts out there, please quote the entire second amendment, not just the end of it.— Capsulef
- "Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids" -- no its you. There is reasonable dissent, and then there's you, and the other increasingly unhinged, fringe right wingers. You manufacture persecution. Its your parents' fault. Your delusion manifests itself in -- perceived attacks and such. You are the character in 'Don't Take Me Alive' (Steely Dan).
— Murrayman - @murrayman you want to call people liars but those are the facts he did not kill anybody with a .223 round and had the bush master in his car per Connecticut and Federal officials. Maybe you should get your facts straight and watch the video from the today show below. You to wokmaster get your facts straight and watch the video. Cnn, ABC, Fox, CBS an a handful of major news papers reported this also so stop lying to the sheep who are not informed or don't watch the news...
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495— PhillySM - The weapon in the car was a shotgun. It was erroneously reported immediately after the shooting that it was a rifle. The video that you and others are pushing was part of these erroneous reports. Once the dust settled, the cops and everyone else involved agreed that the Bushmaster was used in the shootings while the shotgun stayed in the car. You cited CNN and CBS as reporting the Bushmaster was in the car, but here is what CNN actually reported:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
And here is what CBS reported:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559416/assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook-massacre/
Both of those outlets said Lanza used the Bushmaster, as did the New York Times and Time Magazine. You can have your alternate reality if you want, but don't call those of us who prefer real reality liars.
- The newscast you use to site was from the morning after. You don't see why this is laughable when I am posting sources updated a few days ago? — wokmaster
- Holocaust Deniers / People who Believe The Moon Landing Was Faked/ Birthers / People Whol Believe 9-11 Was An "Inside Job"...
Now the Newtown CT. conspiracy theorists.
All people who should never be allowed to own guns. Because they are nuts.— carl and sons - Woker...
So what was the evidence they found at his house?
Who was the man arrested in the woods at the school?
Why for two days did they say the AR was in the back of the car, but then an investigator said everyone was shot with a rifle? Which is it?
What are the eye witnesses saying? Did he have a rifle in hand? Was he let in? Did he force his way in?
What is his dad saying now? What about the brother?
What was he doing? Was he in school? Did he work? Did he just sit home all day playing video games?
What political views did he and his mother have?
What computer and video games did he play?
MSM called him a Marksman – did he shoot with the 4H, boy scouts, CMP, NRA…???
Was he an NRA member? Was him Mom?
Did she allow him access to those guns, or did he break in and get them?
What medications was he on?
Whatever the answers are...restricting freedom and changing the Constitution isn't the answer...ever.— Hobo Floto Voto - We're doomed.— phillyPeteZ
- No assualt weapons were used in Sandy Hook. Not one kid was killed with an AR-15. Every article should put that information out there.— Gone Sovereign
- I did the research a few days ago and posted a response to this nonsense. When I first read this post I figured you were misinformed. Now it's clear you are lying. — wokmaster
- wok...the media reported several times that the AR was in his trunk...it actually showed the video of the cops unloading it.
Then the story changed.
Nobody is lying.
Look it up.
— Hobo Floto Voto - "Then the story changed."
Oh, you mean as the facts came out?— wokmaster - The gun laws worked as they should. When he TRIED to buy a gun – he was turned down. He then stole his mother’s guns after he shot her and used them to kill more people. It is the stupidity of the mother who taught a known nut case to shoot and who did not lock her guns in a gun safe.
Stupidity cannot be regulated.
Again...Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.— Hobo Floto Voto - Adam Lanza killed 27, including 20 elementary school kids, using a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a Glock 10mm and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of Lanza's car.
At about 9:35 AM, using his mother's Bushmaster, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school. He was wearing black clothing, earplugs and an olive green utility vest carrying magazines for the Bushmaster.
What say you, gun nuts?— wokmaster - There can be no dispute that had the "madman", had he only a knife, may have killed 1 or 2 people.. Had he only a handgun, he may have killed 4 or 5. With the weapon he had, a massacre was possible.— Palestra Jon
- Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids. That is by design. If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconsciously. They've been trained to attack like pit bulls.— Hobo Floto Voto
- The obvious mentality of gun lovers, so infatuated with the power of possessing a killing weapon, is again manifested in this instance. Any belittling comments to the victims of the recent massacre in Newtown are about as low can be. But, not unexpected from gun slingers.— Bigbirch
- Murrayman...A "well-regulated militia'" is any individual American exercising his 2nd amendment rights. Just like the minutemen from Massachusetts.
Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids. That is by design. If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconsciously. They've been trained to attack like pit bulls.
— Hobo Floto Voto - "What is wrong with mandatory background checks" The concern I've become aware of is mainly the slippery slope argument - namely that you would have essentially mental health professionals determining individual's right to bear arms based on their observation of the psychological state of the individual. Its not quite a hard and fast science, so to speak, so it leaves us with the possibility of panels determining individual rights. Nonetheless, reason has us think that people diagnosed with -- I don't know -- insanity, for a lack of a better term, should not possess the ability to bear arms.— Murrayman
- Two things: One, "daxtremesolja" should have his own talk show because he makes sense and speaks passionately without extremes.
And "Hobo Floto Voto" continues to display with immature, self-obsessed, frighteningly uninformed self by repeating the same mantra time and again, and I have little doubt that he will do so again after reading this message. It's like the kid in second grade who simply needed attention so he alienated the rest of the class because it was all about "him." I'll keep you in my prayers, Hobo Floto Voto. Hang in there. Things will get better. Shhhh . . . shhhh . . . shhhh . . .
— knebman - Enough of the lies. ENOUGH! A .223 was reported as being the round that did the deed. PhillySM, HFV -- you lie. You are now on par with the 9/11 Truthers. The scary thing here is that most right wingers invent paranoid, delusional fantasies about tyranny and the POTUS being a foreign national put into place by a Bilderberg conspiracy, etc. -- and then they fashion there arguments as needing to protect themselves against this delusion. They should worry more about the tyranny of their accrual of credit card debt. The 2nd Amendment tells us almost nothing, and therefore is left to interpretation. The White House knows that the bans they are proposing must be interpreted by lawmakers, and possibly, ultimately, by the SCOTUS. Again, its interpretative. Shouting down dissenters with "2nd Amendment" does nothing but make you seem crazed. So the first question: What's a 'well-regulated militia'? Anyone?— Murrayman
- Well regulated, using the way the word was used at the time, meant well supplied and well trained.
In the words of our time, that means the 2nd says that 'a well supplied and trained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...'.— DeltaV - These gun enthusiasts are some of the stupidest people on earth! No one is talking about taking their guns away. They just want to ban assault weapons and large magazine clips which the average gun owner does not need to have! What is wrong with mandatory background checks. Maybe these idiots are afraid of those because maybe there is something in their history that maybe their guns should be taken from them. Who heckles a man after having their young child murdered! Again, a discompassionate idiot.— fozziebear
- The leadership of the NRA and the extremists that come on pages like this (keep in mind the MAJORITY of NRA members...in multiple polls... support an assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity clips, and support universal background checks. The behavior of these people ranks right up there with Westbury "Baptist Church" cult members. They do not represent gun owners or even the NRA. They are shameful and disgusting.— BobMagee
- I'm sorry for this man's loss. However, his child died as the result of the horrific actions of a madman who'd have used any means at his disposal to kill be it a firearm or an improvised bomb. I've been in a car accident but that doesn't make me an expert on traffic safety or an automotive engineer. The media skews the fact that pro-gun folks who disagree with this man's uninformed opinion on the topic of firearms as "heckling" him. This is false.— Miss Bunny
- What a crass and close-minded way to think of the views of someone who whose child was killed by gun-fire: that the impact it had on them isn't a fact.
His greif is every bit as real as whatever joy/pleasure you get from hunting/shooting/collecting a gun. Frankly to me and I think most open-minded people it is a much more compelling fact.
As sad as I feel for this father, in a way it is good thatthese classless peole keep acting the way they do. It makes it easier for sane people to ignore them and do the right thing.— Everybodyhitshooha - Just like the idiots at the draft that booed McNabb don't speak for all Eagles fans, and just like Al Sharpton doesn't speak for all blacks, these fools don't speak for all gun owners.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- @Hobo Floto Voto: Thanks for your suggestion. I WILL BE posting a "No Guns Inside" sign in front of my house shortly.— BMan
- the level of stupid on both sides of this argument is nothing short of scary.— Yoda117
- pro gun people should just shoot themselves if they like guns that much. Hopefully they can experience tragedy by a gun to get the gun. Be careful how you speak cause your teenage son might reach for your so called "responsibly owned gun". I'm sick of white trash agenda existing in this country. If you want an automatic weapon without government interference then move to Somalia. they love guns over there. the only reason the second amendment exists is because we were held captive by a foreign army and never would we allow it again. In case you didn't notice the U.S. is a little more stable and able to defend itself from overseas threats. Keep your .22 rifle and shotgun for hunting, thats fine. Any sensible person agrees that those basic weapons shouldn't be taken away. But semiautomatics? really? Its despicable that anyone fights to preserve those weapons. every weapon ever used in massacres in this country at some point came from a so-called "responsible law abiding gun owner or dealer. Otherwise how do dopey white kids get these guns? They don't have the guts to go to the ghetto and buy them. I can't wait till the laws pass cause I will spit in every gun owner's face.— moose42
- "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" First off the man lost a kid and he should not be heckled in this terrible tragedy. He also should of got his facts straight before he goes talking in front of hearing on gun violence. The Bushmaster quote him stating about why our these sold in our state is just wrong and he new it before he made the statement and new it was untrue and lie. Both NBC today show and MSNBC both ran stories last week stating the killer used 4 handguns in the killings and left the bushmaster gun in the trunk of his car. Did the bushmaster kill his son no it didn't but he implies the gun did in his statement to the people in america who are not informed on facts. Look Connecticut has the toughest gun laws in america and they worked because also reported last week was the killer was denied be able to purchase a rifle. Now would outlawing the bush master stopped this killing no because they were done with handguns. Chicago had 40 murders in January so far and 7 just the past weekend none use these weapons they want to ban were used in any of slayings. Gun violence will not go down by banning assault rifles and has no chance of passing with a republican house and any democrat up for election next November in a red state...— PhillySM
- Another thing we all need to remind ourselves of is even though we are saturated with guns in this country, that's only part of the problem. I think a bigger and deeper issue is this: Why and how do we, as a society, breed such violent criminals in the first place? Where does it stem from? For example, Canadian gun laws are about as strict as some of the strictest states in the US, but violent criminal behavior in Canada is so low compared to the US. Compare Toronto (big international city) to Chicago (give or take a little but comparable in size in terms of population and geography). I dont' need to educate anyone about violent crime in Chicago. In comparison, Toronto doesn't even come close. Why is that? And I don't think many of us are too naive to say it's because of strict gun laws only. Criminals can easily smuggle guns across the border to Canada from the US. It goes much much deeper. Again what is the root cause that leads one of our citizens down a path that has such a violent ending? There are no easy answers.— BMan
- HEY CARL AND SONS YOU DONT LIKE PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH??? THEN LEAVE, NORTH KOREA IS A THOUGHT FOR YOU!! CREEP— wallycleaver
- No, carl -- and I -- are all for your right to free speech. It allows you to expose the quality of your thought and the beauty of your personality.
- Dave it seems only "free" when it suits you and Carl's agenda. Otherwise, you and your ilk label anyone with another opinion "nutjob". The liberals have market cornered on fear mongering. You are so bent on making sure that your 1st Amendment rights are heard, you gladly trample on other people's rights & the remaining parts of the constitution. Keep it classy!
- Pic Man...there are those of us that own and carry LEGALLY and have no intentions to ever display or shoot it. It you are going to insult people then maybe get facts straight before shooting off your mouth which is more dangerous that any of my guns are. With people like you out here, having a weapon does make me feel safer for when the idiots of the world do take over....wait, let me change that, since the idiots of the world have taken over!— PhillyTaz
- "Gun Free" zones kill.— oot
- Excellent point:
Its because armed citizens who can protect themselves and their property, whether that ability is exercised or not, also serves as a major deterrent to violent crime.— Hobo Floto Voto - Sick gun freaks.— Rock1
- If you want gun control so bad would you be willing to put a sign on your home announcing that no guns are inside?
Doubt it tough guy.— Hobo Floto Voto - Hey hobo, we heard you already. Get a new line tool box.— 19147
- When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids. That is by design. If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconsciously. They've been trained to attack like pit bulls.— Hobo Floto Voto - Don't you Liberals get it? Shooting big guns is fun! When you are a white-trash un-educated loser and you are shooting a big gun, it makes you feel like a man. You Liberals can't take that away from us, it's all we have in life.— pic man
- Funny you mention that...a week or so ago Philly.com ran a story about a woman (the reporter) who hated guns, going to a local range and taking a lesson.
Guess what: she kinda liked it, and recognized that maybe firearms weren't that bad after all!— DeltaV - Obama and friends will not stop they will not yield until only the government and police have all the guns the current regime in power is the antithesis of liberalism and it is the epitome of totalitarianism. — Hobo Floto Voto
- @Hobo Floto Voto: You're right, guns aren't going anywhere and more and more of us will die as a result. Be proud of yourself for taking a stand that's killing off so many of us. Be proud of being on the wrong side of history. Just, GET USED TO IT!— BMan
- I am proud...and you're welcome.
Now..If you want gun control so bad would you be willing to put a sign on your home announcing that no guns are inside?
I doubt it.
The truth is:
Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.
Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.— Hobo Floto Voto - The killer was sick in the head. The people who heckle this poor father are sick
— nat turner - You anti-gun people actually make me sick. If you do not have it your way or anyone has an opinion or even cites a fact that does not fall in line with your beliefs then we are all red-neck hillbilly, motorcycle riding cowboys. Get a life! Learn to respect everyones opinions before trying to make your own opinion fact. The entire issue is not gun control or new gun laws, it is a criminal element as well as the mentally ill that needs to be addressed here. Gun control and gun laws do nothing to stop criminals, maybe if you use all your energy for dealing with those issues and actually coming up with solutions then things would finally change for the better. As a father myself, I cant begin to understand the pain that poor father is going through. But, with that said, he chose to use the death of his child as a platform for gun control so he is open for others to show their dissaproval. If he wants to make a difference, petition courts to stop letting criminals out of jail early, make stiffer penalties for those that have and use illegal weapons and petition for better hospitalization for mentally ill individuals!— PhillyTaz
- how do they know they were gun enthusiast? Did they shout 2nd amendment I'm a gun enthusiast? Maybe they are just people who believe inthe constitution. Tragedy what happened but please don't put the blame on people who believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms. A crazy person killed these children!— dontlikedems
- No, a crazy person with a Bushmaster AR-15 killed these children. I have no doubt there are a number of crazy people in and around Newtown, CT, but fortunately not all of them had access to military-caliber weaponry. And I most definitely DO put the blame on "people who believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms," because they -- you -- are the ones who have blocked and are trying to block reasonable controls on things like semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. You would rather have children shot than reconsider your knee-jerk -- and I believe erroneous -- interpretation of words written more than 200 years ago in a vastly different social and military context.
- You're wrong!
The shooter didn't use an assault rifle.
They found his mom's AR-15 in the trunk of his car!!
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
— Hobo Floto Voto - Sorry, it's you who are wrong. You chose to cite a news source from the morning after the killings, when there was still confusion about which weapon was actually used. By the following day, Dec. 16, it was clear that the Bushmaster was in fact the weapon that Lanza used to shoot the children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If that source isn't enough for you, try this one, too:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/ - We need to have the Second Amendment revisited by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment was not intended to provide any individual right to carry; it was intended to ensure that a "well regulated militia" had the ready availability of arms such as the cache that the British tried to confiscate at Concord. The Supreme Court decided the two cases declaring an individual constitutional right to bear arms on a 5-4 basis (and still haven't ruled on the legitimacy of gun control laws). Hopefully, Obama will get to replace one of those who voted in the majority, but even if not, the Court will have to decide whether reasonable restriction on the right to purchase and use weapons designed to kill mass numbers of people are constitutional. This issue is far from decided.— Palestra Jon
- Jon: Thanks for bringing some light to this debate. The so-called individual right to bear arms was a creation of extreme right-wingers on the Supreme Court, starting with the Rehnquist court in the '80s. Former chief justice Warren Burger, who was appointed by Nixon, said the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms was a “fraud” perpetrated “on the American public by special interest groups.” He and generations of Supreme Court justices before him considered the right to bear arms a collective right vested in the states. For those who mistakenly see the current position of the court on gun rights as uniquely in harmony with the ideas of the Founders, I put forward another Supreme Court case: Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which held that legally imposed racial segregation was constitutional. I hope even our hard-core gun lover friends wouldn't claim that the court correctly distilled the ideas of the Founders on that one. My point: Supreme Court decisions do not reflect some unalterable truth written in stone. They reflect the political views of the justices and the spirit of the times as much as they do the underlying Constitution. Change the court and you change the law. I hope President Obama will be able to do just that.
- Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.— Hobo Floto Voto - The shooter left the rife in the car. He shot them all with pistols.— tr88
- I watched the video. In all honesty, what they pulled out of that car was not a Bushmaster rifle. It looked more like a pump-action shotgun with a pistol grip. Look at how they cleared the action. — DonQ
- Here is the video...http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 — Hobo Floto Voto
- I'm still waiting for some FACTS from the anti-2A crowd. So far nothing but insults, hot air, and emotional arguments. But that is about all they can offer.— Larry Cheswald
- Cheswald: So, you don't consider Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to be facts? You don't consider a seminal 2004 study, showing that there are more homicides and suicides in homes with guns, to be a fact? (Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.) You don't consider it to be a fact that the United States, a country that is engaged in no internal wars and isn;t threatened by any invader, possesses nearly 90 guns per 100 residents, double the rate of the next country on the list, Yemen (Small Arms Survey)? You don't consider it to be a fact that the United States has the highest per capita rate of murder by firearm of any developed country. 3.2 per 100,000 residents (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Homicide Statistics)? You don't consider it to be a fact that there have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. in the past 30 years, with most of the guns used having been legally obtained (A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, Mother Jones)? So much for facts. I was going to close by insulting you, too, but I decided that your own posts do a fine job of that.
- "So, you don't consider Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to be facts"
What about them? The fact that they showed that banning guns has no impact on criminal behavior (school shootings occur in 'gun free zones').
How about the hundreds of thousands of times per year that firearms are used for defense?
Maybe we should be more worried about the violent (and over medicated) tendencies of our culture, instead of focusing on the tools used.
— DeltaV - What about Lanza et al? How about the fact that they give the lie to the gun-lovers' argument that criminals using illegally obtained guns are somehow different and more dangerous than legal gun owners? The weapons used by Lanza and Holmes were legally obtained. At least some of the weapons used by Klebold and Harris were apparently legally obtained. (http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0427a.htm) What this proves is that it's way too easy to legally obtain a weapon of mass slaughter. That's a pretty important point.
As far as "defensive uses" of firearms are concerned, the statistics that you and other gun lovers cite come from a single, seriously flawed survey of 5,000 people conducted by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz at Florida State University in 1995. For a critique of that study, see http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf
Finally, it's useless from a practical standpoint to separate the violent tendencies of our culture from the tools used to implement the violence. Violence isn't violence until it's enacted by some tool. The motivation/psychology of violent people and the means they use are equally important in understanding -- and possibly controlling -- the violence that we suffer way too much of. - The 100,000 number was from CNN, not the earlier study.
And taking away one tool isn't going to stop violent people from being violent. All it will do is take away the ability of the law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
Prohibition and bans don't work: just see the drug war, alcohol prohibition, Chicago's gun laws...— DeltaV - You didn't say 100,000 times. You said "hundreds of thousands of times." Which could be read as the same order of magnitude as Kleck/Gertz's inflated estimate of 2.5 million instances per year. I didn't see the CNN story, but it may have been based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, "which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year," according to BusinessWeek.
The trouble, though, with any estimate of defensive gun use is that much of the data is self-reported, and -- again according to BusinessWeek -- there are many "respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU."
I'm not going to claim that Americans never, ever need a gun to protect themselves. But based on my experience and that of many people I know -- both in Philadelphia and the suburbs -- I do believe that those who like to possess firearms often exaggerate the self-defense argument as a justification. (In that connection, I'll point out that I have been mugged by armed men, and my daughter has been, too. In both cases, we were glad we didn't have firearms on us, because the muggers surprised us and we would not have been able to use a weapon. A weapon could only have made matters worse.) I also believe that, on balance, the danger to public health posed by unchecked firearm possession is greater than the danger that would be posed to individuals if we had some reasonable firearm control in place. And I certainly consider an assault rifle/high-capacity magazine ban reasonable.
Finally, it is true that prohibitions and bans sometimes don't work. But sometimes they do. See the recent bans on cigarette smoking in various places. I think the key point is this: Does a sufficiently large portion of the public support the ban, or not? If so, it will be respected. If not, it will be subverted.
- "we were glad we didn't have firearms on us"
And here we get to the root of your problem; you don't feel you can handle a firearm properly, so you don't believe anyone can. You believe because you were surprised, everyone will be surprised by an assailant. The problem people like me have with people like you is that you seek to impose your decision not to arm yourselves on us. I have no desire to force you to own a gun; that is your decision. All I want is to be able to make my own decision myself.
As for 'reasonable firearm control', we already have it. Criminals are already forbidden from owning guns, as is straw purchasing. So-called assault rifles have only been responsible for something like 350 deaths since the first ban ended; if this is a public health vendetta, there are many more places you could start. And a magazine ban? Reports said that Lanza frequently changed magazines, I think it said he only fired ~15 rounds before changing. 10 round magazines would have made very little difference, as he was obviously prepared.
The ban on smoking seems to work, once again, only among the law abiding. Plenty of smoking in schools, in SEPTA subway stations; and a criminal isn't going to desire a cigarette to hold up a store.— DeltaV - Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.
Between 1974 and 2012, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 85 percent, to 300 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase.
Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.
— Hobo Floto Voto - Why are you adducing statistics about doctors? Are you saying that because doctors aren't as skilled as they should be, we should pay no attention to gun violence? I leave it to others to judge how much sense that makes. And your statistics about national homicide and robbery rates don't move me. The fact that our already sky-high murder rate -- WAY higher than that of other comparable countries -- didn't rise is not a cause for celebration. Finally, would you agree with the proposition that it's OK to drive drunk if I could prove that only 1 percent of drunk drivers actually succeed in killing someone?
- The right guaranteed by the Constitution to speak is important for an expression of viewpoints. There are people who choose not to allow others to speak...and in this case, Mr. Heslin deserves the right to be heard I civil discourse without those who would have him not speak. Those who interrupted are just a indication of a need for education in civil discourse and good manners.— 5thstrretpast
- hoodedcrow: Internet, cell phones, social media, etc didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was created. I guess we should clamp down on those rights too? Sorry you don't get to pick and choose which Amendments you like and don't.— Larry Cheswald
- I'm sorry your kid got killed, but infringing on our 2nd amendment won't change anything, LEAVE OUR LIBERTIES INTACT!— mystikast
- assault rifles did not exist when the second amendment was made - it was to ensure that farmers could own rifles. I'm sure they didn't imagine every farmer owning a canon - because a canon is basically an 18th century equilvalent to an assault rifle. Who am I kidding, folks who shout "2nd Amendment" at a guy holding the ornately-framed picture of his dead son that usually hangs above the fireplace in his living room aren't interested in putting our Constitution into historical context - they can't even do that with the Bible...— hooded_crow
- "assault rifles did not exist when the second amendment was made"
The 2nd amendment protected the right to own state of the art weapons. Otherwise, it would protect the right to own swords and bows.
— DeltaV - The 2nd Amendment does not provide an absolute right any more than the 1st Amandment (you can yell fire in a crowded theatre for fun for example).— BobSG
- wokmaster: Yes we are. We have the FACTS to back us up. Maybe just once you anti-2A losers could come on here with FACTS instead of stupid comments about the size of one's genitalia or the other pathetic attempts at arguing. BTW in response to that last one. It might surprise you that lots of WOMAN carry. I suppose they have small ones too.— Larry Cheswald
- What makes you believe that you are more "qualified" on this issue than someone who lost their child as a consequence of the law? I'm not even sure you're "qualified" to comment on philly.com, let alone a subject of this importance. — wokmaster
- Most of these NRA gun people are respectful and understand what needs to be done. The other part of that group are sick. They want to have guns so they can fight the government. There nuts! They would last 5 minutes against a SEAL team.— kingofpoker
- Whether one supports / opposes new restrictions on guns is irrelevant. The issue here is one of simple human empathy for a man who's son was killed by a loon with a gun. What else could the hecklers possibly expect him to say under the circumstances? Sad and pathetic...— Paul G
- Most of these NRA nuts never had the courage or conviction to join the military yet they like to drive around town acting like Navy Seal bullies, shouting down people that try to have a civil debate about gun violence. Shame on them. Bunch of wimps that rely on inanimate objects to feel like tough bullies.— masterncommander
- 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear Arms, but not the right for Bullets. guns don't kill people, Bullets do. BAN BULLETS!— moved to Havertown
- When he asked why rifles were allowed to be sold, was it a rhetorical question, desiring no answer? Or did he want an answer, but he didn't like the answer he got?— Mr. Smith
- One guy puts a tiny bomb (that didn't go off) in his shoe and now we all have take our shoes off when we get on a plane. Innocent children and adults murdered every day and nothing is done to keep guns out of crazy people's hands.— Freddy
- The bulk of these gun crimes are from those under the age of 30.
Apply age restrictions to guns for those under 30...Let them have guns (hunting rifles) for Christmas at the age of 10 but monitor handguns closely for those under 30.
After 30 one has a better respect for the mirror so let them have a grenade launcher...after the age of 30.— Cuddles - Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.— Hobo Floto Voto - Truly despicable. There is a time and place for everything. Heckling a father who just tragically lost a child is the lowest of low. Were they Westboro Baptist Church members or something? I truly believe a large group of legal gun owners are in fact crazy nut jobs. Sure, the Second Amendment allows you the right to bear arms. However, just as you can't buy a gun as a convicted felon (which no one seems to have a problem with), ban sales of certain types of guns and also require mandatory polygraphs, psychological and drug screenings as well as demanding proof of a documented acceptable reason why any non-military person needs an AR-15 besides the fact that "The Second Amendment" says so. It says the right to "bear arms shall not be infringed". Well, since there are those who argue they should own any type of gun they desire, nuclear missiles are technically "arms". So, doesn't the Constitution legally allow me to own one? It's no more ridiculous a notion than owning an AR-15 for duck hunting.— moose_man
- guns are like loud motorcycles - the people have inadequacies and need these things to make their feel better about their lives- if you need a assualt rifle to kill a deer, you're not only a loser but a bad shot. an that's not hunting - just go to one of those caged hunts and unload 50 rounds into a animal
they all want to walk arounbd like a cowboy from the west— rossta - That's disgusting. The same people who will be on here parroting the same old, tired pro-NRA rhetoric before long are the same idiots who would have the nerve to heckle this poor man who lost his 6 yo son to senseless gun violence. Please, you morons tell me what useful purpose that Bushmaster assault rifle has? Hunting? Or just those precious 2A rights of yours? Dopes, you are all dopes and this MUST stop now. And please, spare me the 'Ban food, people are fat' nonsense.— PhillySubsMac
- 1) That is not an 'assault rifle'. Functionally a Bushmaster is no different than the large majority of firearms in existence and common use by hunters and competitive target shooters.
2) The second amendment is not about hunting. Take a look at the PA state constitution's version (written about the same time); it specifically calls out personal defense.
3) AR style rifles are basically the best weapon for home defense. A longer sight radius leads to greater accuracy, the design means it can easily have things such as flashlights added for target identification, and the small caliber, low recoil cartridge means it can easily be used by young and old, male and female.— DeltaV - You need a lesson in history because you're clueless.
and...Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
So get used to it.— Hobo Floto Voto - Disgusting. I guess the desire to own a gun is more important than life.— suakuaDeoJ
- If you deny people the right to defend themselves, you will see many more lives lost.
Estimates from various sources (CNN and the FBI) put defensive uses of firearms in the 100,000 to million times per year.— DeltaV - Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.— Hobo Floto Voto
