Know when to hold 'em....

[nogods]

Either the anit-gun activist planted posers to make 2A supporters look like idiots, or some real idiots just don't know that there is a time and place for everything, and that flapping one's lips in response to a man who recently lost his child is not the time and place.

Write a letter to the elected officials if you feel the need to dispute what Neil Heslin had to say. But stop making 2A supporters seem like ignorant Westboro Baptists with inappropriate public displays of boorish behavior.

Just because what you say is right doesn't mean saying it isn't wrong under the circumstances.


Was the Sandy Hook Dad Really "Heckled"? The Video Suggests Otherwise.

 

[dcselby1]

Either the anit-gun activist planted posers to make 2A supporters look like idiots, or some real idiots just don't know that there is a time and place for everything, and that flapping one's lips in response to a man who recently lost his child is not the time and place.

Write a letter to the elected officials if you feel the need to dispute what Neil Heslin had to say. But stop making 2A supporters seem like ignorant Westboro Baptists with inappropriate public displays of boorish behavior.

Just because what you say is right doesn't mean saying it isn't wrong under the circumstances.


Was the Sandy Hook Dad Really "Heckled"? The Video Suggests Otherwise.

I read that on Comcast first, then 5 minutes later, check Blaze and saw the article. Here's the unedited video of that session from Blaze:

 

[cgiven1]

You got it wrong. It wasn't boorish behavior. They were responding to his question. If he didn't want an answer, he shouldn't have asked. The boorish behavior is his. His son's death was a tragedy, but that doesn't give him the right to demand that I be left defenseless and unable to protect my family. It is past the time for gentlemanly disagreements. The only way to fight back now is to get in their faces.

 

[Hoganbeg]

Perhaps with some time he will be able to see the errors in his thinking.

 

[K7lvo]

So.... Nogoods is on the wrong side of the fence...

Nothing new here...

 

[jfisch]

Even Slate redacted their story to better reflect the truth. He asked a question and got an answer... pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[nogods]

Yougot it wrong. It wasn't boorish behavior. They were responding to his question.If he didn't want an answer, he shouldn't have asked. The boorish behavior ishis. His son's death was a tragedy, but that doesn't give him the right todemand that I be left defenseless and unable to protect my family. It is pastthe time for gentlemanly disagreements. The only way to fight back now is toget in their faces.

First, it was a rhetorical question in the course of his presentation to alegislative body. Protocol and common courtesy required that the people in the galleyrestrain themselves. Apparently they were easily manipulated.

Second, and more importantly, the "Second Amendment" is not an answerto his rhetorical question, which was ""Is there anybody in this roomthat can give me one reason or challenge this question, why anybody in thisroom needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons orhigh-capacity clips?"

"For self-defense", or "for recreation" might be answers,but the 2A does not create a need for such weapons. The 2A might give us theright to own such weapons, but it does not create a need for such weapons.Making such a claim just makes the responders appear to be ignorant.

If their supposed answer made any sense, then the next reply would be "OK,then we revoke the 2A and then no one would need such weapons."

We can't win this battle putting our worst feet forward.

 

[kerb]

Either the anit-gun activist planted posers to make 2A supporters look like idiots, or some real idiots just don't know that there is a time and place for everything, and that flapping one's lips in response to a man who recently lost his child is not the time and place.

Write a letter to the elected officials if you feel the need to dispute what Neil Heslin had to say. But stop making 2A supporters seem like ignorant Westboro Baptists with inappropriate public displays of boorish behavior.

Just because what you say is right doesn't mean saying it isn't wrong under the circumstances.


Was the Sandy Hook Dad Really "Heckled"? The Video Suggests Otherwise.

Did you read the article that you linked? The man asked a question and got an answer.

And no, it was not a rhetorical question because he clearly expected an answer.

 

[nogods]

Did you read the article that you linked? The man asked a question and got an answer.

And no, it was not a rhetorical question because he clearly expected an answer.

Did you read the question?

"The Second Amendment" is not an answer to the question he asked. It was a stupid ignorant response that made the responders look like idiots.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I just thought of a question for the anti's, a old but valid Q, exactly what was the mag compacity and what type of firearm was used in the John Gacy killings in 1984? how many were found 33 and they suspected more?????????

 

[fuhr52]

Not a good idea out open the "who needs" can of worms. Who needs a big screen tv, 3000 square foot house, vacation house, million dollar motor home, car that can travel over 100 miles per hour ...... The list is endless.

 

[UATKP]

Second, and more importantly, the "Second Amendment" is not an answerto his rhetorical question, which was ""Is there anybody in this roomthat can give me one reason or challenge this question, why anybody in thisroom needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons orhigh-capacity clips?"
Yes. "The Second Amendment is an answer to this question. You might try reading the amendment in the context in which it was written.

"For self-defense", or "for recreation" might be answers,but the 2A does not create a need for such weapons. The 2A might give us theright to own such weapons, but it does not create a need for such weapons.Making such a claim just makes the responders appear to be ignorant.

You're right, in that the 2A doesn't create the right, but it does allow for the right. The "need" for such weapons is created by our marxist government. Your thinking that the responders appear to be ignorant, makes you appear to be ignorant.

If their supposed answer made any sense, then the next reply would be "OK,then we revoke the 2A and then no one would need such weapons."
Even if you could revoke the 2A, which you can't, it wouldn't make the need for such weapons any less.
We can't win this battle putting our worst feet forward.
And we surely can't win this battle sitting on our butts, either.

I've written my rebuttal to your statements in blue, because I don't know how to multi-quote. I believe you're just plain wrong in your assumptions.

 

[bassist2416]

This is pretty close to what my quick reply would have been.

Why do i need an assault weapon and high capacity 30 rd clips?

An assault rifle is an automatic rifle not a semi- automatic rifle like they are trying to ban. Also, its a 30 rd magazine, a clip feeds a magazine and a magazine feeds a gun.

As to why I need an "assault rifle" as you put it would be for defensive purposes and recreation purposes. I would not be able to stop multiple persons truing to cause me harm with either the NY 7 rounds or the proposed 10 rounds by the anti-gun groups. Especially, if they were on a controlled substance. Recreationally could be any other legal form of using a firearm.

Why is it, that the states that fought the revolutionary war are going in the direction of the country that was trying to take everything from us? I thought we fought against that kind of tyranny, I guess I was wrong. Now it has come back to try again except this time its our own government, the one that fought against it previously.

As for Sandy Hook, Lanza was on medication to help him with mental problems. He became a criminal the moment he took the gun from his mother and then killed her and stole her car to go to the school. He did not legally acquire those guns in any way, he tried before and failed. So the system actually worked and stopped him from getting legal firearms.

 

[Kinvoda]

I willingly admit I am uneducated in the ways of these proceedings. So can anyone tell me why he gets 17 minutes to invoke tears and sympathy but this man with facts and stats only gets 5 minutes before they tell him to get it over with?
Can someone embed this? Thanks in advance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU&feature=player_embedded

 

[nogods]

I'm amazed by some of the responses trying to justify "the Second Amendment" as an answer to the question of " why anybody in thisroom needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons orhigh-capacity clips"

The Second Amendment does not create a need for anything.

Regurgitating such a response is no different than shouting "the First Amendment" in response to "who needs religion?" or the "Sixth Amendment" in response to "who needs a lawyer" or "the Twenty-First Amendment" to the question "who needs alcohol?"

None of those create any need religion, firearms, lawyers, or alcohol. They afford rights to such things, but people who don't know the difference between the right to something and the need for something shouldn't have the very thing they think they need.

Unfortunately, way too many are incapable of thinking rationally when it comes to these issues. In a rush to defend every aspect of 2A rights, they jump to the defense of the most inane behavior instead of taking a hard honest look at what actually happened.

The people who responded to his rhetorical questions by shouting out "The Second Amendment" exhibited their ignorance and their immaturity. If they felt they needed to respond they could have done so by requesting an opportunity to be heard or simply submitting a letter or statement to the body holding the event. And in doing so, they would have realized that the Second Amendment is not the reason thy need an assualt weapon or high capicity clip.

Let me back up a bit...the people who own guns and really think the Second Amendment creates their need to own those guns do in fact create the need for the rest of us to own guns to protect ourselves from those misguided people.

 

[The_Outlaw]

i'm amazed by some of the responses trying to justify "the second amendment" as an answer to the question of " why anybody in thisroom needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons orhigh-capacity clips"

the second amendment does not create a need for anything.

Regurgitating such a response is no different than shouting "the first amendment" in response to "who needs religion?" or the "sixth amendment" in response to "who needs a lawyer" or "the twenty-first amendment" to the question "who needs alcohol?"

none of those create any need religion, firearms, lawyers, or alcohol. They afford rights to such things, but people who don't know the difference between the right to something and the need for something shouldn't have the very thing they think they need.

Unfortunately, way too many are incapable of thinking rationally when it comes to these issues. In a rush to defend every aspect of 2a rights, they jump to the defense of the most inane behavior instead of taking a hard honest look at what actually happened.

The people who responded to his rhetorical questions by shouting out "the second amendment" exhibited their ignorance and their immaturity. If they felt they needed to respond they could have done so by requesting an opportunity to be heard or simply submitting a letter or statement to the body holding the event. And in doing so, they would have realized that the second amendment is not the reason thy need an assualt weapon or high capicity clip.

Let me back up a bit...the people who own guns and really think the second amendment creates their need to own those guns do in fact create the need for the rest of us to own guns to protect ourselves from those misguided people.

~smfh~...............

 

[Nightmare45]

Simple answer is without the 2nd Amendment, none of the others will stand, it was written to protect the 1st and the rest. If you don't want to carry fine with me, I chose to carry and will do so. You might want to study history of gun control, it's true we are the only country in the world that has a second amendment, because all the others that do not have crushed the rights of their people. This mans loss is beyond horrible, where did it take place a gun free zone with no honest adults that could protect the innocent, police after the fact. When we talk about Mental Health you might want to make note that almost every single one of these mass killers has been under the care of a mental health care professional and most were taking Psychotropic drugs. I have carried all my adult life, never robbed, raped, stolen anything in my life never will, but I will carry all the time. I have been robbed three different times police never there, if you want to depend on government for your protection go for it, it worked for our Ambassador, Navy Seals and citizens in Bengazi and elsewhere.

 

[Kinvoda]

I'm amazed by some of the responses trying to justify "the Second Amendment" as an answer to the question of " why anybody in thisroom needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons orhigh-capacity clips"

The Second Amendment does not create a need for anything.

Regurgitating such a response is no different than shouting "the First Amendment" in response to "who needs religion?" or the "Sixth Amendment" in response to "who needs a lawyer" or "the Twenty-First Amendment" to the question "who needs alcohol?"

None of those create any need religion, firearms, lawyers, or alcohol. They afford rights to such things, but people who don't know the difference between the right to something and the need for something shouldn't have the very thing they think they need.

Unfortunately, way too many are incapable of thinking rationally when it comes to these issues. In a rush to defend every aspect of 2A rights, they jump to the defense of the most inane behavior instead of taking a hard honest look at what actually happened.

The people who responded to his rhetorical questions by shouting out "The Second Amendment" exhibited their ignorance and their immaturity. If they felt they needed to respond they could have done so by requesting an opportunity to be heard or simply submitting a letter or statement to the body holding the event. And in doing so, they would have realized that the Second Amendment is not the reason thy need an assualt weapon or high capicity clip.

Let me back up a bit...the people who own guns and really think the Second Amendment creates their need to own those guns do in fact create the need for the rest of us to own guns to protect ourselves from those misguided people.

Using "need" is a set up, why does anyone really "need" anything?

You are correct, in that, none of the amendments create a need for anything. What they do is protect your freedom to "want" something, and be able to have it.

 

[buddy]

Rhetorical questions do not come with follow up questions like "not one person can answer that question".
So he asked a question, looked at the audience for an answer and when no one answered, he stated the above. He wanted an answer. You may not approve of the answer, but when someone asks you a question and you remain silent, then they follow up with "you can't answer it" I wonder what you do?
I feel tremendously for this man, and all the families of what happened. But if he is going to use a personal tragedy as a platform for taking away my right, he needs to be willing to accept that people will not take that lightly. Besides, as we have seen, he has the news media fighting for him.
Maybe no one got a better answer in because the room was threatened with being cleared?

 

[S&W645]

Did you read the question?

"The Second Amendment" is not an answer to the question he asked. It was a stupid ignorant response that made the responders look like idiots.

Sorry but your answer is what is stupid. Read the Second again. The reason for the need is right there in front of you.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states a purpose.