Neil Heslin, Father Of Newtown Victim, Heckled By Pro-Gun Activists

Classy folks these gun nuts....


Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, stoically faced down pro-gun activists last night.

More than 1,000 people attended a hearing before the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to share their views on gun control, USA Today reported. Among them was Heslin, who held a large framed picture of himself and his son Jesse as he urged officials to consider strengthening gun laws in Connecticut.

But as he gave his emotional testimony, pleading with lawmakers to improve mental health options and to ban assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used to murder his child and 25 other people, his speech was interrupted by dozens of audience members, The Connecticut Post reported.

“I still can't see why any civilian, anybody in this room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You're not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection," Heslin said.

Pro-gun activists responded by calling out: "Second Amendment!"

Undeterred, Heslin continued. "There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened."

Heslin's son, Jesse McCord Lewis, was described by friends as a happy child, The Post reported. A "little cowboy," Jesse reportedly liked to play with the fake horses at a local Western-themed restaurant. After he was shot and killed by Lanza, a line of police officers on horseback joined the motorcade at the boy's funeral.

"He was a boy that loved life. Lived it to the fullest…He was my son, he was my buddy, he was my best friend." Heslin said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-newtown-victim-heckled_n_2572503.html

 

I wouldn't exactly call it heckling.

I WOULD call it ignorant, stupid, classless and a host of other names.

NONE of them answered his question anyway.

 

SECOND AMENDMENT!

View attachment 1268

 

The people who tried to answer his question (it was a chorus of near simultaneous responses from many people, with "Second Amendment!" being one of the more easily heard) likely hadn't recently lost a child due to the misuse of a firearm. If they had, their responses would likely be quite different then the general "Second Amendment!" diatribe that people are talking about.

In the end, there is little that can be done to prevent the misuse of firearms, or anything really (you can die by drinking too much water, for example). However, the misuse of firearms is much more dangerous than most other misused things. Misuse a match and you may set something on fire, but you have time to do something about it, (you could put the fire out, for example). With a bullet, the damage might be death, and it's really hard to do something about being dead when you're dead.

 

I agree and it is more than misuse of fire arms. I have a friend whose child developed severe depression during high school. The first indication that there was a problem was that the child tried to commit suicide while the parents were out of town. The attempt was with a sharp object, I think a knife, and the child couldn't go through with it but managed a small nonlethal cut. Imagine if they had come home and they had a gun in the house. I think that there is a good chance that the ease of pulling a trigger would have resulted in a different outcome. Certainly there is no way to really know but a suicide attempt with a gun is far more successful statistically than suicide attempts with pills, knives, or other less deadly devices. There are an infinite number of ways to kill yourself but only a gun puts the sure fire method in the palm of your hand.

 

So, is your solution to take away the rights of everyone else so that your friend's mentally-disturbed, knife-wielding, depressed child's ability to inflict harm upon himself is somewhat diminished?

I hope you tried to direct your friend to a professional who might assist his psychologically-impaired child instead of just saying, "Well, I'm glad he didn't have a gun in the house." (or something just as asinine).

 

Exactly.

Another example is an argument between two people. Most arguments where a gun isn't present end without major injuries, but add a gun and a moment of anger can easily lead to a moment of irresponsible use of that gun, and death is much more likely.

"Second Amendment!" people tend to ignore or minimize those deaths, and say "If both had a gun, or someone else had a gun..." well yeah, then more people die.

To them, gun-related deaths are a necessary byproduct of the freedom of the 2nd Amendment. To others those deaths are disturbing reminders that freedoms come with a price. To others still those deaths are preventable.

I'm of the middle opinion.

 

You once again miss the point. Their situation was but one facet of the complicated issue of guns in society. All by itself, it isn't a justification for any draconian solution but you intentionally take it to the absurd conclusion that I would not have reached anyway. That is specifically why you are very hard to take seriously and I seldom do.

What my friend did or didn't do was their decision. They didn't need my or your advice. Thankfully, they still have their adult child today probably because they loved their child more than they loved the idea of gun ownership. Ask Adam Lanza’s mother if she loved her son more than she loved her guns. Oh wait, you can’t do that can you? Do you know why suicidal people shoot up crowds of people before they commit suicide? My guess is because they are too cowardly to put the gun to their own heads and pull the trigger without the pressure of a SWAT team closing in on them. You see, mass shootings and suicides are related.

 

And like Coin says, the solution is to take away everyone else's right to life, the right to a society without gun violence, the right to send their 6 and 7-year olds to school safely, and the right to not live in fear, so that a minority of gun nuts like Skeeter can feel like they have a sense of security from the big bad gubermint because they have a 22 cal. rifle in a closet.

 

Huh? Where did you come up with that? Boy, you extrapolated that into oblivion. Ask a simple question, get a stupid answer I suppose...

Parents love their children, but let's assume for a moment they also "love the idea of gun ownership" as you say. Is it even possible to love a tool such as a gun? I don't know and I seriously doubt you do, either.

Regardless, is there anything wrong with parents teaching their children responsible gun ownership? Is it wrong for parents to want to defend not only their own lives, but the lives of their children? Certainly there are going to be cases of mentally-disturbed people like the coward Adam Lanza who, for whatever reason they conjure in their disturbed minds, will commit homicide and/or suicide. But, in the case of your friend's cowardly child, they decide not to kill other people or complete the act of killing themselves.

Obviously, your friend's child didn't want to kill other people or he would have done it. I doubt there would have been little his parents or you could have done to stop him. Homicidal and/or suicidal people are unhinged and they usually find the tools they need whether it be a gun (Adam Lanza), poison Kool-Aid (Jim Jones), chemicals (Saddam Hussein), a truck bomb (Timothy McVeigh) or airplanes (Osama bin Laden).

 

So you are saying that if a teenager has depression, they are cowardly for not being able to go through with suicide? You obviously know nothing about depression. But sympathizing with others has never been your strong suit. Suicidal people are not "unhinged" they are depressed. You shouldn't speak of things you know so little about. You just sound foolish.

 

Hey, you're the one who said they were cowards for not putting the guns to their own heads and pulling the trigger. Are you also saying that since Adam Lanza committed suicide that he was not only NOT a coward, but simply depressed and NOT unhinged? Whatever gets you through the night, buddy.

 

How interesting. NBC and Huffington have just been found out. They have altered the tape/transcript to make it look like they were hecki\ling Heslin. When you actually hear the tape UNEDITED, Heslin ASKED for the comment and those were the answers he received.
http://floppingaces.net/2013/01/30/msnbc-doctors-another-video/comment-page-1/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...un-owners-disagree-on-weapons-ban?ft=1&f=1003

 

Good catch, RLM... Once again, MSNBC has been proven to have edited video to suit their agenda and proven that they're low-life scum for doing so. That's not a news organization! That's an agenda-driven wing of the Democrat Party who happens to broadcast lies under the guise of journalism. Even the half-brained nitwits who populate this forum and believe what MSNBC spews have to admit that.

 

It's called a rhetorical question you dumb shits, he wasn't looking for them to yell out answers. Also, do you honestly expect news channels not to edit the footage, it's 17 and 1/3 minutes long. (duh?) Looks like the Party of Lincoln needs a lesson in English grammar and common sense yet again.

 

It is a rather 'interesting' place to make a little non-obvious snip for time condensing, though, if this video is accurate.

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/119714.html

I'd be willing to give CNN the benefit of the doubt if it was them but if MSNBC or FOX does something like this, my BS antennae start twitching.

 

And this is not the first time NBC has been caught doing this.

 

Oh, how the liberals love to turn a blind eye when one of their beloved own screws the pooch. Come on, liberals... admit MSNBC lied about this one. Come on, show some courage.

View attachment 1310

 

Provide a news story, not from Fox, that makes the same claims, then maybe someone will pay attention to you.

 

Interesting. So far it has been put out by CNN, NPR, Yahoo, Fox, along with all kinds of smaller organizations. Yet so far, I have not heard a peep from ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC. I will bet there are even some liberal gullible enough to believe that the tape was not doctored or even that it was still heckling (for all of 6 seconds!) even though Heslin clearly asked for an answer.