Video: Lawrence O’Donnell holding on tight to the “Sandy Hook father was heckled” meme

posted at 9:31 am on January 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

Tough spot for MSNBC. Having been caught bowdlerizing the video of Neil Heslin’s testimony to push the “gun-rights supporters are monsters” narrative, they had a decision to make. Retract, as Slate and Anderson Cooper did, or double down on the outrageous outrage, as we all knew dear Piers would. And did:

That’s true to form, at least, in its theatrical disgust at people who’ve done nothing wrong except hold a more expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment than his own. But I digress. MSNBC had plenty of cover from other media outlets to retreat here: The Week published a piece last night calling the heckling allegations “bogus” and WaPo’s Erik Wemple declared that there’s simply no there there.

Man invites comment from audience; audience replies with comment; man comes away unperturbed. Does that qualify as a moment of heckling? Have a look at the definition of the term: “Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.”

Since Heslin invited feedback, the audience response cannot qualify as an interruption. On that front alone, there is simply no heckling here. And there’s further evidence: After the back and forth, Heslin didn’t appear one bit bothered by the interaction. He said, “Anyway, we’re all entitled to our own opinion, and I respect their opinions and thoughts, but I wish they’d respect mine and give it a little bit of thought.”

In fact, Wemple reports this morning that MSNBC is “reviewing the video in question,” which is nice but odd given that the key bit from Heslin’s testimony runs for maybe 20 seconds and stories about the bogus “heckling” meme have been circulating for, oh, maybe 16 hours. How much time do they need to watch a half-minute segment from a YouTube video and decide if it says what they said it says? Or maybe they’re busy trying to decide which video editor’s responsible for bowdlerizing it? In fairness, that could take a while: At NBC, there’s no shortage of suspects.

While we wait for the results of their exhaustive multi-day investigation about something an eight-year-old could render a judgment on in 10 seconds, here’s Lawrence O’Donnell engaged in some minor Orwellian rewriting of the definition of “heckle” in hopes of rescuing the meme. Sure, Heslin wasn’t “heckled” according to how everyone else in the world understands that word, i.e. an unprompted interruption from the audience designed to humiliate a speaker, but if you redefine “heckling” to mean “saying something stupid from the audience” and then simply assert that what the audience said was stupid, bingo. You’ve got yourself some heckling. I don’t know why he didn’t go farther, frankly. If we’re in the business of redefining common words to serve political goals, why not define “heckling” as “disagreeing politically with a grieving parent,” period? That way, the left can affect outrage at gun-rights supporters in any context, not just when they have the gall to say something at a public meeting when invited to do so.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Scanners nightly audience of 8 viewers were suitably shocked and outraged, then the nursing home attendant arrived and it was off to the sponge-bath room for them.

Bishop on January 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM

What a maroon

cmsinaz on January 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Yesterday: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?”

Today: “Which pathetic, media hack wants to be the last to die on Failed Meme Hill?”

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Lawrence O’Donnell — not unAmerican, but anti-American.

rbj on January 30, 2013 at 9:39 AM

It’s hard for the left to admit they were duped. Hell, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are still clinging to the “fake but accurate” defense 8 1/2 years later.

Doughboy on January 30, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Who?

kingsjester on January 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I would love to see Larry O’Donnell, Kris Tingles and Ed Schultz in a cage match. Tell them the winner gets to dress up as obozo’s third daughter for the weekend and watch them go at it.

Flange on January 30, 2013 at 9:44 AM

What is most disappointing about affairs Larry O’Donnell-related, is that moment for an actual male when he realizes how dismally dull-witted Kathryn Harrold must be to have married, and remain married, to this tw@t.

M240H on January 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Lawrence O’Douchebag: The Poor Man’s Olby!

pilamaye on January 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Lawrence O’Donnell — not unAmerican, but anti-American.

rbj on January 30, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Piers Morgan- not a critic of America but a left wing British hack who hates everything America stands for (while enriching himself here after his own scandals in England).

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Who cares? If an MSNBC lefty talks, and no one listens, does he make any sound?

MTF on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Maybe I’m too old-fashioned, but it seems more offensive to Mr. Heslin to continue a lie when O’Donnell knows the truth. It’s bad enough he and his family suffered a horrible loss right before Christmas, but to be made into a political pawn by a third-rate reporter is heartless.

Liam on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

O’Donnell – socialist scumbag and oxygen thief.

ghostwalker1 on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

The Fail is strong in this one!

search4truth on January 30, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Who cares? If an MSNBC lefty talks, and no one listens, does he make any sound?

MTF on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

The sound of anal discharge.

pilamaye on January 30, 2013 at 9:52 AM

The Second Amendment is the reason. Quoting the Second Amendment states the reason.

The reason is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the people’s right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.

The reason one follows the other is that the people need arms so the government, which controls the Army, will not have a monopoly on power.

Now, Lawrence O’Donnell does not like that answer, and does not respect that answer. But that is his problem, not mine.

Haiku Guy on January 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM

No one has noticed the Heckler-In-Chief, is that right Larry?

hillsoftx on January 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM

O’Donnell is just a mouth piece for the network. If they didn’t want it said it wouldn’t be.

CW20 on January 30, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Is he related to Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware fame?

Archivarix on January 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM

It isn’t just O’Donnell either. Frump is chasing his tail, too.

davidfrum @davidfrum

Briefly set aside your stance on gun control. What horrible human being heckles a grieving parent in such a way?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/father-of-newtown-victim-heckled-at-hearing.html

davidfrum @davidfrum

It wasn’t heckling, you see, because grieving Newtown dad was “asking for it.”

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/29/outrageous-how-the-left-wing-media-lied-about-newtown-hecklers/

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Yesterday: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?”

Today: “Which pathetic, media hack wants to be the last to die on Failed Meme Hill?”

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I wonder if our friend dieudonne will be here to denounce and condemn these tactics used by the leftists?

HumpBot Salvation on January 30, 2013 at 10:11 AM

What is most disappointing about affairs Larry O’Donnell-related, is that moment for an actual male when he realizes how dismally dull-witted Kathryn Harrold must be to have married, and remain married, to this tw@t.

M240H on January 30, 2013 at 9:46 AM

She dumped him, he’s allegedly with Tamron Hall now.

Maddie on January 30, 2013 at 10:11 AM

O’Donnell is just a mouth piece for the network. If they didn’t want it said it wouldn’t be.

CW20 on January 30, 2013 at 9:58 AM

You are so wrong. Sorry, but I have to correct you here. O’Donnell is far more than “just a mouthpiece for the network”. He’s an admitted socialist who is far to the left of liberals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKd5lpZwLY

HiJack on January 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Lawrence O’Donnell needs to be reminded that his show is not The Last Word.

Because the next day………it’s our turn!

pilamaye on January 30, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Maybe I’m too old-fashioned, but it seems more offensive to Mr. Heslin to continue a lie when O’Donnell knows the truth. It’s bad enough he and his family suffered a horrible loss right before Christmas, but to be made into a political pawn by a third-rate reporter is heartless.

Liam on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Two points.

First, liberalism is a mental disorder. I’m not convinced that O’Donnell knows that he is a lying douche. In his mind, Mr. Heslin could really have been heckled even though a sane person would see things differently.

Secondly, Who says that Heslin isn’t a willing pawn/victim to further his anti-Second Amendment views on banning guns? I’m sorry for his loss but he wouldn’t be the first left-leaning individual to use personal tragedy to further a left-wing agenda. Gabbie Giffords and Sarah and James Brady used gun violence to further their hate the Constitution ideas.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2013 at 10:15 AM

They are already redfining “marriage”, “racist”, and “homophobe”, so they might as well redefine “heckle” as well.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM

if you redefine “heckling” to mean “saying something stupid”

Evidently Larry “heckles” his audience every day.

GarandFan on January 30, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Who cares? If When an MSNBC lefty talks, and no one listens.

FIFY

MTF on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

HiJack on January 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Just like with the Zimmerman fiasco, NBC will simply reassign one or two staffers to their owned-and-operated station in Miami. Maybe even fire a page or two. But not after having loads of fun lying to their audience first.

If you really think about all the times NBC has spread lies and innuendo over-the-air, and has effectively gotten away with it (the Dateline ‘exploding truck’, Richard Jewel, George Zimmerman, the entire MSNBC lineup from 2007 onward)… it would make you want to emit a primal scream and pull an Elvis Presley.

Myron Falwell on January 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Who cares? If an MSNBC lefty talks, and no one listens, does he make any sound?

MTF on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Well, of course he does. You see, the vocal cords vibrate when air passes by them, and….. Ohhhhh! I see!

So that’s what a rhetorical question sounds like!

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Larry O’Donnell: truly one of the brightest and most balanced men on TV. It really wouldn’t surprise me if he was a constitutional law professor.

CorporatePiggy on January 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Larry O’Donnell: truly one of the brightest and most balanced men on TV. It really wouldn’t surprise me if he was a constitutional law professor.

CorporatePiggy on January 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM

What exactly WAS Looney Larry’s claim to fame, anyway? I can’t think of anything other than that he was a homeless flag-burner out on the street that some NBC News staffer took in and gave him shelter at 30 Rock… and shortly thereafter, he got his own show.

Oh, wait… am I confusing Larry with Special Ed, who wound up on the streets after his much-hyped anti-Rush talk radio show bombed hideously after leaving KFGO?

Myron Falwell on January 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM

How can anyone shout ‘My 2nd Amendment rights!’ at a man asking why anyone needs the assault rifle that murdered his son? Just repulsive.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 30, 2013

There isn’t a word strong enough to convey my loathing for hyperpartisan liberals who use the deaths of innocent children and grieving parents as a political cudgel.

RobertE on January 30, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Bitter.
.
.
Clinger.

dissent555 on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I think it’s fair to say he wasn’t heckled.
But he also wasn’t given an answer to his question.
Would’ve been more respectful to be silent and not shout slogans in reply to what was largely a rhetorical question.
The Dad’s response to the shouts was emblematic of an amazing thoughtfulness – considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

How much time do they need to watch a half-minute segment from a YouTube video and decide if it says what they said it says?

…when liberals don’t have facts or reality on their side…they simply lie.

MSDNC is obviously taking their time to try and come up with some type of spin to continue this corrupt hack job they call “journalism”……
….I’m sure they are trying their best to put forward the “it’s okay to lie if it gets to the truth” bullsh!t they regurgitate to defend hacks like Micheal Moore and his deceitful tactics and lies.
Then they will sit back and see who else jumps in the snake pit with them so that they can decide to either continue with the lie or drop it and move on to more “blame Republicans” drivel we here from them day in and day out.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM

But he also wasn’t given an answer to his question.
Would’ve been more respectful to be silent and not shout slogans in reply to what was largely a rhetorical question.
The Dad’s response to the shouts was emblematic of an amazing thoughtfulness – considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Um, the audience WAS silent…he asked the question AGAIN and that was when some in the audience answered him.

Verb, I lost a child (health-related shortly after birth). It is a horrible experience that I would wish upon no one, but I would also not expect my loss to result in the diminution of the rights of someone else nor would I want it to.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I accept that one could view he was genuinely asking for a response.
I watched a few times and just don’t agree.
I also feel if indeed one assumes it was an actual question, the responses were not at all answers.

Sorry for your loss.
Mr. Heslin was simply advocating for a reasonable restriction here….
not a ‘diminution of..rights’. There’s an inherent imperfection whenever anyone tries to draw a line..say between a spud gun and a shoulder fired missile.
But few don’t agree that there is a line to be drawn – just where.

And though it’d be understood if he was making a purely emotional argument, he was making a rational one –
e.g.
“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly, and that’s what they do. And that’s what they did at Sandy Hook Elementary on the 14th…”

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

But he also wasn’t given an answer to his question…….
The Dad’s response to the shouts was emblematic of an amazing thoughtfulness – considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

…yes he was…..protecting our 2nd Amendment rights is a perfectly good answer.If the hack running the meeting wasn’t so he!! bent on shutting down debate from a grieving father who put himself in the position to be debated….their most certainly would have been better answers delivered.

This is typical of liberals to put forth someone into the arena of political debate then to immediately demonize anyone who actually debates them.
We saw it with Cindy Sheehan…who was given “ultimate moral authority” by liberals and they condemned anyone who disagreed with her until she started calling democrats out….then she was tossed aside and forgotten.

You can’t disagree with Obama without being called a “racist” or “militant extremist”……

You don’t dare question Hillary on her failures at State because to do so….means you are a “misogynist” and don’t respect women.

…and now we have democrats exploiting dead children and their parents to the point that they are cutting and pasting video to try and paint the Americans that disagree with them as hateful animals.

For years during Bush’s terms we heard from liberals that their railing and frothing at the mouth in the streets against Bush was “speaking truth to power”…..and that “dissent was patriotic”…….

Now that the democrats are in power and pretty much following Bush’s policies to the point that they have expanded them and now launch wars without Congressional approval against oil rich countries that didn’t attack us…..
………..”dissent” is now “racist”….and “speaking truth to power” is now “hateful rhetoric” from extremist right-wingers.

The facts are that what democrats on the Hill want and what this father wants in “banning” guns and restricting our 2nd amendment rights have shown to be utter failures in stopping crime and mass shootings.
Democrats even acknowledge this.
……so democrats have no choice but to demagogue the issue and try to persuade with emotion and shamming.
It’s pathetic but certainly typical of liberals in general.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM

You got a lot in there.
I’ll just say I don’t agree.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM

considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Sorry, but no. Just because he was hurt in some fashion does not give him the right to dictate anything about my life, unless I was the one who hurt him. And, even then, I demand that be settled by law, not by emotional drama. I don’t cede the moral high ground simply because he is dealing with tragedy.

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM

“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly, and that’s what they do. And that’s what they did at Sandy Hook Elementary on the 14th…”

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

….and the shotgun that Biden’s holds so dear does the same thing.
There are many semi-automatic rifles that do the same thing that the AR’s and AK’s do….their just not as “scary looking” or “militaristic looking” to the uninformed.
Democrats are waving the AR’s around and claiming that they only want to take “military weapons” off the streets…yet many democrats are calling for all out bans….confiscation…..limits to guns that only shoot “1″ bullet at a time…..handguns…shotguns……
Any reasonable person knows that once the democrats would have passed what they have on the Hill now would surely lead to other guns being “banned” in the future because “banning” doesn’t work….so they will claim they have to go further.
We have seen it enacted in American cities like Chicago…DC…and even countries like Mexico who have total bans for citizens and have massive slaughter of the populace to go with those bans.

Democrats and the press have already stated that they are using the deaths of these children to push for their gun bans. These are bans that they have long sought to hit the American people with.

The exploitation of the deaths of these children is bad enough…but to think that gun owners are stupid enough to believe that this is only about “AR-15′s” just doubles down on stupid.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM

…..so be it.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 11:10 AM

blockquote>Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I quite agree

tngmv on January 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I accept that one could view he was genuinely asking for a response.
I watched a few times and just don’t agree.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

He might not have wanted an answer, but when he turned the lack of response to what everyone assumed was a rhetorical question into a furtherance of the argument, he lost that defense.

Mr. Heslin was simply advocating for a reasonable restriction here….
not a ‘diminution of..rights’.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

He most certainly was asking for a diminution of my rights. He questioned whether I need that sort of weapon. A right isn’t founded upon whether I need something. It is fundamental. When you ask why I need that particular weapon, a rights-based answer is “It is my right; it isn’t a question of need.” So, yes, he was asking for a lessening of the right inherent in the 2d Amendment, and the answer given was a proper answer to the very question asked.

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:14 AM

tngmv on January 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Thanks…a lot of that would be a given and well known if we actually had an objective press.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Sorry, but no. Just because he was hurt in some fashion does not give him the right to dictate anything about my life, unless I was the one who hurt him. And, even then, I demand that be settled by law, not by emotional drama. I don’t cede the moral high ground simply because he is dealing with tragedy.

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM

You have no case to be offended.
He was speaking at a hearing…he wasn’t settling any laws.
Fine that you ‘demand that be settled by law’ – but you don’t need to, as that’s how it would be settled.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM

The weapon which the Constitution guarantees me the right to keep and bear, is the weapon which the government intends to use against me. They find a way to remove anything but pop-guns from the hands of all potential government agents who might want to take what I own, then and only then can they attempt to limit me to a pop-gun.

They come with semi-autos, then it is tacitly permitted that I am able to defend myself with a semi-auto.

The school shooting, as horrific and unacceptable an act as it was, is not, nor ever has been, about the gun.

How many guns were used by the 9/11 hi-jackers? It isn’t about guns, it is about evil intent. With evil intent and willingness to follow through, a person could kill more with a vehicle than with a gun. Permitting a crime to dictate how non-criminals must be treated is a fallacy.

Freelancer on January 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly, and that’s what they do. And that’s what they did at Sandy Hook Elementary on the 14th…”

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

But, AR-15s were not designed for the battlefield and the entire focus on assault rifles, as much as I appreciate the man’s loss, is just so irrelevant in the overall scheme of things:

Some numbers to keep in mind:

2,513,171: The number of total deaths from all causes in the United States in 2011.

8,583: The number of gun-related homicides and manslaughter deaths in the United States in 2011.

26,631: The number of deaths resulting from falls from ladders, rocks, etc, in the United States in 2011.

0.012%: The number of deaths caused by ASSAULT WEAPONS in the United States in 2011.

3.8%: The number of deaths in America caused by ALL TYPES OF RIFLES, INCLUDING ASSAULT RIFLES, in the United States in 2011.

72.5%: The number representing the percentage of homicides committed WITH HANDGUNS in the United States in 2011.

323: The total number of homicides committed with ALL TYPES OF RIFLES, INCLUDING ASSAULT RIFLES, in the United States in 2011.

496: The total number of homicides committed with hammers or other blunt objects in the United States in 2011.

Some more data:

In 2012, the Congressional Research Service estimated that there were:

310 million: Number of guns in America.

114 million: Number of handguns in America.

110 million: Number of rifles in America.

86 million: Number of shotguns in America.

There was no separate estimate of “assault rifles,” but the author estimated that there were 1.5 million in 1994.

2,446,294: Estimated number of American-made AR-15s in America.

3,261,725: Estimated number of all AR-15s in America.

3,261,725 AR-15s in America. 323 deaths from ALL TYPES OF RIFLES, INCLUDING AR-15s.

The OVERALL MAJORITY OF AMERICANS are LAW-ABIDING gun owners. Those that have used assault rifles to commit crimes are CRIMINALS, which BY DEFINITION do not abide by the law.

Furthermore, what do mass shooters OVERWHELMINGLY have in common? MENTAL ILLNESS, primarily paranoid schizophrenia or bipolar with violent tendencies.

In recent decades, the homicide and violent crime rate has DROPPED as gun ownership has INCREASED.

In recent decades, we’ve seen an INCREASE in MASS SHOOTINGS as we’ve seen it become HARDER TO INSTITUTIONALISE THOSE THAT ARE DANGERS TO THEMSELVES AND/OR SOCIETY.

Work on the things that will have the most impact. The original AWB did NOT stop Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, etc. Sheriff Dipshit in Tucson, who tried to blame the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, right-wing rhetoric, etc, KNEW about Jared Loughner’s problems BEFORE he went on his rampage. What would have been more effective in preventing the deaths of those in Tucson – an AWB with an open border or a legal system that would have enabled society to institutionalise Jared Loughner? (remember, people in his class at college – from DAY ONE – said that they were afraid that he would shoot up the class. It was THAT apparent).

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Tell you what, on the capacity issue…. (Since Baxter brought up the 1 bullet limit)

I will agree that we require total background checks for any other firearm puchase if you will exempt any weapon that only fires one shot without reloading. We can call that reasonable, right? (All you who can see what I’m up to, ssshhhhhhhhh!)

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I think it’s fair to say he wasn’t heckled.
But he also wasn’t given an answer to his question.
Would’ve been more respectful to be silent and not shout slogans in reply to what was largely a rhetorical question.
The Dad’s response to the shouts was emblematic of an amazing thoughtfulness – considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I think it’s much better that we all quietly turn in our guns and call 911 anytime there is a problem, Dont you?

We can all just go meekly into whatever camps and relocation housing that they tell us to.

After all the trail of tears, the chinese railroad workers, the japansee internment camps, the bonus expiditionary army, the forced HUD relocations never really happened did they? Our government could not get tyranical on us.

Of course, this Civil war and Kent state were caused by Republicans and Bush.

acyl72 on January 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM

If the father was truly heckled then why did NBC need to alter the video? We don’t need to alter anything; we just let liberals be liberals and let them dig their own graves.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

But he also wasn’t given an answer to his question.

In other words, he wasn’t given an answer that satisfies your feelings. It’s always interesting that the left judges a ‘satisfactory’ answer based upon their own feelings. Last I checked, the left isn’t the aristocracy of the country.

Would’ve been more respectful to be silent and not shout slogans in reply to what was largely a rhetorical question.

Really? Then why did the father look around the room? That gave us the impression that he really wanted an answer. Also, they didn’t “shout” slogans, they simply answered his question.

The Dad’s response to the shouts was emblematic of an amazing thoughtfulness – considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

Then why does the left intentionally drown out people who try to state that guns saved their lives? Perhaps you ought to look into the mirror and realize your own evil before pointing fingers at others.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

You have no case to be offended.
He was speaking at a hearing…he wasn’t settling any laws.
Fine that you ‘demand that be settled by law’ – but you don’t need to, as that’s how it would be settled.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM

First, I’m not sure you understood my statement at all.

Second, you were trying to give him moral authority over me (by extension – you were specifically giving him moral authority over those others in the meeting) by virtue of the fact that he lost his son. I didn’t cause him that loss, so why should his harm hold any sway over my rights?

Third, the point about ‘by law’ was that if I was the person who harmed him, then any issues should be settled by application of the law, not by emotional drama trying me in the court of public opinion. That would be… let’s see what the phrase is… oh, yeah, “a high-tech lynching”.

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Mr. Heslin was simply advocating for a reasonable restriction here…. not a ‘diminution of..rights’.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Then we await for your response that proves that any measure proposed so far would have prevented these tragedies.

I understand where the father is coming from but no proposed law would have had an effect.

You simply love dancing on these children’s graves because you don’t like guns and don’t respect other people’s rights.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Pretty much no one watches this dirtbag or any of the other morons on msnbc so why is Hot Air giving them free publicity?

woodNfish on January 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM

You simply love dancing on these children’s graves…

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Hey..eff you a**hole.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I’d say lots of what you’re suggesting as ideas to help reduce the overall risk here is indeed being considered by those that many here are raging at.
But you want the broad offensive to be narrowly defined.

(Also…as far as the ‘criminals don’t care about laws’ argument –
it’s nonsensical. Unless you take the same position on any/all laws?)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Second, you were trying to give him moral authority over me (by extension – you were specifically giving him moral authority over those others in the meeting) by virtue of the fact that he lost his son.

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM

How was I doing that?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Another lying reprobate that can go straight to hell.

tom daschle concerned on January 30, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Hey..eff you a**hole.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Upset that I told the truth, huh?

OK then, show us how these “reasonable” gun laws would have prevented these past crimes or prevent future crimes.

The Second Amendment exists, accept it. The one fact with “reasonable” gun laws is to prevent crime. You and other liberals can’t even protect lives in areas where guns are banned yet you demand that we restrict our rights even more.

If you refuse to provide an explanation then my comments stands and you should F*ck off!

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Does it surprise you when these leftist pieces of trash lie?

You can tell when their lying… they have their mouths open.

Kuffar on January 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Upset that I told the truth, huh?

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Nope.
Happy you revealed yourself to be a full on jackass…unworthy of replies.
This will be my last to you.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

It’s incredible how the left is politicking this event.

Decades of murder in Democrat-owned Chicago: leftist silence
Decades of murder in Democrat-owned Washington DC: leftist silence
Improper distribution of semi-automatic weapons by a Democrat administration to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the deaths of innocents: leftist silence

I don’t care how liberal you are but don’t dare claim that you want to “protect the children” if you haven’t done a damned thing all this time regarding other crime. The libs should be outraged by the “Fast & Furious” scandal but once again, they worship their demigod to a point where innocent murders are no big issue.

Remember the chant during Iraq, “Bush is killing children?” I guess there are no children in Libya, huh? Sorry, how can we be killing anybody through a “kinetic action?”

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Nope.
Happy you revealed yourself to be a full on jackass…unworthy of replies.
This will be my last to you.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

The more you refuse to answer, the more of a dumbass you show yourself to be.

Keep avoiding the topic. Your response is typical of cowards. No wonder liberals are so inferior.

Keep on dancing!

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

How was I doing that?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:58 AM

By your statement that I quoted in that first reply:

considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 1:14 PM

e.g.
“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly, and that’s what they do. And that’s what they did at Sandy Hook Elementary on the 14th…”

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

So, what you’re saying is that – after all this time and discussion – you still don’t know the difference between an “assault rifle” and a sporting rifle.

No wonder you live in fear of those “shoulder things that go up” and “high-capacity assault clips”.
I’ll bet a deadly “barrel shroud” (fore grip) or a death-dealing flash hider cause you to wet your panties.

Face it, you leftists are disgusting creatures who happily dance on the bodies of dead children and tell any lie in order to further your abrogation of the Constitution. I’m only surprised that we didn’t see obama, biden, cuomo and feinstein waving the children’s bloody clothing in the air.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM

AR-15s-to-Homicide Rate in the US:

1994 (AWB signed into law):

# of AR-15s: ~1.5 million

Homicide Rate: 9.0

2009:

# of AR-15s: 3.26 million

Homicide Rate: 5.0

But, but, but AR-15′s are skeery looking!!!

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:24 PM

I’m only surprised

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Often, I’m sure.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM

By your statement that I quoted in that first reply:

considering the weight of the issue on him in comparison to anyone else who was in that auditorium.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Well that’s not what I meant at all by that.
I was simply pointing that I felt he was very thoughtful in his response. He was very respectful of those who offered the ’2nd amendment’ shout outs.
I encourage you to watch the video and read my comment again in context.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM

(Also…as far as the ‘criminals don’t care about laws’ argument –
it’s nonsensical. Unless you take the same position on any/all laws?)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Idiot.

That’s why they’re called “criminals”.

If they followed the law, they wouldn’t be criminals, would they?

But they don’t care enough about the law to follow it – so they are – by definition – criminals.

(You’d really think that leftists would know these things.)

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I’d say lots of what you’re suggesting as ideas to help reduce the overall risk here is indeed being considered by those that many here are raging at.
But you want the broad offensive to be narrowly defined.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I want what works and, as I show above, the homicide rate has dropped dramatically even as the number of AR-15s has increased. Evidently, it is NOT the guns that is the problem. So, infringing upon the rights of gun owners is only going to be done to, um, infringe on the rights of gun owners because some people don’t believe other people “need” some types of or any kinds of guns. That’s not going to fly.

(Also…as far as the ‘criminals don’t care about laws’ argument –
it’s nonsensical. Unless you take the same position on any/all laws?)

Pretty much. A criminal is someone, who – BY DEFINITIONBREAKS THE LAW.

Do drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving or do they punish drunk drivers?

Yes, laws can change societal behaviour, but only if society OBEYS the law. Thus, those in society, WHO OBEY THE LAWS, will change, BUT THEY AREN’T THE PROBLEMOR ARE THEY??? If you think that they are the problem and their behaviour must be changed, then, in the case of guns, you need to amend the COTUS.

The death penalty is not a deterrence. If it were, there would be no murders.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Often, I’m sure.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Cute…but cowardly.

You’d better find a new line of work. Defending the indefensible just isn’t working out for you. You’re not very good at it.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Am I the only person exhausted by having to rebut the same leftist lies over and over and over again, all the while knowing that they don’t even care about the truth, only vilifying anyone who disagrees with their agenda?

nraendowment on January 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Too bad Larry didn’t affect his angry tough-guy accent again and dare the hecklers to come take a swing at heckling him. THAT’d show ‘em, Larrster!

Christien on January 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Yo…. Larry… WHY did Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of that bus?

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 30, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I want what works and, as I show above, the homicide rate has dropped dramatically even as the number of AR-15s has increased. Evidently, it is NOT the guns that is the problem. So, infringing upon the rights of gun owners is only going to be done to, um, infringe on the rights of gun owners because some people don’t believe other people “need” some types of or any kinds of guns. That’s not going to fly.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Here’s the thing – you can throw up all the stats you want, hypothesize on how Tucson and Newton could have happened in some other way, give examples of people defending themselves with firearms (though I have yet to hear any where the defender would have been defeated had these restrictions been in place).
But if one focuses purely on the facts of those 2 incidents, some of the remedies being discussed (that you oppose) would have unquestionably change the outcomes (body counts) there.

And you say you want what works –
if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

(Also…I can hear you fine. No need for all the caps and bolding…unless you do mean to be shouting at me.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly

A handgun can accomplish the same result, especially in an enclosed area.

I’ll agree with you when we start putting our children out on battlefields. (/sarc)

Until then, shut the f*ck up until you know what you’re talking about.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:18 PM

hypothesize on how Tucson and Newton could have happened in some other way, give examples of people defending themselves with firearms

Yet you hypothesize about the effectiveness of gun control but fail to provide any reasoned argument on their effectiveness.

You can hypothesize on how gun control will save lives but until you can provide any evidence that shows even a hint of their effectiveness, you’re only blowing crap out of your ass.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Until then, shut the f*ck up until you know what you’re talking about.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Its head would explode.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 2:24 PM

But they don’t care enough about the law to follow it – so they are – by definition – criminals.

(You’d really think that leftists would know these things.)

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Let’s not forget that the left has been bending over backwards to demand that Muslim terrorists be given full Constitutional rights yet treat law-abiding gun owners as criminals-by-proxy.

Even if a gun ban was highly effective, the grandfather clause would prohibit law enforcement from confiscating legal firearms. Confiscating firearms with a trial would be a violation of the Constitution.

Kinda makes you wonder who liberals REALLY consider as their enemy. It ain’t the radical Muslims, that’s for sure.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Its head would explode.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Don’t you mean implode? That would make more sense, given the vacuum between their ears. :-)

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:28 PM

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

There IS an AWB in Connecticut NOW.

How did that work out for the people at Sandy Hook?

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM

.
And you say you want what works –
if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

(Also…I can hear you fine. No need for all the caps and bolding…unless you do mean to be shouting at me.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

.
Nope, I wouldn’t “support it then.” … Period.

American citizens are to maintain ownership/possession of civilian semi-auto models of military rifles and light weapons, complete with high-capacity magazines.
The purpose being to fulfill the original intent of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT does not constitute a valid grounds-basis for re-interpreting, re-amending, or abolishing the U.S. Constitution.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 2:45 PM

You are making an argument against the idea that we can eliminate risk.
And nobody is suggesting that.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT does not constitute a valid grounds-basis for re-interpreting, re-amending, or abolishing the U.S. Constitution.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Well let me know if that starts happening.
(Although it seems ‘re-interpreting’ is more what’s happened on your side of the argument.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I’m only surprised that we didn’t see obama, biden, cuomo and feinstein waving the children’s bloody clothing in the air.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Remember, this is fascism with a smiley face. There won’t be any actual bloody shirts waved, merely rhetorical ones.

Here’s the thing – you can throw up all the stats you want,

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

That’s sort of what folks here are pointing out about your ‘arguments’ – you’re ignoring all the evidence actually being presented to you.

(though I have yet to hear any where the defender would have been defeated had these restrictions been in place).

So, that kid who defended himsself and his sister in a home invasion with an AR-15 would have had the same outcome if all those weapons were outlawed? Hmmmmm. Don’t think so.

(And, yes, I understand it’s not an entirely static analysis, and something else might have filled that gap. But it is perfectly valid to ask if anything else would have had the same result.)

But if one focuses purely on the facts of those 2 incidents, some of the remedies being discussed (that you oppose) would have unquestionably change the outcomes (body counts) there.

None of the solutions proposed would have made a difference in either situation. Not because there is dispute over their effectiveness, but because they would not have impinged on any of the facts in either case, so far as I know. All the desired laws (with the exception of the 100% background check – which wouldn’t have impacted the facts) were in place in CT, and Loughner used a pistol and I don’t think he fired enough shots to have been hindered by a magazine restriction. (I am open to correction on that point.)

if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

Nope. Because it isn’t worth it if we save just one life. Freedom is more important than that. It’s why our military members put life and limb at risk. Otherwise, why would they do so? After all, if it saves even one life……..

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 3:14 PM

AN APOLOGY: “No, those gun supporters didn’t ‘heckle’ Neil Heslin – they just shamed themselves with their disgusting behaviour. My mistake.”

Piers Morgan on Twitter 1:34 AM – 30 Jan 13

.

“How can anyone shout ‘My 2nd Amendment rights!’ at a man asking why anyone needs the assault rifle that murdered his son? Just repulsive.”

Piers Morgan on Twitter 1:35 AM – 30 Jan 13

.
What Adam Lanza used doesn’t disqualify it as being a legitimate tool/implement/device to “allow” in the possession of the common American citizen.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Loughner used a pistol and I don’t think he fired enough shots to have been hindered by a magazine restriction. (I am open to correction on that point.)

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I understand he had a Glock with an extended clip for 33 rounds.
He was tackled once he’d emptied that clip, and had 2 more ready with 15 in each. So something like this.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Anti-Gun Advocates Heckle Woman Wanting to Defend Her Children During Gun Violence Hearing?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/female-gun-advocate-lays-into-democratic-senator-over-womens-second-amendment-rights/

Gayle Trotter:

“I respectfully disagree. I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse defended himself, saying that he simply brought up the McKinley story as an example of “one that would not bear an argument against the proposal” to ban certain weapons, “because that Remington Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed.”

An incredulous Trotter responded by asking:

“Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child?

Whitehouse:

“I think if she was using a ’100 weapon.’ Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.”

Trotter:

“How can you say that? You’re a large man. You are a tall man. You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 9-1-1, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.

“An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies at her home becomes a defense weapon,” Trotter said as jeers erupted. “Guns are the great equalizer during a violent confrontation.”

The male, Progressive Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ends by, figuratively, attempting to pat Ms Trotter on the head and implying that he knows what’s best for her because, after all, she’d be able to use another type of gun – even if she was not as efficient at it.

Senator Whitehouse, please don’t attempt to lecture us about the types of guns that we should use to defend our bodies and minds and those of our families.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

.
Well let me know if that starts happening.
(Although it seems ‘re-interpreting’ is more what’s happened on your side of the argument.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM

.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution IS about the common citizen having the physical capability (arms) to withstand a tyrant government.

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Yea, that was an entertaining exchange.

The irony is that Trotter is with Independent Women’s Forum –
a hack org backed by AFP they got it’s start as a ‘women who love Clarence Thomas’ group. They worked to kill the Violence Against Women Act.
D.C. is a strange place.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

And I’m saying yours is.
Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

And? Is she not a woman and mother?

As for the VAWA, much of it was struck down – correctly – as unconstitutional in United States v Morrison because it violated both the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

We know where they would be, especially since they did not have hunting and sporting in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

.
And I’m saying yours is.
Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

.
And I’m repeating yours is.

What would “agreeing that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today“, change?
Myself and others have already stated that advancements in weapons technology wouldn’t change the Founders mind, even if they experienced it first-hand.

If the Founders could “rise from the dead” and see our current accepted societal standards of normalcy, they’d be horrified.
But not at semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines in the hands of the general public. They’d first and foremost want to know why we (the country at large) institutionalized atheism.
They would ask Christian believers directly; “How could you have allowed this to happen?”
That’s where their focus would be, if they could view our current National state of condition, and address us concerning it.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Proggies consider themselves to be so honourable and proper.

Tell me, again, who was it that heckled George W Bush at Obama’s INAUGURATION?

“Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Kiss Him Goodbye!”

WTF heckles anyone at a solemn occasion like THAT except for classless ‘tards?

Nope, no hypocrisy there. Move along.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

The framers made their positions blatantly clear in the Federalist Papers and in their private writings on the subject. There is no doubt about where they stood then…nor where they would stand today.
The Second Amendment means exactly what it says…despite all the semantic contortions of the leftists to try to change its meaning.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 9:44 PM