Sandy Hook dad heckled by gun nuts at hearing

Nothing says “I love the Constitution” like shouting down the father of a dead six year old boy.

I’ve always said that Republicans, and gun nuts included, don’t really love the Constitution – they love one amendment.  The rest, not so much.

The Connecticut general assembly held hearings on the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, where 20 six- and seven- year-olds were mass-murdered by a young man with an assault rifle who systematically shot each child three times to ensure that they were dead.

The gun nuts showed up at the hearing in full form, some even in combat fatigues because, what a better way to say “I’m not a nut” than to come to a hearing on the murder of children dressed as some wannabe-soldier.

From the ctpost:

“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.

“There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened,” said Heslin, who said he grew up using guns and was undisturbed by the interruption of his testimony.

“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.”

The ctpost goes on to note:

The sometimes boisterous public hearing — after nearly four hours of testimony from State Police, parents of slain Newtown first-graders and city mayors — seemed dominated by gun owners, who railed at more than 90 proposed bills.

Of course they were. They gun nuts are crazy, but they’re not stupid.  They’re simply adopting the teabaggers’ strategy of shouting down the health care reform townhall meetings in the summer of 2009.  If you act crazy enough you can scare the bejeesus out of legislators, and vote counters, and Supreme Court justices deciding a presidential election.  Republicans have always known this.  And it’s a tactic they routinely deploy.

Of course it’s not just for show.  The gun nuts really are crazy, so when they yell and scream, and heckle the father of recently murdered child, the crazy is real.

And they’re crazy when they allege that the entire Sandy Hook massacre is really a government hoax created to take away their guns.

And they were crazy when they wouldn’t let the Justice Department even peek to see if any suspected 9/11 terrorists had bought a gun in the US.  Mind you, we all lost civil liberties after September 11 – but guess who didn’t?  Gun nuts.  Their right to carry a piece of metal into a JC Penney and scare the bejesus out of moms and dads shopping with their children was more important than September 11.  But none of the rest of our constitutional rights trumped finding those who murdered 3,000 Americans on that horrible day.

After all, these are people who think America is one step away from becoming Nazi Germany.  If you push a gun owner hard enough, more often than not they’ll admit that the real reason they want guns is to stop the US government from becoming Hitler.  And while it’s an admirable goal to remember the lessons of history, if you think Nancy Pelosi bears any resemblance to Eva Braun, then you are prima facie evidence as to why far too many gun owners don’t have the mental capacity to own a gun.

Gun nuts are not “law-abiding citizens.”  Far too often they’re people who hate America, hate our government, hate our leaders, and hate any part of the Constitution that doesn’t deal with having the right to mass murder children during a juice-break.  You simply are not sane if you think America is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, and if you think Barack Obama is a socialist.  But we’ve tolerated insane-talk far too long from the Republican party (from Palin, Romney, Priebus and all the rest), and from the NRA.  And then we all act surprised when some gun nut picks up a gun every three months and blows innocent people away.

If “mainstream” political parties and gun lobbyists keep telling their followers that America is on the verge of a Soviet/Hitlerian takeover, and the only thing stopping the next Stalin from moving into the Oval Office is an AR-15, then at some point someone is going to use his AR-15 to stop Stalin and all of his enablers, be they the ATF, the President of the United States, or a six year old boy who simply wanted to make it to Christmas.

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

78 Responses to “Sandy Hook dad heckled by gun nuts at hearing”

  1. colleen2 says:

    aren’t you just pathetic

  2. Anarcho-News says:

    No reason to say anything if he hadn’t asked a question. I think that’s generally how that whole thing goes -ask people a question, they give you an answer… especially when it’s over a really important issue.

  3. Anarcho-News says:

    Holy cow -who let’s you on the computer? I hope they don’t let you leave the house. The man asked a stupid question, and then looked around and asked again to verify if no one could answer his question… I’m thinking the dad just wasn’t thinking and was emotionally distraught… what’s your excuse?

  4. Anarcho-News says:

    Or the “just answering the man’s question” option… did you see that one?

  5. Anarcho-News says:

    Sorry, Michael -those words “…shall not be infringed” mean you can’t even get close to them… try again.

  6. Anarcho-News says:

    It was probably because they were asked a question, directly. He opened the question to the entire floor -I’m glad someone spoke-up. You’re certainly not Miss Manners calling legislation that infringes on other people’s rights “rational”… you’re poking a bear with guns… but you’re the smart one, right?

  7. Was at the hearing says:

    I must say that i find this article amusing. Not because of the fact that the writer is following a, now admitted by MSNBC, video edited to stir up resentment towards anyone who is pro-2A,but the fact that this writer states “Gun nuts are not “law-abiding citizens.” Far too often they’re people who hate America, hate our government, hate our leaders, and hate any part of the Constitution that doesn’t deal with having the right to mass murder children during a juice-break” This mentality from ( im guessing) a liberal journalist is the same mentality that republicans have against women,minorities, and homosexuals. But somehow this talk is tolerated here? How hypocritical.

  8. dapper d says:

    I would agree it were rhetorical if he hadn’t added this comment at the end of his question after looking around the room.
    “And not one person can answer that question.”
    But he did add it, and by doing so invited an answer.

  9. dapper d says:

    The guy was not heckled as so many sites are claiming. What is not being mentioned is that he had addressed a question to the audience and claimed that no one had an answer to it.
    “I wish, I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question.Why, anybody in this room, needs to have one of these assault style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips. And not one person can answer that question.”
    It was at this point that people made the comments stated above.
    I like how these pseudo-journalists try to make an event out to be more than it really is.

  10. Was at the hearing says:

    as a ‘gun nut’ im all for background checks and mental health exams. I am NOT for some draconian legislation that is being submitted on the back of this tragedy as if to say ‘if this was in place before 12/14/12, Adam Lanza wouldnt have done what he did.” Every bill that is restrictive in my rights in Connecticut does nothing to protect citizens from criminals,but does restrict my ability to protect myself and my family. P.S. the police have no legal liability when it comes to protecting you from criminal acts. (See warren v. district of columbia). So who is responsible for your safety?

  11. Was at the hearing says:

    You are definitely correct that I stated a rhetorical question…Now if I spoke about your lack of answer, the question is no longer rhetorical…just like the father did. Now an answer should be expected. If you do not realize this, then you are blind to rational thinking due to your sheep-like nature. I was at the hearing, there was NO heckling. Each speaker (for the 7 hours i was listening) was given the allotted 3 minutes (sometimes they went over) to speak their mind without interruption. It was probably due to no other speaker asked a direct question to the audience. Are you telling me that you believe some writer from DC who wasnt at the hearing or someone who was physically in the legislative building that day? So which is it?

  12. The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in
    common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller
    (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined
    that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a
    sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary
    military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”. Basically, in common langauge the secong amendment is only ment for military style weapons. Knowledge is power.

  13. KingCranky says:

    Right, whatever you say.

    Not my fault you disagree with Scalia about “original intent”.

  14. Wrong. Original intent means figuring out what the Framers meant. In the case of the Second Amendment, they meant that the peoples’ right to maintain arms for their personal defense and the defense of the nation shall not be infringed. Similarly, when they wrote the Frist, they intended that people should be free to worship as they chose. Using your fallacious logic, the First Amendment doesn’t protect Mormonism or Scientology, because those religions didn’t exist at the time.

  15. Thomas K says:

    And yet you fail to notice him looking around and waiting for people to answer him in regards to his question, he evidently expected an answer

  16. karmanot says:

    Thank you, “So you dont (sp) answer when someone asks you a question?” This is a perfect example of a rhetorical question.

  17. pappyvet says:

    There goes the wingnuts again,desperately hanging on to the smallest crumbs to proclaim that Mr. Heslin was not “heckled” and its all a Liberal lie. The chairperson admonished them not to interrupt. Watch the longer clip of Heslin’s statement , he was asking rhetorical questions, not telling these loons it was OK to shout at him. Any way you slice that hair,it was ill mannered,and disrespectful. But like the bully in the schoolyard,they always have a bag of excuses for their behavior.

  18. Thomas K says:

    You liberals will never be able to ban guns until you do away with the second ammendment. But go ahead why don’t you try and get a 2/3 majority to ammend the constitution on this issue.

    I think they should pass an assualt weapons ban so the Supreme court and strike it down and settle the matter. it would also galvanize people to throw many of the ban supporters out of office like happened in 94.

  19. Dhayes says:

    He was insulting his audience, and when he asked a question they answered. You leftist will do antyhing to push your agenda! BTW if I am a gun nut because I am pro-guns I guess you leftists are gun hating nuts for being anti guns!

  20. Was at the hearing says:

    So you dont answer when someone asks you a question? It was not rhetorical, it was a question. I cant believe that people allow their own views to bi-pass rational thought. cause there were certainly ‘chants for unlimited gunslaughter’. jeeze

  21. Was at the hearing says:

    Allow me to clear the air here from this disgusting, biased ‘journalism’ here. I was at the hearing that day and what happened was not heckling, like the person who wrote this wants you to think. Here is what happened… The father, during his testimony stated, while turning around, that he wants to hear one reason why anyone would need to own an assault rifle or a 30 round magazine. This was presented as a rhetorical question ( as well as the fact that the Chair of the committee stated previously that if anyone applauds at the end of any testimony, he will clear the room). But when the father stated “see? no one can give me an answer” we noticed that it was not in fact rhetorical at all, so people answered him (thats what you do when someone asks you a question,right?) So people said “Katrina, La riots, protection, and second amendment.” Do you find this to be heckling like the writer (who looks a little biased in his writing) wants you to believe? Do you believe him or someone who was actually there?

  22. FigureItOut says:

    ummm, actually you have been bamboozled by the DUMB media AGAIN!. The heckling NEVER happened, they were responding to a question the father asked, and then paused for them to respond… Of course, not according to the magic that is MSNBC editing dept…. So maybe those “gun nuts” aren’t as “nutty” as THEY (media) would lead you to believe. Instead of braying like the rest of the asses in the field, why don’t you click a few more links to get the WHOLE story.

  23. colleen2 says:

    OK then, I guess you’re going with the ‘voice over’ option.

  24. dockie says:

    I’ve never seen such outright lies than the ones perpetrated by the left, specifically within the last four years. The man wasn’t heckled. If you are as open minded to the truth as you claim to be, watch the complete unedited video and realize that it’s been cut to look as though he was interrupted and “heckled”. Don’t fall for the lies guys. Be smart and honest.

  25. KingCranky says:

    No bigger bunch of thin-skinned whiners & perpetual “victims” than gun-fetishists.

  26. KingCranky says:

    Yes, but since you didn’t debunk my question, then your question is meaningless.

    Let’s repeat

    “So nobody shouted at Heslin, the audio is just a media trick?”

    Lets take the following from your link

    “After several moments of silence, and more insistence from Heslin, several people do respond, mentioning the Second Amendment. As the video shows, the respondents did not mock or heckle, and responded as respectfully as possible given the emotional situation. The moderator then asks for the audience not to speak up, or the room will be cleared.”

    No reason to tell the audience “not to speak up, or the room will be cleared” if nobody had said anything to Heslin.

    Also, another father who suffered a murdered child at Sandy Hook, and who doesn’t agree with further gun control laws was NOT given any crap by anyone present when he testified.

    But it’s certainly your right to continue with the pathetic spin that no one said anything to Heslin during his testimony.

    Thanks for debunking yourself, something you do all the time, or only on special occasions?

  27. Badgerite says:

    I watched the ‘unedited’ version. Mr. Heslin was stating his opinion by way of a rhetorical question. He was not asking the audience to comment. They commented anyway and pretty stupidly as well. Blurting out “The Second Amendment”, is not really much of an answer since the 2nd Amendment certainly does not require that any citizen be allowed to own military assault rifles anymore than it requires that they be allowed to keep a tank handy and at the ready. But what the idiots did was indeed heckling. Deal with it.

  28. KingCranky says:

    Justice Scalia believes we can only apply the Constitution by the conditions which existed at the time of its adoption, “original intent”, by his standard, that means only firearms available at the time.

    Rather telling when anyone pushing the “original intent” meme refuses to lead by example and give up their medical & technological advances since then.

  29. Kevin T Hoffman says:

    @Abby Kern oh yes your right and while your at it why don’t you pitch your iPad tv computer in the dump and let’s shut down main stream high speed media and g back to the printing press and men on horse back sending dispatches because that’s what our founding fathers were talking about, he’ll let’s get rid of due process as well next time you get pulled over and see how you like that . Not all of us are nuts I’m a combat wounded veteran I am a sheepdog I fought the wolves and will do so again as I swore to foreign or domestic , I have firearms for home defense for target shooting and concealed carry , I do not walk around in fatigues waving my gun in the air at apple bees or wal mart shouting I need to defend myself nor would I heckle a grieving father , People think that we as gun owners want firearms in the wrong hands that’s not true we are for gun control but not at the cost of the law abiding citizens rights .people are killed by drunk drivers every year but you don’t see breathalyzers in our cars so we can start them and that’s our point . My worry for registration of firearms is hacking as we have already seen the information of registered gun owners in NY was published by a newspaper and people were robbed as a result,if this kind of information were in a database it would not be hard for someone to hack such a database and basically formulate a shopping list of what they want and where to get it , hacking is becoming the biggest domestic threat in the United States for terrorism throw private firearms in the mix and I think it could be a recipe for more stolen fire arms. I believe there should be mandatory purchase of trigger locks with firearms some police depts give them for free, and or proof of ownership of a safe .

  30. John Porter says:

    Yellow Journalism. American blog my foot. What a joke of a news site. Here is an idea people, watch the video yourself. Its complete hog wash taken out of context. Complete lies. Start reading real news sites and start fact checking before you go spouting comments falling into their trap of lies.

  31. Badgerite says:

    I did watch the video. His question was rhetorical or directed at his questioners. He was not inviting audience response. They responded anyway, inappropriately, as is evidenced by the fact that the chairmen of the committee more or less told them to shut up. In that context, that of testifying as to your own experience with gun violence at a Congressional Committee, what those people in the audience did was indeed heckling and one can see that Mr. Heslin is sort of taken aback by it. They were just being assholes. The actual truth is Mr. Heslin wasn’t asking them a question. He was making a statement to the committee which they decided to horn in on. Otherwise known as HECKLING. Grow up!

  32. Centurion says:

    While I would generally agree with most of you (concerning zealots on either side of the isle); the fortunate/unfortunate fact is that he was not heckled. Please play the entire thing and judge for yourself. It can be found on youtube…

  33. Paul Baker says:

    you obviously haven’t read the second amendment, read before you speak

  34. LosGatosCA says:

    What sick fucks.

    Absolutely no different than Westboro Church folks. Sick, twisted nasty pieces of shit.

  35. goldwater89 says:

    He wasn’t taunted. But please continue clutching those pearls

  36. Allen Dolly says:

    This has been proved to be an Media EDITed video go to this link and see the unedited video where the father asks, can anyone tell me why you need these types of weapons? then after a brief silence asks so no one has an answer?, then several in the crowd answers him. he was NOT heckled. Themedia is twising things and editing things to thier agenda. Be carefull what you believe.

  37. karmanot says:

    I saw the unedited version.

  38. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Can you supply us with the link to the information you report?

  39. William says:

    This story was proven false. It was made up by MSNBC for a usual cheap story. There were some people who yelled out for the second amendment. However, NBC snakes did not report the whole story. When the father was talking everyone gave him respect including the people who shouted earlier. The libs as usual twist the story to fit what tey want. Snakes in the grass

  40. OneRegularGuy says:

    A misinformed individual who will believe anything that the media says and edits in their favor and quickly comment without even bothering to watch the unedited version…how sad. What a sad indictment of American culture you really are.

  41. mike31c says:

    No one has ever claimed gun nuts to having class or having an ability to be respectful towards others.

  42. Kalirob says:

    Miss Manners I am not, but I can’t believe the hearings cannot set and maintain behavior standards, as in: if you disrupt the hearing, you are out on the street. This happens time and again to progressive protestors, but not to pants-pissing cowards in hearings about rational legislation?

  43. cole3244 says:

    as usual the chickenhawks yell and scream and threaten but when it comes to walking the walk they are absent without leave, cowards are gutless and that will never change as this incident so aptly proves. put the 2nd amend gun nuts in a well regulated militia and see how they like it, thats what the const says and whats good for the founding fathers should be good for the gun nut cowards of america, or not.

  44. karmanot says:

    LOL and all this time I thought that bunny was a lapin.

  45. karmanot says:


  46. KingCranky says:

    So nobody shouted at Heslin, the audio is just a media trick?

    And if it’s such a fake story, why isn’t FOX “News” echoing your claims?


    FOX “News” is now part of the “lamestream media”, at least according to your “logic”.

    Good thing you cleared that up.

  47. KingCranky says:

    Another point, no combat training is required for a civilian seeking a concealed carry permit, and paper targets in well lit conditions don’t shoot back.

    Yet we’re supposed to believe that an armed civilian, with no combat training, will somehow stop a public massacre. Add to that lunacy the “I need my 30 round magazine for self-defense” BS, then consider the logical inconsistency, that an armed civilian, who needs more than 10 shots to hit their target, will take out a rampaging gunman with one coolly-placed shot, but won’t hit any bystanders fleeing in panic.

    The latest BS from the gun fetishists is how the gunman at the Oregon mall committed suicide after he saw an armed civilian drawing his weapon.

    Apparently, the gunman suddenly decided it was morally reprehensible to gun down more innocent victims in an attempt to gun down the armed civilian, and figured suicide was a better option than being killed by said armed civilian. The reality is that the armed civilian thought about trying to take out the shooter, but decided against it as he didn’t think it was possible without hitting the panicked crowd, a decision he stands by.

    The other way to debunk that example is to point out how illogical it is that a fleeing bystander would take the time to look from the gunman to where the perpetrator was staring at, and did so at just that exact time.

    Seriously, people make up this stuff, not expecting to get called on their stupidity, then whine when their ridiculous talking points are so easily debunked.

  48. Zorba says:

    K., you’re right, but as a retired teacher who used to sing this song with my students (as well as my own kids), it’s “Little Bunny Foo Foo.” Not “Frou Frou.” Just sayin’. ;-)

  49. Zorba says:

    I agree, K. These people have absolutely no empathy, no sympathy, no actual human feelings. They are fanatics, pure and simple. They simply cannot see beyond the barrel of their AK-47’s, Bushmasters, or whatever.
    It is, indeed, “a sad and damning indictment of American culture.”

  50. colleen2 says:

    So we’re supposed to view the taunting of a grieving father during his testimony in the context of the right’s wider delusional system or are we supposed to pretend that the taunting from the right is a voice over and didn’t happen at all?

  51. karmanot says:

    Yep!! :)

  52. karmanot says:

    A grieving father suffering the lost of a murdered child is heckled by gun enthusiasts…..what a sad and damning indictment of American culture. We are fast approaching a nadir of civilization.

  53. pappyvet says:


    Excellent post.After decades of hate speak and paranoid propaganda, it is difficult to distinguish between these people and those who have suffered from cult recruitment. Cults that use a belief system as their base are very common.White supremacists, terrorists, and religious groups commonly use forms of mind control to recruit and dominate their members. Everything from ” the government is going to get me,” to ” I might go to hell,” are employed to achieve the desired tribal effect.

    They more often than not claim to adhere to a set of morals or religious “values” that give them a certain feeling of superiority and rightness. Rush Limbaugh can say,””I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on
    every campus — living fossils.” as well as thousands of even more hate filled and often violent comments from others,and they will be soft pedaled at the least or taken most seriously at the worst. To say something defensive however is almost universally rejected out of hand as an “attack.” Shouting at Mr. Heslin is not a problem for them because he is not “One with the body of Landru,” so he does not rate.

    We must remember that the Inquisitors during the Midgle Ages were not all evil men.
    Many truly believed that by torturing the flesh,they were freeing the spirit. Psycopathic by enlightened knowledge but firmly held non the less. And if you were to disagree, you would be the one who was out.
    The town of Baden, Germany, for example, burned 200 witches from 1627 to 1630. So many that they had to import women from other towns to be their wives. Such was the paranoia. But fostering the fright and anger served the powerful very well.

    Building bomb shelters in the backyard, claiming the President is a Muslim, or that climate change is not happening, also has profitable uses. Unfortunately,the devises used today are just as powerful and just as destructive .

  54. BeccaM says:

    Oh, I dunno. Little Bunny Frou Frou is awfully competent at field-mouse head bopping. ;-)

  55. Bruce Lancaster says:

    Now that we know that this story came from MSNBC selectively editing video again and it wasn’t a heckling incident, at all, what say you? Are you going to pull this story or re-write it to reflect the actual truth? When are people going to stand up and tell ABC and MSNBC that they don’t appreciate fabricated stories bolstered by selective video editing? — This story is a lie. The full, unedited, video is on youtube now. Go see for yourselves and quit drinking the darn koolaid, you fools.

  56. Badgerite says:

    EXCELLENT post!

  57. karmanot says:

    Or little bunny frou frou

  58. colleen2 says:

    Sounds like you want the movie version of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

  59. colleen2 says:

    The reality is that most of them would look for a woman or child to hide behind.

  60. ComradeRutherford says:

    When the shooting breaks out in the mall, how do you tell which is the crazed gunman and which are the Responsible Gun Owners? Clearly you, guest1, have a never-wrong method for determining which of the people shooting their guns at each other are which.

    The person that had just managed to wrestle the gun away from Senator Gifford’s shooter was almost shot himself by a Responsible Gun Owner who had come late to the party and had no idea who the ‘bad guy’ actually was!

    So in Real Life, not the Rambo fantasy world you usually live in, how do we tell the difference?

    Maybe we should pass a law that all Responsible Gun Owners have to wear white ten-gallon cowboy hats and jingling spurs while they carry their firearms in public to make it easier to separate the insane killers from the Responsible Gun Owners?

  61. ComradeRutherford says:

    In order to be a Reponsible Gun Owner it is required to attend hearings in military clothing and shout at a father that his dead kid mean nothing when compared to the majesty of the 2nd Amendment.

    If only it were still legal for Responsible Gun Owners to shoot anyone the felt like without punishment, as the 2nd Amendment clearly intended all along.

  62. Abby Kern says:

    We should hand all the second amendment nuts a musket. After all, that is what the founders were talking about.

  63. slappymagoo says:

    Actually Barney Fife wasn’t allowed to have his gun loaded because he was so skittish. What they’d turn into is Barney Fife, BUT ARMED.

  64. BeccaM says:

    Most of ’em have their imaginary fantasies where, upon suddenly finding themselves in a mass shooting scenario, they’d turn into John McClane, Rambo, and Spaghetti-Western Eastwood, all rolled into one.

    The reality is most of ’em would likely turn into Barney Fife.

  65. slappymagoo says:

    The reason the gun-nut section of the 2nd Amendment proponents is so vehemently against protections like background checks and mental health exams is because they know they couldn’t pass them. Which of course, they’d blame on that fascist Obama and not on the fact that they think a man who was democratically elected twice in a vote that wasn’t in the upper 90% is a fascist.

  66. slappymagoo says:

    Let’s pretend for a minute that you’re not incredibly stupid, just misguided.

    First, you’re imagining a hero scenario where one person has guns, AND knows how to use them, AND won’t panic when under fire AND has precise enough aim to not possibly let that bullet go astray and hit some innocent passerby, AND perhaps most important, can and will always able to recognize who the shooter is.

    Because if someone goes crazy in a mall and starts shooting, and your back is to the shooter, so you whip around pistol drawn ready to shoot back, you’re suddenly looking at a couple of dozen other people with THEIR guns drawn, because they’re just as “misguided” as you are. Maybe some of them already started shooting. You think you’d be sure who the original shooter is? Sure, you’d shoot at whoever everyone else is shooting at. You sure THEY’RE right? All it takes is one person to assume someone shooting at the shooter is the shooter, and instead of 1 dead shooter, you have dozens of dead Good Samaritans, to say nothing of who they might accidentally shoot who aren’t packing heat.

    Second of all, why do you assume they always commit suicide when someone shoots back? Because there’s no evidence that happens. None. What usually happens is, by the time cops get to the scene, a lot of the shooter’s rage is spent, as is much of their ammo. They’ve had a few seconds to realize what they’ve done and that they’re not getting out of it, so they kill themselves before those shots are fired.

    Now it’s time to stop assuming. Go be incredibly stupid somewhere else.

  67. monopole says:

    They only love half an amendment…

    Frankly I’d love to see any actual liberals in Hollywood set up a narrative where crazed loons and terrorists brandish assault rifles and the cops insist that they cannot lift a finger. Unlike the supposed loons going scot-free on Miranda technicalities this would be based on reality.

  68. nicho says:

    Idiotic advice. The best way to deal with a shooter is to prevent them from becoming a “shooter.” Countries with tough guns laws don’t have the mass slaughters on the scale we have in the US. Australia passed tough gun laws in 1996 and mass shootings stopped immediately. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is a nut — gun or otherwise. If you want to arm everyone in the country for “safety,” move to Somalia for a year. Come back — or not — and let us know how it goes.

  69. Quilla says:

    Well said, John.


  70. jomicur says:

    And these are the sociopaths who dominate our national policy making.

  71. guest1 says:

    There’s only 2 ways to deal with a crazy shooter, run and hide, or shoot back. They usually commit suicide as soon as someone shoots back. The media glorifying the shooters doesn’t help.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS