Outrageous: How the left-wing media lied about Newtown ‘hecklers’

Sometimes even good people can go bad.

@Greg:

shall not be infringed

Since there is no unless following that statement, outlining exceptions, it seems pretty absolute to those who voted on the Second Amendment.

It would follow that I—as a private citizen—have a fundamental right to own a portable heat-seeking missile launcher, which I could transport in my car to the immediate vicinity of any commercial airport.

You want to use this as an example of how the possession of a firearm can be limited. Obviously, history is not your forte. So let me give you a little history lesson, since your expertise seems to be grammer only:

In the late 1700’s, the cannon was the equivilant to the heat seeking missile. There was a no more powerful weapon. The battles at Concord and Lexington were fought because the British learned that the Patriots were in possession of, wait for it, a cannon, along with other munitions. It was the intent of the British to remove from the Patriots those weapons to prevent them from using them against the British.

Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility, but there are groups that can, including the very Mexican drug cartels that were armed by the current administration, which you support.

So why did the authors of the U.S. Constitution give so much importance to the right to bear (own) arms that it was the second item they agreed upon, coming only after your right to free speech and to worship as you choose? Because they understood, which you seem not to, that the only ability citizens have to maintain their right to free speech and to worship as they choose, was only protected against tyrants by the right to arm themselves. Dictators, who suspend free speech can only maintain that suspension if they disarm the populace.

You, like all liberals, seem to think that if you create even more laws regarding the owning of firearms, you will reduce crime by firearms. It will not work, has never worked, and not ONE proposal put out by the left will do anything to prevent firearm crime. It will only disarm the law abiding, which seems to be your entire purpose. A disarmed populace is also a compliant populace.

@retire05, #10:

Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility. . .

Interesting assumption. Actually, a Rayethon Missile Systems Stinger missile and launcher system has a unit price of around $38,000 US. A quick calculation suggests I could write out a check for 8 and have money left over to pick up another using my available credit balance. That would still leave gas money to get myself to O’Hare, and my hypothetical 8 lunatic buddies to 8 other major airports.

I guess it’s lucky that I’m not crazy and that I don’t have 8 lunatic friends. If I were a high-functioning psycho—which I don’t suspect are all that rare, given what I see on the national and international news from time to time—there would still be that pesky business of rational Second Amendment restrictions to make the entire enterprise far more difficult.

@Aye, #11:

You can only have rights by restricting rights?

Though it sounds paradoxical, I believe this to be true. Allowing a freedom to be exercised to the fullest imaginable extent tends to destroy that freedom altogether, because the real world consequences of the absolute become so unacceptable. The right for private citizens to own a Stinger missile system would become an obvious problem the first time a commercial jet got an engine knocked off on takeoff.

By limiting the absolute of a fundamental right to some reasonable degree, it remains reasonable for that right to actually be routinely exercised in the real world.

I honestly don’t see what’s dumb about this line of thought. To me it seems as if there’s a self-evident quality about it. I assume the founding fathers took it for granted that people would automatically understand the need for tempering absolute principles with reason.

@retire05, #13:

I have no need to prove anything regarding that statement to you or anyone else. The cost of a Stinger missile system isn’t a state secret, however. It’s public knowledge. (Google can demonstrate that to be true in around 10 seconds.) Nor is the fact that there are a great many people who would consider the amount I’ve alluded to to be a rather paltry accumulation for a person of my years. (I certainly don’t. To me it represents a lifetime of hard work and conservative spending habits.)

My own capabilities aren’t the point, however. The point is this: If you think people with very bad intentions don’t have money at their disposal, you had better think again. Very bad people don’t lack highly destructive weapons because of any lack of money. They lack them because there are other obstacles to acquiring them.

@Retired 05 #10 – Excellent!!

But, do you think Greg will comprehend your very factual explanation and the intent of some intensely wise men…..

That is, in “Greg’s” Real World….?? Where ever that is….

@retire05, #17:

When you make a claim, any claim, the onus is then on you to prove it. So we can look at your claims of being financially capable of purchasing 8 missiles right now, we have to decide one of two things; either you are a pathetic braggart, or you are lying. Considering the personality you have exhibited here, I would say it is the later, not the former. The actual cost of a Stinger is moot. Your lying bragging is the issue.

You seem to have a need to personalize every discussion. It was YOU who brought up the matter of affordability, by way of this totally off the wall comment:

Number one, I doubt that you could afford a heat seeking missile. So that eliminates that possibility, but there are groups that can, including the very Mexican drug cartels that were armed by the current administration, which you support.

If you stop making irrelevant comments about things you have absolutely knowledge of, and which have no relevance to the topic in the first place—my personal finances, for example–it won’t be necessary to waste time pointing out that you’re wrong, and then waste even more time arguing about whether I’m under some imaginary obligation to prove it.

But do tell us, Greggie, exactly what part of the new gun laws that the Democrats are so hot to trot over, will prevent anyone with criminal intentions from obtaining a weapon in the usual manner that criminals obtain firearms?

I haven’t seen the specifics of any new legislation to comment on. What is going on at this point is a long-overdue public discussion. I presume we’ll see specific proposals that will come out of that discussion, in the form of one or more bills. When that happens, there will be something to agree or disagree with.

Up until that point, all I have are opinions:

I have no problem with more stringent requirements for military-style assault weapons. I have no problem with mandatory background checks for the sale of all such weapons, without exception, at the point of every ownership transfer. If people really think there’s no difference between an “assault weapon” and other firearms which lack a certain combination of features, they could avoid the additional hassle by buying other firearms.

I don’t object to tight restrictions on high-capacity magazines. I don’t see much need for them, and there’s a reasonable argument for limiting their general availability.

If you catch me in the right mood, I might favor extending a capacity restriction to semi-automatic pistols. I’d have to give that one some thought. I’ve become less certain about that, because so many people are suddenly advocating a right to carry concealed weapons in public places like crowded theaters.

David Wheeler, whose son was killed at Sandy Hook, testifies at a bipartisan hearing Wednesday in the Connecticut Legislature.

You can jump ahead to the 0:46 second mark if you don’t want to listen to Lawrence O’Donnell.

@Aye:

Why would you be able to locate any record of that version of events? Did I say that I took heat here, at FA?

And did I say that you claimed these alleged events occurred here at FA? Why no, I didn’t. Arguing against points I didn’t make again, eh? Imagine that.

No, actually you said:

so far, I’ve been unable to locate any record of that version of events.

I apologize for you having spent so much time searching the entire internet looking for my comments. Perhaps instead of looking for material for another one of your p!issing contests, you could find activities that would better serve all the free time you seem to have on your hands?

Educated at the University of South Carolina, Aye earned his degrees in Business Management and Marketing.

A descendant of five generations of woodworkers Aye enjoys reading, gardening, fishing, and, of course, woodworking. He especially enjoys reclaiming and recycling old lumber and turning it into furniture, cabinetry, built-ins, etc.

Aye has been interested in politics since the early 1980’s, taking a much more active interest beginning in 2000.

After spending eight years in the jewelry business, Aye worked in management with Wal-Mart for nine years. Upon leaving the nations’ largest retailer, Aye returned to the jewelry industry and later started his own business venture where he remains self-employed.

Aye has been married to his high school sweetheart for almost 20 years. He and his wife have three children: a 17 year old son, a 15 year old daughter, and an 11 year old son.

He and his family now live in Georgia where they are restoring a home built in 1880.

Your claim. Your onus.

Shall we take the standard for proof of claims in the order in which they were posted on this website?

Or shall I just accept that it is not proof of any claim made here that you are interested in and you simply seek another p!ssing contest?

johngalt
yes you have pinpoint the source, the antigun try to get away from,
that is the right to own a gun, the law they try to infring by going around and even suggest that you are an accomplice because you want to keep your gun, any one you prefer as an individual, WHO IS UNIQUE AND HAS PREFERENCE,
personal taste of what you alone think or want to collect because you like them for your own choice,
and what they are doing is demonize you and you and you all to win point , and that make one legit gun owner angry and rightly so and they all feel that legitimate anger, after what has gone out of insults,
of news paper disclosure of names and address of good people, after the attack by the radio left and medias anti guns,
what is one to expect to show if it’s not a defensible anger very normal, THEY LABEL ALL LIKE THEY DO FOR FELONS
they made you look like the mentally sick delusional person,
OR DRUGGED TO THE BONE CRIMINAL, out to kill children which YOU ARE FAR FROM IT. THE SICK MENTALY ONE might have taken the idea because of OBAMA FAVORING ABORTION, IT’S VERY POSSIBLE FOR A DERANGE PERSON TO PICK UP ON WHAT IS SO OPENLY ADVERTIZE BY MEDIAS,
THERE IS NOBODY WHO DON’T KNOW THE ADDRESS OF PARENTHOOD AND THERE ABORTION ACTION
SO NUMEROUS THAT IT LOOK LIKE A GOOD BUSINESS
SINCE THEY GET MILLIONS BY OBAMA WHITE HOUSE,
AND THE MENTALLY SICKS PEOPLE ARE SPENDING TIME ON MEDIAS, THEY ALSO HAVE THOUGHTS BUT DANGEROUS JUDGEMENTS WHICH COULD MAKE THEM DECIDE ON KILLING ONE DAY, PEOPLE AND OR CHILDREN,

@Greg:

Since your concern seems to be the safety of the general populace, I have made a few changes to your last post:

“There’s a wide variety of firearms automobiles that are better suited to the average person’s personal and home defense transportation needs than a battlefield weapon high speed automobile such as a Corvett ZR1, while posing less of a risk to the public. I see two things that elevate a military-style weapon’s high speed vehicle’s risk level: a capacity for a prolonged high rate of fire speed without interruptions to reload refuel, and an appearance or feature set that tends to play into an aberrant mind’s homicidal shooting high speed chase/James Bond fantasies.

I favor more strict licensing requirements for such weapons vehicles, rather than a ban. There are reasons some people’s needs may differ from those of the average citizen. If you live in an isolated rural or wilderness area, for instance, such a weapon vehicle could arguably a utilitarian choice, while at the same time posing less public danger than it would in a densely populated community; if you’re a rancher living on a thousand acres in a sparsely populated border area, there’s a reason you might want a different sort of firearm vehicle capable of getting from point A to point B faster than most citizens.

I don’t think we can look at firearms vehicle issues only in terms of individual owners. The societal issue involves the collective consequences of increasing the total number of such weapons and high-capacity magazines vehicles that are out there. Given the situation as it presently exists, a doubling of the total number would effectively double the availability of such weapons high speed vehicles to people who really shouldn’t have access to them. It seems to me that some sort of change is required, or we’ll be seeing more predictable results on the news.

I’m really not anti-guns automobile. We don’t live in a perfect world. I believe law abiding citizens have a fundamental right to the means to protect transport themselves. I just think there must be rational restrictions, so that having that means doesn’t itself elevate the average citizen’s level of risk.

According to the CDC, the number of gun-related homicides in 2010 was 11,079 and in 2011 that number was 11,101.

The number of those killed in motor vehicle accidents was 35,332 in 2010 and 34,667 in 2011. Obviously, we have a vehicle problem. I am now demanding that we do something about the carnage perpetrated by motor vehicles. Stricter licensing, back ground checks for anyone wanting to buy a motor vehicle, heavy duty safes for keeping the vehicle keys in when the vehicle is not in use to prevent motor vehicle theft, governors placed on all vehicles so that there is no possible way that any vehicle can exceed the posted speed limits and an accountability for the manufacturers of motor vehicles, especially the Corvette ZR1, for the deaths of Americans facilitated by their products.

@retire05, #32:

Such comparisons make little sense. Automobiles and firearms are designed for entirely different purposes. I have yet to hear any news stories about mass murder committed with a motor vehicle. They don’t seem to be the average homicidal lunatic’s weapon of choice.

@Greg:

I have yet to hear any news stories about mass murder committed with a motor vehicle. They don’t seem to be the average homicidal lunatic’s weapon of choice.

So, can we assume that your concern is NOT in the number of Americans who are killed, just those who are killed in large numbers from one event?

johngalt yes, I think of the woman hiding with her twin sound to me like a small narrow space,
and the criminal after breaking in the front door with his crowbar or the same like, after he ramsack the whole house, he decide to fbreak in that cache where she is,
the guy is coming at her with a crowbar, how scary, and she shoot, and shoot again and again
watching the guy still up, she had 6 bullets now she is empty, looking at the guy pleading her to stop,
I was thinking where is his crowbar, he is still dangerous even on the floor, her command to lay face down, as she wait for the police, he still find energy to run away and eventualy collaps on the turn of the corner,
how scary she must have been to see her gun was not doing the job to kill on the first shot,
I’m sure her husband bought another gun after that,

@Aye, #35:

More people are killed every year through abortion procedures than by all types of firearms combined.

Only if you accept the premise that the personhood concept is based upon. Most of those who advocate a woman’s fundamental right to decide for herself whether she will give birth to a child don’t believe that a person exists from the first moment of conception.

Abortions performed by competent medical providers are quite safe. There’s a mortality rate for women undergoing such procedures of 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Compare that with the mortality rate associated with live births: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000.

If we want to kill a lot of those who are undeniably and unambiguously people, closing the doors on legal abortion is a proven way of doing so. Desperate women would seek abortions from illegal sources as they did in the past, and some would die as a result. I suppose some might consider that an acceptable consequence for anyone who insist on making a personal decision they disapprove of.

Of course, we both know and understand that your concern is not really about saving lives, instead it’s all about control and your searing desire to selectively allocate the freedom to choose.

We both know no such thing. What could possibly be more intrusive and controlling than a pack of predominantly male elected officials telling women with unwanted pregnancies that they MUST continue their pregnancies until they give birth? A majority of women disagree with that position.

I stated up somewhere above that I’m not opposed to firearm ownership simply because I advocate stronger controls. I own a firearm.

Nor does the fact that I advocate the right of women to have ultimate control of their own reproduction function mean that I advocate abortion. What I advocate is individual choice.

@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes, bees, there are plenty of varieties of qualities in bullets.
We buy ”practice rounds” for using at the range because they are cheap and just as accurate.
In a pinch you can kill an animal or person with them, too.
But there were better quality bullets and some with special qualities such as flattening on impact to do stopping power.
Some bullets are so damaging to the body of either a person or an animal they are illegal.
You wouldn’t want to try to clean an animal killed by one, not to eat.
There would be fragments of lead all over the place.
By the same token, a doctor will have a tough time saving a person shot by one of these, as he will have damage all over the place inside him.

@Greg,

Then I would suggest that you Google, on your own, the numerous cases where a successful home defense happened due to the presence of one of those ‘evil’ “assault” weapons.

Numerous? That’s a joke. Assault weapon advocates have been repeatedly asked to provide concrete examples of situations where the fact of that particular type of weapon made a difference. There aren’t any. There are only a few cases where that’s what happened to be on hand. Maybe you have a link to a site presenting different statistics.

I would suggest the possibility that a high-velocity military projectile might pose a certain elevated level of danger to the neighbors, if the owner is living in an apartment complex, a heavily populated suburban development, or a trailer park.

@Greg:

Abortions performed by competent medical providers are quite safe. There’s a mortality rate for women undergoing such procedures of 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Compare that with the mortality rate associated with live births: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000.

As compared to the 100% mortality rate of the child that was aborted?

Nor does the fact that I advocate the right of women to have ultimate control of their own reproduction function mean that I advocate abortion. What I advocate is individual choice.

Well, if you really want to get technical, those women seeking abortions had the ultimate control of their own reproduction functions prior to the moment of conception. Pregnancy, like a hangover, is a completely avoidable condition.

And if you truely supported individual choice, you would not have been making the argument that you, or the federal government, have the right to decide what firearm someone should be able to choose in order to provide themselves, and their families, with protection against bad people who want to do bad things. But you have made that argument, consequently, you are only “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, not personal safety.

@retire05, #48:

As compared to the 100% mortality rate of the child that was aborted?

You’re engaging in selective reading, or selective understanding.

The point was made that those who advocate choice don’t accept the premise upon which the personhood line of thought is based. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You’re getting a 100% mortality rate only because you’re defining a biological process as a child from the point of fertilization onward. You would have us think that even a zygote is a person. Based on what? Only opinion.

Well, if you really want to get technical, those women seeking abortions had the ultimate control of their own reproduction functions prior to the moment of conception.

Not all of them. There’s the matter of rape and incest. On top of which, your self-righteous streak is showing. Young people have been known to act impulsively and make errors in judgement. It’s not your place to demand that they be forced to live with the results. The lives they live are theirs, not yours.