prev
next
Gun rights advocates shout at Newtown victim's dad
HARTFORD, Conn. Parents of children killed in the Newtown school shooting called for better enforcement of gun laws and tougher penalties for violators Monday at a hearing that revealed the divide in the gun-control debate, with advocates for gun rights shouting at the father of one 6-year-old victim.
Victims of Conn. school shooting
Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse was killed in last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, asked people in the room to put themselves in his position as he questioned the need for any civilian to own semiautomatic, military-style weapons.
"It's not a good feeling. Not a good feeling to look at your child laying in a casket or looking at your child with a bullet wound to the forehead. It's a real sad thing," said Heslin, who held up a large framed photograph of himself and his son.
A handful of people at the packed legislative hearing then shouted about their Second Amendment rights when Heslin asked if anyone could provide a reason for a civilian to own an assault-style weapon.
"We're all entitled to our own opinions and I respect their opinions and their thoughts," Heslin said. "But I wish they'd respect mine and give it a little bit of thought."
Neil Heslin, holding a picture of himself with his son Jesse, testifies at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Monday, Jan. 28, 2013.
/ AP Photo/Jessica HillThe hearing by a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws offered the first public testimony by family members of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, where a gunman slaughtered 20 first-grade children and six women. Adam Lanza had killed his mother in their home across town and then drove to the school to carry out the shooting before committing suicide. The testimony was expected to continue late into the night.
Members of the Connecticut State Police firearms training unit brought weapons to the hearing to provide state lawmakers with a short tutorial on what's legal and illegal under the state's current assault weapons ban, passed in 1993. The group included an AR-15, the same type of rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting.
- FBI: Gun background checks peaked after Newtown tragedy
- Newtown, Aurora, big city police chiefs meet with Obama
- Obama: Gun control supporters must listen more
Many gun rights advocates, wearing yellow stickers that read: "Another Responsible Gun Owner," were among the estimated 2,000 people at the hearing. Metal detectors were installed at the entrance to the Legislative Office Building, and some people waited as long as two hours to get into the building in Hartford.
Many spoke about the need to protect their rights and their families' safety.
"The Second Amendment does not protect our right to hunt deer," said Andrew Hesse of Middletown. "It protects our right to self-preservation and preservation of our family. The right to bear arms."
Elizabeth Drysdale, a single mother from Waterbury, spoke of three recent incidents that caused her to fear for her safety. She said she should be able to choose the size of magazine and type of firearm to defend herself.
"Don't my children and I deserve your support and consideration to be safe," she asked lawmakers.
Judy Aron of West Hartford said bills such as those requiring gun owners to have liability insurance and ammunition taxes only harm lawful gun owners.
"Every gun owner did not pull the trigger that was pulled by Adam Lanza, she said.
The state's gun manufacturers, meanwhile, urged the subcommittee to not support legislation that could put the state's historic gun manufacturing industry at risk.
Mark Mattioli, whose 6-year-old son James was killed at Sandy Hook, got a standing ovation when he said there are plenty of gun laws but they're not properly enforced. He urged lawmakers to address the culture of violence.
"It's a simple concept. We need civility across our nation," he said. "What we're seeing are symptoms of a bigger problem. This is a symptom. The problem is not gun laws. The problem is a lack of civility."
Two Southbury natives who survived a mass shooting last year at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., urged lawmakers to address online, private guns sales that don't require background checks. Stephen Barton and Ethan Rodriguez-Torrent also want to require background checks for purchases of so-called long guns and not just handguns.
State Rep. Arthur O'Neill, R-Southbury, who has known Rodriguez-Torrent since he was a child, predicted state lawmakers will reach a compromise on guns.
He said lawmakers' minds have changed since the Dec. 14 school massacre.
"Dec. 13 was one way of looking at the world, and Dec. 15 is a different way of looking at the world," he said.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- No fatalities in I-5 bridge collapse in NW Wash. 122 Comments
- Bridge section disappears in "big puff of dust"
- Washington state bridge collapses 17 Photos
- Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys 502 Comments
- Kansas reporters run for tornado shelter during newscast
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Kids, teachers from destroyed Okla. school reunite
- Shelton, Underwood coming to aid of Oklahomans
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
A video doctored by MSNBC featuring the grieving father of one of the children who died in the Sandy Hook tragedy from has set the Internet aflame this week. The video, which first aired on the Monday, January 28 broadcast of the liberal network's "Martin Bashir"show is only the latest video controversy to include NBC and its crazy liberal stepchild MSNBC
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/31/despite-criticism-from-left-and-right-msnbc-silence-is-deafening-about-doctored/#ixzz2Jff5MIiS
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Their headlines draw in the sheep like a fat kid to candy.
And like the fat kid hurried to eat as much as he can, even without looking at what he's eating, the libtard bunch get all worked up in a frenzy & frothing at the mouth to opine with their ignorance.
It's actually really funny; a bit sad... but still really funny.
Look at the lack of respect shown for the grieving father.
The fact that you think of it as a FREEDOM is what's scary.
Freedom to me is not having to have that gun to protect myself. To feel free and live without fear.
Look I'm all for gun control, but I'm not for attacking people that are against it. This is an issue because it's the second amendment... the amendments were created for anti-federalists who wanted to feel secure within the new federalist government. The 2nd amendment was designed to give folks the freedom and tools to, if necessary, retaliate against the government should it ever turn on the people. Whether you're for or against gun control, it's important to note the source of this issue within politics. It was put in the Constitution to support individual freedom. Of course, I don't want to live in fear of the supermarket or movie theatre, which is why I'd like the government to better regulate and ban certain guns, but I think that until people understand what this amendment really means, things are going to stay stiff.
In 1981, I was robbed at gunpoint, but I never felt the need for a gun.
In response to recent shootings, requests for more black input from Harry Belafonte, I offer the following: SAFE Save Americans For Eternity or Save America From Extinction:
BECAUSE Our nation has recognized an urgent need to drastically overhaul current laws regarding the possession and use of firearms, I am submitting the proposed changes. The immediate ban on assault rifles, excessive cartridge capacity and repeal of conceal and carry.
BECAUSE Our Second Amendment allows militia (and homeowners) to own guns for protection, I propose a limit of two guns: a rifle and a handgun to every registered homeowner/renter. Annual insurance for each weapon must be purchased. Background checks are renewed every three years.
BECAUSE more children and citizens are needlessly hurt by guns, no handguns will be sold to anyone who is not a homeowner or employed as police, security, or in a work-related position (ie public workers, taxidrivers, security) allowing guns. Guns must be obtained thru employment and must be promptly returned upon change of employment.
BECAUSE hunters have the most objections to gun control, hunters are allowed a maximum of 5 types of hunting guns. However, they : 1) must be insured, 2) may only be stored in a licensed hunting storage facility, and 3) must be returned promptly to the facility when the hunting trip is completed. Also, hunting lodges may rent temporary use of rifles only to those who register for use, purchase insurance, and agree to terms of a 1-2 day contract.
I hope leaders and legislators find this proposal helpful. This should provide barriers, safety checkpoints, and new revenue streams to support these much-needed, drastic changes.
Victoria Ryan-Bailey
I regret to see that another girl from Chicago who did sing at the Inauguration has just been shot and killed in a Chicago park while taking shelter from the rain. If there was a ban on handguns other than those necessary for a job, she would still be alive.
Canada can live and prosper with such a restriction. Why can't we?
The point is if a shooter kills in such a manner it should be called a terrorist act rather than a shooting.
When Adam went on his rampage it obviously was a random target - thus far there has been no association between himself and the victims at the school.
Call it for what it is: an act designed to terrify. An act of domestic terrorism.
We don't want to call it that because it makes us more afraid since terrorist acts by definition tend to be unique. And if we call it an act of terrorism it can't be as easily exploited for the purposes of gun control (because the word control implies that something can be done to stop the next one).
----------------
I do somewhat agree with you about your position concerning domestic terror.
However, the focus needs to be on the circumstances that lead up to these kinds of cases. Indeed, that does include such topics as mental health, and also the failure of others who while on the surface appear to be a responsible, law-abiding gun owners, really are NOT properly and suitably keep arms (in addition to safeguarding them from those who are unfit to do so themselves, let alone actually "bear" and use arms).
There was a real breakdown and set of failures in the Newtown case, and I wouldn't be so quick to claim that the school district should be included in that, for as far as school security or lack thereof.
We can't simply rush toward defining these acts of deviance upwardly, elevating them to the ranks of domestic terrorism, unless at the same time, we're truly ready to accept that our society is sicker than before thought, and acknowledge we're in deep, ill-equipped to deal with the true problem of suicidal maniacs bent on taking out lots of other lives as well.
The problems of school massacres are, I would think, a huge challenge, but I wouldn't suppose based on the volume of incidents, that we should liken them to other acts of devastation, ones that are in reality much more common and frequent in other parts of the world (and not our own), and certainly no less difficult to prevent (suicide bombers with concealed explosives). We regulate against the probabilities of having a destructive, terrorist act like a car or truck bomb very, very efficiently in this country. We have highly sophisticated intelligence and counter-intelligence operations to fight terrorism and its plotting, consortiums and collaborations of investigative teams and intelligence officials at multiple levels of government here in the U.S.. It's a never-ending symphony of multi-dimensional, multi-agency, multi-tasking by MULTITUDES of individuals. As such, instances of such acts actually becoming carried out on our soil are, by far, much less common than mass shootings.
It's why it is a different problem, and given to the ease of availability and use of guns, why it should be considered a different problem (mass shootings). There are truly very few people in the U.S. that are actually in factual possession of the knowledge, skill and capabilities that, for instance a person as like Ted Kaczinski, who are really a viable, true threat regarding those kind of acts. And those that DO have knowledge and capability, are by the vast majority, law-abiding citizens and workers who have no intent on causing destruction of this sort. Bombs and bomb making, in terms of the kind of destruction that can cause death to high numbers in one instance, or even over time in a sequence of events, is very, very hard to pull off in the U.S. AND create the kind of devastation as like with Oklahoma City., or as in the attacks we've seen by radical militant groups on U.S. Embassies overseas, or something as like the case of the USS Cole. Incredibly difficult to successfully carry out such attacks, unchecked and undetected.
With school shootings and mass murdering gunmen, matters are more complex and far different, from an enforcement and prevention landscape. We haven't seen those efforts fully evolve yet, nor come to full maturity.
--
and I should add also that those kind of attacks are, correspondingly, much, much less probable. Certainly not unthinkable or impossible, but much more unlikely given the highly advanced systems the U.S. has in defending against terror, here on homeland. Even our efforts defending civilizations abroad are far more effective and well-tooled, than the many contributions furnished "exclusively" on the part of other national officials and authorities from other societies.