Newtown father delivers emotional plea to Congress on gun violence
During emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, the father of a first grader slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School fought back tears as he stressed the need to ban weapons like the assault rifle that a gunman used to kill his son, 19 other children, and 6 educators in Newtown, Conn.
Neil Heslin described how his son Jesse "was brutally murdered at Sandy Hook school on December 14, 20 minutes after I dropped him off."
"He said 'It's all going to be OK'," Heslin recalled his son saying as he was dropped off at school. "And it wasn't OK."
"Jesse was the love of my life. He was the only family I have left. It's hard for me to be here today, talking about my deceased son," Heslin said. But he added, "I have to. I'm his voice. I'm not here for the sympathy...I'm here to speak up for my son."
"There's many changes that have to happen to make a change effective," he continued. "Mental health issues, better background checks, bans on these weapons, bans on high capacity magazines - they all have to come together and they all have to work effectively...common sense tells you that."
The hearing was convened to discuss a bill from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would ban military style semiautomatic weapons like the Bushmaster rifle that was used to commit the massacre at Sandy Hook. The bill would also ban the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines in excess of 10 bullets.
- Gun control fight entering final round in Senate
- Biden on gun safety: No more excuses
- Pro-gun control candidate wins Ill. House primary
Feinstein, who sponsored the original assault weapons ban that passed Congress in 1994 and lapsed in 2004, said that "The need for a federal ban" on these assault weapons "has never been greater."
The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, extended his condolences to the victims of gun violence in the audience but voiced skepticism about the prospect of enacting new gun laws when, in his view, existing gun laws are not even being properly enforced.
The assault weapons ban is perhaps the most controversial among a raft of proposals to reduce gun violence floated by President Obama in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Another key propsoal would strengthen and expand the background check system for gun purchasers.
Opponents of gun control argue that many of the proposals would be an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms. Many also argue that the proposals would be an ineffective deterrent of gun violence.
Supporters of gun control argue that the right to bear arms is not absolute and has previously been legally abridged in a variety of ways. They further point to the dramatically decreased incidence of gun violence in countries whose firearm restrictions are more stringent than our own.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 206 Comments
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
Clearly republicans have shown themselves to be heartless, soulless bitter humanoids lacking empathy incapable of feelings toward their fellow man.
I wonder if he realizes that the reason his child was killed was not because Adam Lanza had an AR15 and at least two pistols, it was because his state, the school district, the NEA, the AFT, and liberals in CT decided that the schools did not need to be hardened against armed attack, even after 10 years of war with jihadis that historically target schools?
Ask the Israelis about that and the reason why they arm teachers, and have armed guards in the schools?
Adam Lanza managed to get into the school because the school did not have shatterproof windows. When Lanza was denied entry at the single point of entry door by the school office, he broke a window at the door and let himself in. The school's single point of entry door, camera, and remote actuated lock were installed in 2011.
CT had received $685.86 million in DHS homeland security grants to harden infrastructure, including schools. So, libs, why no shatterproof glass in that school? Who made that decision, liberals?
In the school districts where the staff is armed, like Utah and some in Texas, there have been no incidents. Why do you think that is, liberal?
Anyone in this country who does not believe that violence and crime are fairly random and happen with a frequency that makes the probability of bad things happening to good people too common is living in la la land.
Heller says the determining factor as whether or not a weapon is unconstitutional is whether or not it is in common use. There are about 3.75 million AR15s in common use in the U.S. right now. LE uses the AR15 for the same reason the citizen does: personal protection. Common use. The normal configuration is a 30 rnd mag. Again, common use.
There is only one reason to ban a firearm, control. Control of the individual owning the firearm to make them defenseless against gov't and the policies and ideology of those in power.
The very reason the Second Amendment was put onto paper. The Second, like the rest is a natural right, imbued by a Creator, not by man, and no man shall take that right from us.
You libs need to move to Canada.
That's where you communist=progressive=liberal=Democrats need to go.
Otherwise, there will be civil war.
We will not surrender the Second Amendment, nor our arms.
If Feinstein is successful, it means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land.
What puzzles me is why women voted for Obama in the first place? In 2004, as an IL state senator, he voted to deny people the right to defend themselves with a firearm in their homes in the case of a threat to their life or the lives of their family. What woman would prefer assault, rape, and death to defending herself or her family with a firearm?
Further, you have absolutely no right to police protection. Did you know that lib? You think you trade your right and duty of self protection to gov't for police services. No. Gov't makes no guarantees to you about the police being there. The police come after the fact.
Liberals are insane.
Communist=progressive=liberal=socialist=Democrat, the new enemy of the Republic by virtue of their mental insanity.
Clearly republicans have shown themselves to be heartless, soulless bitter humanoids lacking empathy incapable of feelings toward their fellow man.
A person kills not a device.
A person did the killing, not the gun.
We did not ban airplanes that were used in the BIGGEST mass killing of all on 9/11.
We did not limit the size of the airplane so the next one could do less damage.
We did not ban cars who kill people.
We did not ban alcohol who kill people.
Because the Airplane, the car, the alcohol needs a PERSON to use it the wrong way to cause harm.
It is the person that kills others, not the device used.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to stop "government tyranny" Right now the weapons the average American can purchase (legal or not) is not enough to stop the government from striking fear into all of us and taking whatever they want. If anything the citizens of American are ill-equipped to protect themselves. I would hope our military would not allow the government to abuse their power and not attack our citizens, that is our only hope right now.
It is illegal to KILL in every state in the USA. This law has not stopped people from killing each other. No law ever will of any kind, so why create more laws to try and stop what you cannot?
I don't know about you but my biggest bill is government taxes & fees. A little more than 50% of my money is taken by Federal, State, and the County . Imagine if that was not the case and we could have more money to stay home and raise a family with decent moral standards. That my friends would cut down on crime more than 500 or 5000 laws.
Why do we protect inanimate objects more than each other? Anywhere there is large sums of money there is usually protection, and that protection is with armed guards. When it comes to our kids they are put on a bus with no seat belts, no air bags, no armed security to a building that might have a door buzzer.
Please people set aside emotion and think about what really matters and what would curb violence and murder in a America.
"The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, extended his condolences."
Definition of CONDOLENCE
1: sympathy with another in sorrow
2: an expression of sympathy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condolence
Sir, you and your child mean nothing to Republicans.
But it's just one more example DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO BARACK OBAMA about why citizens need to protect themselves.
These people are NOT violent criminals; they were arrested for traffic violations, and detained by ICE for their illegal status ONLY, and are under SUPERVISED release, which costs $14/day, versus $40/day for incarceration. Their release is just ONE of the many consequences we're going to see from sequestration - to fix THAT you better look to CONGRESS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50141876n
Actual powerful guns and actual automatic fire weapons have already been outlawed. But politicians saw a golden opportunity to create a whole new class of firearm under the law with the term "assault weapon" which really can be any weapon they want, it just depends on how they define the legislation.
It makes absolutely zero sense to ban guns that look scary, but the gun control advocates are either too ignorant of firearms or they are plenty willing to utilize these shooting survivors and their family members as pawns to advance what is essentially a completely ideologically-driven and factually-empty gun control agenda.
The AR-15 rifle, the gun that everyone wants to ban, is one of the lowest-powered rifles in existence. You are not even allowed to use it to hunt any large game with because it is too weak to be able to kill the animal. It is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning it has no higher a rate of fire than any ordinary hand gun.
The term "high-capacity magazine" is also political. Nowhere in the gun world was it ever decided that any magazine of over ten rounds s "high-capacity." In fact, very few ten round magazines even existed until the term was created, as the standard capacity magazines for most guns before then were more then ten rounds.
The man claims this weapon was used in military conflicts. Yes, all common firearms have been used by the military:
AR-15s
Shotguns (VERY widely used by the military and law enforcement, as well as civilians for self-defense and hunting)
Bolt-action rifles (the Remington 700 bolt-action hunting rifle is used by the military and law enforcement as a sniper rifle)
9 mm and .45 caliber handguns, used by civilians, law enforcement, and military
That a gun has been used in war means nothing. It does not mean that weapon possesses any special capability. so long as the weapon is also in common usage among the citizens, and is not a dangerous and unusual weapon (machine gun, grenade, etc...) then one has a right to own it.
If you knew more aobut the subject, AR does NOT mean assualt rifle.