Conspiracy douchebags harrassing Sandy Hook man who helped kids

[BrainGlutton]

@Condescending_Robot

Ah, the famous heckling, that never actually happened and was just a few people answering his rhetorical question. Now evidence that even disagreeing with the gun-confiscation argument is a mortal sin.

Parading victims of tragedy out to call for mob justice - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

From the link in your OP there:

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.

“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.

That, sir, is heckling.

[Condescending_Robot]

No, heckling is insulting him, shouting him down so he can’t speak, or, you know, what the word “heckling” means in English. Answering a question one time in a four-hour hearing with a two-word, relevant response is not “heckling,” which is why all of the credible outlets that reported the story have retracted it.

[Jack_Batty]

“The Second Amendment!” is not a reason why anyone needs an AR-15; it’s the rationalization that gets propped up to avoid the question as to why anyone needs an AR-15.

“Answering a question” my hairy balls.

[a35362]

Is there anybody other than NRA wackjobs (which does not include all NRA members, of course) who is arguing that we really should be able to own assault rifles? I mean, is this a thing in the NRA? I thought the NRA was basically ordinary folks, deer and duck hunters, with a few Second Amendment fetishists at the top.

[BrainGlutton]

@a35362

Is there anybody other than NRA wackjobs (which does not include all NRA members, of course) who is arguing that we really should be able to own assault rifles? I mean, is this a thing in the NRA? I thought the NRA was basically ordinary folks, deer and duck hunters, with a few Second Amendment fetishists at the top.

The organization has changed somewhat over time.

The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act,[19] the first major gun control legislation in the United States. At the time, the NRA supported the act without studying its impact on the second amendment, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed taxes on the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”).[20]

Since the 1970s, the NRA has undergone a series of internal governance changes, gradually changing from a “marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby.”[21][22] In 1977, two Second Amendment advocates—Harlon Carter and Neal Knox—defeated sportsmanship and conservation-focused officers to run the organization and its lobbying unit, respectively.[21][22] After 1977, the organization expanded its membership and focused heavily on political issues. The NRA supported the McClure-Volker firearms decontrol bill of 1986, and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox formed a competing lobbying group.[citation needed] By 1984, the organization’s membership approached 3 million.[23]

At the organization’s 1991 national convention, Knox’s supporters took control of the board, and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the Executive Vice President. During this time, the NRA focused its advocacy against the gun control policies of the Clinton administration.[24] Mr. Knox again lost his vice-president reelection in 1997 to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported former movie star Charlton Heston.[25][26] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. Heston is said to have rejected the “extremist” position represented by Knox.[27]

[Condescending_Robot]

I’m not a member of the NRA because I don’t agree with a lot of things they advocate (particularly, their pandering to racism and general alliance with all sorts of conservative causes that have nothing to do with guns) but I think there may be an explanation here. These days, the reason people want to ban “assault rifles” is because they want to ban all guns one class at a time. In the past, that may not have been the case, or may not have been as clear. Holding the line against the endless succession of “if we just ban this current boogeyman style of gun we’ll be done, honest!” lies is a legitimate tactic.

[BrainGlutton]

@Condescending_Robot

These days, the reason people want to ban “assault rifles” is because they want to ban all guns one class at a time.

Cite?

[Wallaby]

I’ll just point out that, as an Australian, this pattern is identical with what we went through in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. It looks like the CT-ers have studied that one and applied it here.

‘Government-driven’.
‘Excuse to disarm the population’
‘Far too expert a marksman to be a whacko nut-job, as painted by The Authorities’.

Now, with the Internet being far more pervasive, it spreads evemn faster and wilder.

Probably the low point was when our Prime Minister addressed a meeting of our version of the NRA, and was advised by his securioty to wear a bullet-proof vest.

[BrainGlutton]

@Wallaby

I’ll just point out that, as an Australian, this pattern is identical with what we went through in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. It looks like the CT-ers have studied that one and applied it here.

‘Government-driven’.
‘Excuse to disarm the population’
‘Far too expert a marksman to be a whacko nut-job, as painted by The Authorities’.

Now, with the Internet being far more pervasive, it spreads evemn faster and wilder.

Probably the low point was when our Prime Minister addressed a meeting of our version of the NRA, and was advised by his securioty to wear a bullet-proof vest.

How did that ultimately play out? Did Australian gun laws change any as a result?

[Wallaby]

@BrainGlutton

How did that ultimately play out? Did Australian gun laws change any as a result?

We had a huge gun buy-back where people could turn in their old guns etc. Over 630,000 firearms of various types were handed in and destroyed. Of course, these would almost entirely have come from law-abiding citizens.

There were changes in the laws - here is probably the most telling:
‘Universal registration meant the police would have records of gun ownership. Most importantly, the new rules applied to all states and territories, providing a uniform standard of safety across the country. (Under the previous regulatory patchwork, assault weapons banned in some jurisdictions were freely available in others.)’

Here’s a pro- article from 2011 saying the effect on gun crime has been positive and significant. There are probably just as many negative articles out there - this is a highly-politicised argument (as in the US). Nevertheless, the stats seem hard to argue with or manipulate significantly.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/slow-erosion-of-gun-laws-presages-another-tragedy-20110427-1dwmx.html

Whether this sort of thing would translate to the US (different society, different gun culture) - I don’t know.

I have my opinions about proposed gun controls in the US - but my opinion isn’t worth a damn. It’s your country - you work it out.

[BrainGlutton]

@Wallaby

We had a huge gun buy-back where people could turn in their old guns etc. Over 630,000 firearms of various types were handed in and destroyed. Of course, these would almost entirely have come from law-abiding citizens.

Still an improvement.