Daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal confronts senator

[robbiev]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/30/ayotte-gun-control-sandy-hook/2125531/

 

WARREN, N.H. (AP) — A woman whose mother was killed in last year's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte Tuesday during the senator's first public appearance in New Hampshire since voting against gun control legislation.

 

Ayotte helped defeat a bill that would have required criminal and mental health background checks for people buying guns online or at gun shows. She defended her vote Tuesday at a town hall meeting that attracted about 150 people, including Erica Lafferty, whose mother was the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Dawn Hochsprung died after lunging at the gunman to try to stop him from firing.

 

etc...

 

 

[tartanphantom]

Shame??? This is the best they got?

 

Sorry Ms. Lafferty-- but no amount of emotional hand-wringing or ultra-crappy legislation ever brought anyone back from the dead.

Grieve, learn, accept your loss, and move on with your life. You might also want to consider learning how NOT to be a victim yourself.

 

I must sound pretty callous, I guess.

Edited May 1, 2013 by tartanphantom

[E4 No More]

Shame??? This is the best they got?

 

Sorry Ms. Lafferty-- but no amount of emotional hand-wringing or ultra-crappy legislation ever brought anyone back from the dead.

Grieve, learn, accept your loss, and move on with your life. You might also want to consider learning how NOT to be a victim yourself.

 

I must sound pretty callous, I guess.

Facts are facts. They can't use logic for their argument so they resort to the emotional argument.

[jct231]

Just a thought and wanting opinions,
What if... a "bi partisan compromise" would preserve private sales but require fun show participant sellers be flf and limit it to carry permit holder to trade with other carry permit holders will bill of sale and make all other private citizens go through the back ground check process Just like at a local gun dealers establishment.
Would that take away part of the lefts main point on argument about gun show loopholes or open a new can of worms?

[E4 No More]

Just a thought and wanting opinions,
What if... a "bi partisan compromise" would preserve private sales but require fun show participant sellers be flf and limit it to carry permit holder to trade with other carry permit holders will bill of sale and make all other private citizens go through the back ground check process Just like at a local gun dealers establishment.
Would that take away part of the lefts main point on argument about gun show loopholes or open a new can of worms?

It'd never happen because carry permit holders are not federally standardized. I could see that happening if there was a federal HCP, but not otherwise.

[jct231]

It'd never happen because carry permit holders are not federally standardized. I could see that happening if there was a federal HCP, but not otherwise.

Most of the arguments are about criminals buying across state lines and trransporting. You don't think that would help the argument on the state to state level?

[E4 No More]

Most of the arguments are about criminals buying across state lines and trransporting. You don't think that would help the argument on the state to state level?

Nope, because federal HCP means honored in all 50 states, and we know some states would blow their capillaries over that.

[daddyo]

Why is it that so many people think that the Constitution should take a back seat to their feelings?

[Trekbike]

Why is it that so many people think that the Constitution should take a back seat to their feelings?

They say it's an outdated document and needs to be changed, therefore they disregard what it says.

[E4 No More]

Why is it that so many people think that the Constitution should take a back seat to their feelings?

Some say that since the courts have changed it then it's ok to change the rest of it. For instance, the Constitution says that you have freedom of speech without any constraints on that right. The courts have decided that you don't have freedom of speech in a court, (contempt of court), or when it infringes on the rights of another, (example: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire), or lying to a LEO.

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

Sorry that she lost her mother like that but one would have to be pretty stupid to think a background check would have prevented this. Oh wait, after an attempted purchase at Dicks it didnt...

[zenman]

daddyo wrote:

Why is it that so many people think that the Constitution should take a back seat to their feelings?

Some say that since the courts have changed it then it's ok to change the rest of it. For instance, the Constitution says that you have freedom of speech without any constraints on that right. The courts have decided that you don't have freedom of speech in a court, (contempt of court), or when it infringes on the rights of another, (example: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire), or lying to a LEO.

The court does not remove your ability to speak, it does however punish you for doing so after the fact.

[E4 No More]

daddyo wrote:
Some say that since the courts have changed it then it's ok to change the rest of it. For instance, the Constitution says that you have freedom of speech without any constraints on that right. The courts have decided that you don't have freedom of speech in a court, (contempt of court), or when it infringes on the rights of another, (example: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire), or lying to a LEO.

The court does not remove your ability to speak, it does however punish you for doing so after the fact.

By that logic you have the right to murder, you just get punished after the fact.

[daddyo]

By that logic you have the right to murder, you just get punished after the fact.

 

I always thought that laws were in place to punish, not to prevent.

[E4 No More]

I always thought that laws were in place to punish, not to prevent.

Huh? I was responding to, "The court does not remove your ability to speak, it does however punish you for doing so after the fact."

 

How does your response relate to that?

[jcoosi]

The problem I see is that yes the Constitution does state we have a right to life,liberity, and the pursuit of happiness. However it does not state that or life will be free from trials and tribulations. It does not state our life will be easy or the amount of time we will walk this land. So I think that the ones who like her dont understand that concept. We are not even guarnteed out next breath. Thats why its called Past,Present,and Future.

The Past is already decided and can only learn from it. The Future is undecided but need not dwell on it. But the Present is just that a present and should be lived to the fullest.

[daddyo]

Huh? I was responding to, "The court does not remove your ability to speak, it does however punish you for doing so after the fact."

 

How does your response relate to that?

 

Sorry, I was trying to continue with the line of thinking regarding punishment after the crime has been committed.

[JayC]

Or how about the compromise be, we stop wasting 100's of millions of dollars a year on the background check system that doesn't even work.

 

Look at the horrible return on investment, it costs the federal and state governments well over 100 million a year to run NICS and the state run programs, that is real tax dollars.  Now, how much more in increased gun prices to cover the expense of FFL's to deal with all the silly background check paperwork...  Lets say it's $5 per firearm, with 17 million firearms sold in 2012, thats another 85 million...  Now lets try and factor in the wasted time on the part of gun owners having to stand around waiting, and dealing with all the hassles of the background check, that's probably another $2+ a firearm sold each year (or a lot more).  Thats another 30-40 million. 

 

So 200-250 million dollars a year spent on this current background check system... What do we get for all that tax dollars, and make work?

 

4700 or so people stopped each year from purchasing a firearm who is really prohibited from owning it are referred to the ATF, of those 62 cases are sent to prosecutors, and 13 cases result in a conviction.

 

So we're spending about 15.3 million per person.  Even if you take into account the people stopped, it's still over $50,000 per.

 

Why do we put up with such a useless system?  To really lock up 13 people at year?  And stop maybe 5000?  It's a waste and nothing more than a waste.  We don't even need the background check system to begin with, let alone make it cost more money and waste more time of law abiding citizens.

 

Just a thought and wanting opinions,
What if... a "bi partisan compromise" would preserve private sales but require fun show participant sellers be flf and limit it to carry permit holder to trade with other carry permit holders will bill of sale and make all other private citizens go through the back ground check process Just like at a local gun dealers establishment.
Would that take away part of the lefts main point on argument about gun show loopholes or open a new can of worms?

Edited May 2, 2013 by JayC

[jcoosi]

You do know we are talking about the Governemnt here where their track record proves they have never been effiecent at anything other than wasting money.

 

Or how about the compromise be, we stop wasting 100's of millions of dollars a year on the background check system that doesn't even work.

 

Look at the horrible return on investment, it costs the federal and state governments well over 100 million a year to run NICS and the state run programs, that is real tax dollars.  Now, how much more in increased gun prices to cover the expense of FFL's to deal with all the silly background check paperwork...  Lets say it's $5 per firearm, with 17 million firearms sold in 2012, thats another 85 million...  Now lets try and factor in the wasted time on the part of gun owners having to stand around waiting, and dealing with all the hassles of the background check, that's probably another $2+ a firearm sold each year (or a lot more).  Thats another 30-40 million. 

 

So 200-250 million dollars a year spent on this current background check system... What do we get for all that tax dollars, and make work?

 

4700 or so people stopped each year from purchasing a firearm who is really prohibited from owning it are referred to the ATF, of those 62 cases are sent to prosecutors, and 13 cases result in a conviction.

 

So we're spending about 15.3 million per person.  Even if you take into account the people stopped, it's still over $50,000 per.

 

Why do we put up with such a useless system?  To really lock up 13 people at year?  And stop maybe 5000?  It's a waste and nothing more than a waste.  We don't even need the background check system to begin with, let alone make it cost more money and waste more time of law abiding citizens.

[Spiffy]

I'd have told her simply, you can't vote for or against me therefore I do no represent you nor your emotional views.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just a thought and wanting opinions,
What if... a "bi partisan compromise" would preserve private sales but require fun show participant sellers be flf and limit it to carry permit holder to trade with other carry permit holders will bill of sale and make all other private citizens go through the back ground check process Just like at a local gun dealers establishment.
Would that take away part of the lefts main point on argument about gun show loopholes or open a new can of worms?

When I hear "bipartisan" and "compromise" in the same sentence, it makes me scream "liberal"! Please tell

me why you would want to further compromise your inalienable rights away, even further. Not picking at you,

but political compromise is almost always the wrong answer.

 

Think about that word like this: "... any compromise between good and evil, evil always wins." No matter how

you replace the key words in that phrase, the meaning remains constant. People tend to rationalize things like

that away without realizing they are rationalizing there rights and freedom away. It's easier to paint a picture in

your mind about most things discussed if you approach it like this, and pay no attention to the forces of

compromise, which is really slightly veiled tyranny.

 

The more you compromise with evil, the more you place yourself and others at risk.

Edited May 5, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Just2Honor]

It's not about guns.  It's about control.  Control by people in government who think they know what is right for us.  If it weren't about control there would be serious steps being taken to prosecute the criminals who obtain, or try to obtain, a gun under the current laws.  And laws would be strengthened to prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from getting a gun from ANY source.  No, the new laws are aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals and mentally unstable.