This is to anyone who accuses the Sandy Hook parents of being used as "props" by the President:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Tell it to their face. Go ahead. Do it. I dare you.

Tell it to Mark Barden's face.
Tell it to Jackie Barden's face.
Tell it to David Wheeler's face.
Tell it to Francine Wheeler's face.
Tell it to Jimmy Greene's face.
Tell it to Nicole Hockley's face.
Tell it to Jeremy Richman's face.
Tell it to Neil Heslin's face.
Tell it to Mark Kelly's face.
Tell it to Gabby Gifford's face.

Tell it to the face of anyone who's been so unfortunate to be touched, in some way or another, by gun violence in their life and who refuses to accept the status quo that these things "just happen".

Go ahead. Do it.

What's that? You can't do it?

Didn't think so.

Cowards. Now go crawl back under your hole.

[FreeEmily]

1. Grief..

is a powerful force. Unfortunately these families have not had a chance to properly grieve and are postponing the inevitable. Their cause is just but they should be home working together through the pain. We can not fathom the depths of their despair but to be immersed in political activism will in no way help in the long run. I pray for all the families who lost children in Newtown and in Chicago and Atlanta and all around the world even though to bring up all that violence is not politically correct nowadays.

[deutsey]

4. I think there are many ways of working through grief

At least that's what I was taught when I was a hospice volunteer years ago.

You are right, imo, that there is an introspective level of grief that needs tending to, but who's to say these individuals aren't doing that as well as tending to their grief through their activism?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. I don't buy that at all.

This isn't a normal grieving situation that most people face. We're not talking about the feeling of emptiness after one's parent passes away after a long life.

These people lost children in part because of a failure of public policy. And they have a right to choose not just to cower in the shadows but instead speak up in the hopes that it may help someone else avoid the grief that they've been subjected to.

[geek tragedy]

8. You know, if anyone ever catches me telling other people how to grieve the loss of their child,

I would respectfully request that the nearest 5 people slap me upside the head.

[Zoeisright]

19. Who the fuck are you to tell them what to do?

Go crawl back under your rock.

[LittleGirl]

24. +1

[cthulu2016]

2. Your argument is very bad because

it can be used in any context, for good or for evil.

"Tell Jane Smith who lost her husband on 9/11 we shouldn't invade Iraq" etc..

It is cheap.

We see it all the time, and it is usually associated with BAD CAUSES that have no legitimate arguments.

"Try telling these heartbroken parents whole struggle caring for a severely autistic child that vaccines don't cause autism!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Except these people VOLUNTEERED THEMSELVES to speak out.

Note I didn't mention every single Sandy Hook parent, just the ones who have been the most vocal in their advocacy for gun control legislation.

They are the ones stepping forward. No one's using their names or images without their own permission.

They're not being held hostage. They're not being blackmailed.

They genuinely want to see change, whether personally you like that or not.

And I'm pretty damn sure they don't appreciate being called "props."

You miss the point entirely. You don't even come close to it.

[YarnAddict]

5. How would expanded background checks have

prevented Sandy Hook? Please--I would really like to know.

[aandegoons]

7. One law does not need to solve all the universe's problems in order to be effective.

Even if it helps prevent other crimes it is useful.

[HappyMe]

9. It would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

But the thing to do now is to take preventative measures for the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Well, they may have very well helped in Aurora, Tuscon and Virginia Tech.

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

That's for sure. All circumstances where guns were bought legally by the perpetrators, people who had no business owing such guns.

As for Sandy Hook, while the shooter may not have owned the guns himself, his mother owned them legally. In Florida, the NRA successfully lobbied a bill that actually prohibited doctors from asking patients whether they had guns in their house. Now I'm not sure whether Connecticut has that type of restriction, but given that Nancy Lanza knew her son was mentally unstable, this is the type of situation where such a question is very helpful in preventing such a tragedy.

What also would have helped would be prohibitions on AR-15s and high capacity magazines. Of course too many legislators are so beholden to the NRA these days that it sadly couldn't even be raised, although it most certainly should have been raised.

[meanit]

13. Some general scrutiny

may have prompted Lanza's mother to think twice about having an easily accessible arsenal in her house with a mentally unstable son around.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. Good point. nt

[AngryOldDem]

16. Anything that imposes any kind of brake on the wonton buying/selling of guns...

...will bear fruit.

No law is perfect, but that can't be an excuse to not do anything. Not anymore.

Because something is not a 100%, sure-fire guarantee, does that mean we throw up our hands and walk away, and let the NRA win again?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. I don't think the NRA has an honest answer.

Their position on the bill as written: It won't solve anything.

Had the bill had stronger language (for example, had it created a gun registry): It would have been an overreach.

Kobyashi Maru. There's no winning with these folks.

[angrychair]

20. To that point

Why have any laws? People still murder....people still rape....people still steal....drive drunk....text while driving. What's the point, right. SCREW IT. Laws are pointless because they don't fix/prevent their respective issue every time.
Have you seen the video of the one of the most wanted terrorist in the world stating how great it is that you can buy a gun in the US without a background check?
That the NRA's actions have caused direct harm to the ability on investigators to figure out what happen in Boston? By successfully lobbying against having tracers in gun powder for bullets and shells that it prevents them from tracing the source of the powder used in the devices.

The background checks, the clip size, the powder tracers all have NO IMPACT on an individual's right to legally own a firearm. No records are kept on a specific person.
Since 1970, 3000 people have been killed by terrorist attacks...since 1980, more than 900,000 people have been killed by gun violence. Which is the greater threat?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. These people simply will not give. On anything.

Look at the ridiculous picture up on Mitch McConnell's webpage.

The gun enthusiasts here at DU keep on say, "But you need to be able to work with gun rights groups," but how can we work with them if they won't listen to anything? Anything?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. From Sandy Hook mom Nicole Hockley:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57579252/newtown-victims-mom-nicole-hockley-responds-to-nra-background-checks-claim/

On "CBS This Morning" Friday, Hockley responded to a claim made this week by the National Rifle Association that "The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson." Referring to that claim, she said, "It's quite possibly true...(but) that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it."


She continued, "There are countless others across the states that do die because of the lack of background checks, the lack of consistent background checks, and I'm not just here for the 26 that died at Sandy Hook. I'm here for all the children and adults that die, and if we can make any steps forward to help save lives, then it's a step worth taking."
_____________________________________________________________________________________


Does that answer your question?

[Cha]

11. I know one thing. Nobody tells anyone else how to grieve.

In fact they need to butt out.

The creeps who say these people are being used as props don't like their message.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Exactly. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Remember when Bush stood with the "Snowflake Babies"?

This was his argument against Stem Cell research.

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. Where's all the other families?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Doesn't matter a bit.

If they choose to do things differently, or grieve differently, that's 100% their prerogative.

But those who did choose to speak up publically need to be respected and not belittled or insulted.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I agree.

All of these people have been badly injured one way or another. I don't think it's unfair for them to have a front-center political voice in this issue.