Newtown Families Told To 'Go To Hel'

Newtown Families Told To 'Go To Hel'

Posted in the Coopersburg Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Question

Perkasie, PA

#1 Apr 24, 2013
Question

Perkasie, PA

#2 Apr 24, 2013
Radio host Bob Davis of Twin Cities show Davis and Emmer is under fire for an attack on the Newtown families for their role in the gun debate:

I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown or any other shooting, I don't care if it's here in Minneapolis or anyplace else. Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn't mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I'm sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don't force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I'm sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is ... terrified of these victims. I would stand in front of them and tell them,'Go to hell.'

Brad Greene, a Sandy Hook resident, has offered to pay Davis's air fare to come and tell Newtown families to "go to hell" to their faces.

"I find Davis' comments insensitive and in extremely poor taste," writes Greene in an emotive op-ed. "Would he have the courage to look [victims of gun violence] in the eye, tell them to deal with their tragedy, tell them that his liberty is more important than their loss, and tell them to go to hell?"

Davis has yet to respond to Greene's offer of a free trip to confront the Sandy Hook parents in Newtown.

Update: Davis has apologized. One advertiser pulled out of the show as a result of Davis's comments.
mike

Hatfield, PA

#3 Apr 24, 2013
I support the second amendment and I think that the Obama administration should be ashamed for advancing their agenda on the backs of these victims. That being said, if Bob Davis, who I never heard of before, said this I'd like to punch him in his mouth. God bless the families of Newtown and Boston.
Question

Perkasie, PA

#4 Apr 25, 2013
mike wrote:
I support the second amendment and I think that the Obama administration should be ashamed for advancing their agenda on the backs of these victims. That being said, if Bob Davis, who I never heard of before, said this I'd like to punch him in his mouth. God bless the families of Newtown and Boston.
I support the second amendment too, but I don't see anything wrong with background checks if the info is destroyed.

I also support first amendment rights, but this guy crossed the line of human decency and companies should pull their advertising support.
Richard

Horsham, PA

#5 Apr 25, 2013
He's right. Yes, these people suffered a tragedy. But far too many of them are on their soapboxes and are willing to dictate right and wrong in your life because something bad happened to them.

I say "I'm sorry for your loss"

If they mention that I should be allowed to own a gun, I say "Go to hell."
Character

Perkasie, PA

#6 Apr 25, 2013
Richard wrote:
He's right. Yes, these people suffered a tragedy. But far too many of them are on their soapboxes and are willing to dictate right and wrong in your life because something bad happened to them.
I say "I'm sorry for your loss"
If they mention that I should be allowed to own a gun, I say "Go to hell."
I own guns, and read the proposed legislation that failed to pass. It was only asking for background checks. There was nothing in that bill about any kind of registry. If anyone thinks any part of the government is going to secretly be able to keep a database of gun owners, their wrong.
Curious

Broomall, PA

#7 Apr 25, 2013
Would Richard feel the same if he had an innocent child shot by a nut?
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#8 Apr 25, 2013
Curious wrote:
Would Richard feel the same if he had an innocent child shot by a nut?
How do you keep a gun from the hands of a "nut"? We know that mentally ill people obey laws and admit that they're unfit to own firearms, don't we? How many have used knives, bombs, baseball bats, fire, and pushed people onto railroad tracks? Feel-good laws don't prevent criminals, terrorists, or lunatics from killing innocent people.
Character

Perkasie, PA

#9 Apr 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you keep a gun from the hands of a "nut"? We know that mentally ill people obey laws and admit that they're unfit to own firearms, don't we? How many have used knives, bombs, baseball bats, fire, and pushed people onto railroad tracks? Feel-good laws don't prevent criminals, terrorists, or lunatics from killing innocent people.
You can't keep guns away from all nuts, but a background check can limit their ability to buy one.

You can't put assault weapons in the same category as other weapons.
Info

Broomall, PA

#10 Apr 26, 2013
Character wrote:
<quoted text>You can't keep guns away from all nuts, but a background check can limit their ability to buy one.
You can't put assault weapons in the same category as other weapons.
It won't limit anything if they are stolen (Lanza stole them from his mother) or bought on the black market.

You won't keep a gun out of the hands of someone who is determined to buy one, one way or another.
Character

Perkasie, PA

#11 Apr 26, 2013
Info wrote:
<quoted text>It won't limit anything if they are stolen (Lanza stole them from his mother) or bought on the black market.
You won't keep a gun out of the hands of someone who is determined to buy one, one way or another.
Background checks may not keep guns out of the hands of ALL mentally disturbed people, but it will keep them out of the hands of SOME, which will save hundreds of lives (like Janet Hume in OK).
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#12 Apr 26, 2013
Character wrote:
<quoted text>You can't keep guns away from all nuts, but a background check can limit their ability to buy one.
You can't put assault weapons in the same category as other weapons.
I'm not opposed to effective background checks, but we don't even enforce the ones we have now. And assault weapons were banned before and it did nothing to stop gun violence. In fact, gun crimes DECREASED when it was repealed.

Most people don't even understand what constitutes an "assault rifle" like an AR-15. They think it's an automatic "machine gun" when it's basically a low-power rifle made to LOOK like military issue. Like most govt legislation spurred by overreaction, it's all about emotional appeal and not about substance.
Info

Broomall, PA

#13 Apr 26, 2013
Curious wrote:
Would Richard feel the same if he had an innocent child shot by a nut?
These families are being used as a political football, nothing more, nothing less.

That is despicable.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#14 Apr 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not opposed to effective background checks, but we don't even enforce the ones we have now. And assault weapons were banned before and it did nothing to stop gun violence. In fact, gun crimes DECREASED when it was repealed.
Most people don't even understand what constitutes an "assault rifle" like an AR-15. They think it's an automatic "machine gun" when it's basically a low-power rifle made to LOOK like military issue. Like most govt legislation spurred by overreaction, it's all about emotional appeal and not about substance.
aside from selective fire there is no real differences between the military issue and the bushmaster carbine used in the school shooting.
the killing power is the same.
as any coroner could tell you there is no difference in the wounds caused by either of the assault rifles.
also the argument that removal of the assault weapon ban decreased crime is a misnomer.
some studies say gun crimes went up,those studies naturally do not meet the NRA mantra so they forget that they ever happened.
Info

Broomall, PA

#15 Apr 26, 2013
Character wrote:
<quoted text>I own guns, and read the proposed legislation that failed to pass. It was only asking for background checks. There was nothing in that bill about any kind of registry. If anyone thinks any part of the government is going to secretly be able to keep a database of gun owners, their wrong.
Please stop the lies! You own guns? Really? Tell us what you have.

Come on Mr. Kline, the cat is out of the proverbial bag now. We know who you are and your ruse has been discovered.
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#16 Apr 26, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>
aside from selective fire there is no real differences between the military issue and the bushmaster carbine used in the school shooting.
the killing power is the same.
as any coroner could tell you there is no difference in the wounds caused by either of the assault rifles.
also the argument that removal of the assault weapon ban decreased crime is a misnomer.
some studies say gun crimes went up,those studies naturally do not meet the NRA mantra so they forget that they ever happened.
You can be killed by a BB gun, killing power is not the issue. The proposed "assault weapons" ban would leave guns on the market that have even more "killing power".

The gun in the school shooting and virtually ALL the recent shootings were used ILLEGALLY. Gun laws banning the use of Bushmaster carbines or any other weapon on the black market or in Mom's dresser drawer would not have prevented that tragic event - nor will they prevent the next one. I am not opposed to sensible legislation, but just banning a firearm that is responsibly used by thousands of law-abiding citizens while keeping them freely available to criminals and lunatics to murder and maim does nothing except disarm potential victims.

I have never seen any reputable studies that show that gun crimes in the U.S. went up when the assault weapons ban was repealed. If you can justify your swipe at the NRA, I'd be glad to read it. Somehow, I don't think the Liberal media would "forget that ever happened" since it would be low-hanging fruit to support their position.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#17 Apr 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You can be killed by a BB gun, killing power is not the issue. The proposed "assault weapons" ban would leave guns on the market that have even more "killing power".
The gun in the school shooting and virtually ALL the recent shootings were used ILLEGALLY. Gun laws banning the use of Bushmaster carbines or any other weapon on the black market or in Mom's dresser drawer would not have prevented that tragic event - nor will they prevent the next one. I am not opposed to sensible legislation, but just banning a firearm that is responsibly used by thousands of law-abiding citizens while keeping them freely available to criminals and lunatics to murder and maim does nothing except disarm potential victims.
I have never seen any reputable studies that show that gun crimes in the U.S. went up when the assault weapons ban was repealed. If you can justify your swipe at the NRA, I'd be glad to read it. Somehow, I don't think the Liberal media would "forget that ever happened" since it would be low-hanging fruit to support their position.
try

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16...

"According to the official NIJ assessment:
The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF."

"However, the Police Executive Research Forum reported several findings in "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact" in 2010. Since the ban’s expiration in 2004:
37 percent of police agencies who responded to this survey reported that they’ve seen noticeable increases in the use of assault weapons by criminals.
53 percent reported seeing increases in large-caliber handguns, such as .40 caliber weapons.
38 percent reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines (holding 10 or more rounds)."
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#18 Apr 26, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>try

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16...

"According to the official NIJ assessment:
The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF."

"However, the Police Executive Research Forum reported several findings in "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact" in 2010. Since the banÂ’s expiration in 2004:
37 percent of police agencies who responded to this survey reported that theyÂ’ve seen noticeable increases in the use of assault weapons by criminals.
53 percent reported seeing increases in large-caliber handguns, such as .40 caliber weapons.
38 percent reported noticeable increases in criminalsÂ’ use of semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines (holding 10 or more rounds)."
What's reported as "noticeable" is hardly a study, it's an opinion at best.
Even so, 63% did NOT report seeing an increase in assault weapons and 62% reported no increase in the use of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.
dbar

Quakertown, PA

#19 Apr 26, 2013
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
What's reported as "noticeable" is hardly a study, it's an opinion at best.
Even so, 63% did NOT report seeing an increase in assault weapons and 62% reported no increase in the use of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.
"The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period."

and no studies have been done after.
so where is the proof that gun crimes went down after the ban was lifted?
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#20 Apr 27, 2013
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>"The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period."

and no studies have been done after.
so where is the proof that gun crimes went down after the ban was lifted?
Try:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/oct/27...

Notably, the states with the toughest gun laws have higher gun crime rates. The laws banning assault weapons were and are useless. They don't mean a thing to criminals and lunatics, they only affect the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coopersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Local Restaurant 12 hr Tired of it all 3
News Sex offender law coming to town (Oct '08) 22 hr No name 33
Sprayer basketball court 22 hr Sheeples 13
Drugs (Apr '09) Sat No name 18
Paul Stepanoff Needs to be Removed NOW! (Jul '14) Sat madame mona 233
Best Dance School (Jun '13) Sep 21 Qtown 89
Goddard School QT (May '10) Sep 21 notahappymom 31

Coopersburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coopersburg Mortgages