you can disagree with her but you can still respect her as a person and a grieving mother which many people in this thread have neglected to do.
your child's life for 15 minutes of fame....sick
you can disagree with her but you can still respect her as a person and a grieving mother which many people in this thread have neglected to do.
You keep harping on "grieving mother" as though it exempts her from any reproach.
Seems several did though. That's why they agreed with RM's Post in Post 13. So that is neither here nor there with what is being played out over politics. Which is way back in the beginning of the thread. Why should she be respected for Victimization? Why should she be respected for pushing her tragedy onto others? Do you think that it is Right for her to push her gun views onto the rest of the nation due to this terrible tragedy? I mean we are not talking about this is something for their her own community in which the people of that community could decide for themselves. Why would they need to push it outside their own Community and even State?
As much as I feel compassionate for her loss and other peoples' loss, it doesn't change the situation.
I lost family too, as we all have at some point in our lives. Parents, siblings, etc, to natural deaths, disease or accidents. If you have a sibling die in a car accident what do you do? Go on a rant against cars? Go on a campaign to stop driving. You hold the person responsible for the accident accountable. That's what you do. And you don't impose your pain to dictate policy and rules over others. Why? Because there's just too much suffering in the world and if everybody who suffers loss of family due to something gets to make demands and impose doctrine upon others, we'll all be living in a tyranny.
So lets be reasonable. Yes, the family has lost their child... and many others did too. But this grants her no special privilege, no special authority in the government or on a national scale. She is just a person and her suffering is limited to her experience and those who are her friends and who grieve with her. There is no reason for her suffering to be used as a tool to impose upon others.....snip~
You, Fisher and ttwtt78640 like this.
Sandy hook was covered globally and it also shocked America! People want to hear from the families and this particular lady is using her podium time to approach a topic she feels strongly about and blames partly for the death of her son. Just because you don't like what she has to say doesn't make mean millions of other people won't sit up and listen to her, the very fact we are debating the subject now validates it.
Yet that changes nothing of whats being said over the politics of it.....nor does it change that fact about her pushing agenda that goes outside her own community and her own people. There rest of us around the Country are not her people. We All have our own to issues to deal with in our own communities.
As I am sure that living in Suburbia America she can really identify what its like for people to who have to live around far more dangerous places.....Right? Not like she has lived a life around it herself for her to know anything other than what the TV tells her.
So there is no moral ground she has.....other than she was the victim of tragedy.
You have not. Others have.I would never demonize the mother.
What gain is Obama getting? I think this comment is unintentionally telling of the mindset of gun supporters (whether your agree with gun control or not, this has been said multiple times).The politician that would exploit grief for gain...that's another matter.
But children are not. And this mother is pushing for changes which could protect future children, even if it won't save hers.All private property is comprised of inamimate objects
Of course they should. Calling her a prostitute and the President a pimp? I think that's a little much.and yes the citizens should have a say concerning that issue.
Why is that the only measure for which we should pass legislation? How stupid of a concept would that be, to pass legislation to prevent something which has already happened?Can you explain how the NICS BG check system (current or with the proposed changes) would have had any impact on the Sandy Hook mass shooting?
There are many who disagree with you and have plenty of evidence to support them, just as you feel you have plenty of evidence to support you.Is expanding the federal control of "legal" gun sales going to decrease crime? No.
Completely irrelevant to future legislation. I agree these people should be held accountable, but just because they were not, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to solidify in all areas.Of over 72,000 "illegal" attempts (1.2% of the total) to buy guns, in 2010, exactly 13 were prosecuted for that crime.
That may be, but there are firearms used in crime all the time which do. Quit looking at this as something to prevent something which already happened, and more as something to help prevent something new from happening.The Sandy Hook shooting involved no "shady" gun sales, straw buyers or any other situation addressed in the proposed "universal BG check" legislation.
Why do politicians use emotional appeals to get their agendas passed?
It works, that's why.
Why don't politicians use reason and logic to sway public opinion?
As homer once said (more than once, actually):
Booorrrrriiiinnnnnggg!
wow some cold hearted people in this thread! Some of you need to take a step back and take a look at yourselves, attacking the mother of a child shot down in his school is a disgrace.
I wouldn't call it scrutiny I would call it disdain on the border of hatred but I mean how dare this women who lost her child in a shooting massacre do something she see's as constructive with her grief. Its interesting though how yourself and many other posters like to make out that she is being dragged into the public eye. Any links or facts to back up the assumption that the Obama administration is forcing her into this?
she has no moral high ground except the fact her infant son was gunned down in the biggest school massacre of American History....Your right she doesn't know what shes talking about :roll:
Well according to DCFS exploitation of Children for ones Personal gain is an abuse. Which someone had posted up before. So they know what they have in the DCFS Booklet and their All their various forms with descriptive terminology. So it is like forms can be shown on Camera.....that there is President using Children and Tragedy and has brought it back up into the Media after the issue was being laid to rest. With more current events that were coming along.
So the constant harping about it would have to force Obama to change tactics. Since then he could not play on the kids or that tragedy anymore. Which means no more tears and crying out for Emotional rescue.
As is the MSmedia is reporting every gun shooting they can and trying to embellish upon all said events. Its way over the top......last night in Chicago these morons reported someone shot a dog. No Suspect......just a dog found dead that had been shot. Nothing else. No witnesses, no perp. Nothing. But lets report it as news anyways.....Right? Yeah.....and that's what they did.
Be great if they saw someone shooting the dog and all that.
The Other point is Obama isn't even having to have what he calls a fair and equal debate about it.....as it stands now. He talks and talks. But Don't have to listen. That needs to be changed in any way it can.
Then she is just another political operative who is using her own personal tragedy to further her own ends. Hardly a better alternative that. I suspect the woman is truly grief stricken and has simply fallen victim once again. This time to a predatory politician named Barak Obama.I wouldn't call it scrutiny I would call it disdain on the border of hatred but I mean how dare this women who lost her child in a shooting massacre do something she see's as constructive with her grief. Its interesting though how yourself and many other posters like to make out that she is being dragged into the public eye. Any links or facts to back up the assumption that the Obama administration is forcing her into this?
Do you say such stupid things because you are stupid or because of the color of your skin?I don't know if it's because he's a Democrat or if it's because he's black
Only cowards would attack her in my opinion and accuse her for prostituting herself self out or "seeking fame" as some have said in this thread. You can disagree with her but the hatred being thrown her way is well out of line, heaven forbid some tragic happens to any of you and your forced to make difficult choices.
Not everyone's doing that. Few are, in fact.
But it is certainly a legitimate question as to whether she was active in pro-gun control prior to this.
why is it relevant? She's anti gun now for obvious reason.
I would never demonize the mother. The politician that would exploit grief for gain...that's another matter. The playbook is familiar though isn't it. This issue. Parading out hikers non am emotional appeal to pass a health care law that no one bothered to read. Trotting out Sandra Fluke and her mythical dying 'friend' that had no access to birth control (except of course ms fluke admitted she DID have access to birth control, even at the Jesuit university she attended).
Emotional appeals is a pathetic way to lead a government. Luckily for them, there is no shortage of willing participants in the charade. Of course...it helps when the participants are already full on enmeshed with the ideology.
Of course not. This was done to protect the airlines (and their insurance companies) from taking the civil liability hit after 9/11. It should be noted that no public funds have been used (so far) for rewarding the Sandy Hook victim's families.
Do you say such stupid things because you are stupid or because of the color of your skin?
:roll: Really? Why would it be relevant if she were an anti-gun activist before now?
Sorry; can't take you seriously in this if you need to ask that question.
What gain is Obama getting? I think this comment is unintentionally telling of the mindset of gun supporters (whether your agree with gun control or not, this has been said multiple times).
it changes nothing because her son was shot dead, unless of course your suggesting this mother has a hidden agenda?
Nope, can't take you seriously if you're going to double down on the "wha --??"
If she was a pro-gun-control activist before this, then indeed she's more than merely a "grieving mother." No one should actually need that explained to them.
Seriously? What "gain" is Obama getting? There's no way you can ask this question honestly. There just isn't.
He announced that she would be giving the address on Twitter, signing it "-bo," indicating that he personally was doing it, and gave it the hashtag #TheTimeIsNow, which is for gun control legislation.
Obviously HE knows what "gain" he's getting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?