Erica Lafferty Confronts NH Sen. Ayotte Over Gun Control

by Categorized: Newtown Date:

Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung went to a town hall meeting in New Hampshire yesterday with a question for N.H. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who voted against gun control legislation in the senate recently:

You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded gun checks would cause … I\’m just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the hallway of her elementary school isn\’t as important as that.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

92 thoughts on “Erica Lafferty Confronts NH Sen. Ayotte Over Gun Control

  1. bill

    I thin Ayotte is up for reelection next year. I hope since this leadership change should be one of the easiest ones to make.

    We will take a page for the NRA playbook and support or resist any political leaders on one issue only.

    We need only to ask: Do you support fundamental change with gun laws and support substantial restrictions in guns? Yes or no?

    1. Bryan

      Couldn’t agree more…..Ayotte has made it clear that, in her book, guns matter more than people.

      1. Betrayed Democrat

        typical liberal Bryan, completely ignoring the real reasoning behind this issue.

        Fighting for liberty IS about people. Fighting against the second amendment is about destroying freedom and the ability to maintain freedom from an overbearing government.

        The freedom of ALL people is more important that a signle issue with emotional ramifications. Tragedy is no excuse to destroy freedom.

      2. Green3nergy

        Guns should matter more… Especially when the freedom and means for a nation to resist tyranny depend on it. Tyranny is upon us, whether you realize it or not. The federal government is growing ever larger and more totalitarian. Don’t allow yourself to be blinded by near-sightedness. We must think grand. Our nation is $16 trillion in debt. How do our debtors plan on reclaiming the money we’ve been lent? Let me tell you, it would be much easier to enslave a people if they are without arms, and the POTUS knows this.

        Money rules everything. Greed has no boundaries. Never underestimate the willingness of others to exploit the uninformed.

        1. walls

          You and I both know we have a plethora of the uninformed; low info’s abound in unprecedented numbers.

      3. Tom

        Actually, I think Ayotte believes our rights under the 2nd Amendment are more important than any individual or even group of people. Sure seems like a straight forward decision on her part, too bad that some liberals can’t see the forest for the trees.

          1. Midas Mulligan


            funny you say that because i had finished my response only to delete it.

            but here is something though not what I wrote before. I won’t go point for point because I would need to scroll down.

            those 3 types are more easily found in your camp I’m afraid. you are so out in left field that it isn’t worth debating. You just enjoy the good debate while trying to nail your opponent. no matter how well i reasoned, you would simply negate it. so there is really no sense in debating.

            your side is filled with paranoid, free-base like brains only moments from insanity. one moment, they are law-abiding and the next, they speak of ignoring the new gun control laws. they run around like a gaggle of geese about to loose their heads

            I am just now finishing reading “A Team of Rivals” on Lincoln and you conservative gun nuts remind me of rabble muck kicked up in the Confederacy leading to secession.

            I am not surprised since you have shown overt racism in your statements.

            You and your lot are supportive a cause that is so dark, demented and evil.

            Enough? I need to do some work today as opposed to some who shuffle around in retirement pontificating how the country is going to hell. Stay out of my country and encourage the sleepy head, the Kim Pa Troll, to move in with you.

          2. johngaltwhereru


            Your statement is pathetic, and in no way refutes my statements.

            As I have told you, pointing out facts is not racism. However, crying racism where none exists is a staple of Liberals, so there is no use in explaining what racism actually is yet again.

            Here is how you should have decribed the 3 camps opposed to your position on gun control.

            First, there are people like myself, who are aware of the centuries long history of tyrants disarming their subjects so they can rule over them in an authoritarian manner without fear or retailiation. People in this group know the Founders of the US were aware of this history and made provisions that made it extremely difficult for the authoritarians to revoke the rights of the citizens.

            Then there are morons who think the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting. While these morons exist on both sides of the argument (see Andrew Cuomo), the people opposed to your side rightly fear their hunting rifles will be confiscated by the authoritarians. While they are correct, they are blind to the real reason they are allowed to own that rifle.

            Then there is a group who opposes all things Liberal just because they want to be on the Conservative side. They are the low information types which make up the majority of Democrat voters, but these particular low information types happen to side with Republicans across the board.

            That is honest reality coming from a level headed mentally stable individual. I would not expect the same level of analysis from someone of your ilk.

          3. Midas Mulligan

            As i said, you are full of crap. On racism; when you constantly look for any possibly evidence to back up a racially-motivated statement; that is boarder-line racism. why do you have this need/ do you also want to measure the size of their lips and extrapolate something from that?

            You are off the deep end. but hay,I can’t ration your oxygen so continue breathing.

            you didn’t respond to my statements either. I mentioned about your supposed law-abiding gun owners only to listen to them (many more then one) talking about not complying. That means… not wait johngalt, what does that mean in your bird brain?

          4. johngaltwhereru


            As far as the comment I ignored about law abiding citizens saying they will not abide by the new laws; GOOD. The laws themselves ignore more important laws. Unconstitutional laws should not be obeyed. They should be ignored and rebelled against.

            To put it in simple minded language even you can understand, what if Alabama decided to bring slavery back? Should we ignore that the Constitution bans slavery just because the State Legislature decided they didn’t care about The Constitution? What if they determined that disarming and enslaving blacks reduced the crime rate and murder rate? Would it be justified then?

          5. Midas Mulligan

            You’re a bad man, Johngalt. A real bad man. You are basically an anarchist – which is a family branch of Libertarianism. (Read your history before protesting, buddy.) so you only agree to abide by laws you believe in? That to be sounds lie your garden variety anarchist to me.

            Next, you said you work 20 hours per week yet you now live in costa rica. And you said that you don’t practice your profession. Then what do you do with your 20 hours of work?

            That was another item that you conveniently overlooked when I asked.

            You are a bad man, johngalt. A real bad man.

          6. johngaltwhereru


            It is unbecoming, and an indication of inferior intellect to rebut direct points with nothing more than insults.

            I never said I don’t practice my profession.

            I am not an anarchist. I choose to follow Constitutional Law over State Laws that are in direct conflict with the Constitution. An anarchist would ignore all laws.

            Since the slavery example obviously annoyed you, as you ignored that simple point in favor of calling me a bad man, let’s move on to another obvious example.

            What if a Republican State Legislature decided Liberal media outlets could no longer spread their propaganda, and set up a board that determined whether they were tellling truth or not. Then, based on the determination of truth, decided what information could be disseminated?

            The 1st Amendment clearly would be in opposition to the State Legislatures new restrictions on speech. Would you consider media outlets who continued their propaganda in violation of State Law to be anarchists?

            This is too simple for you not to understand. You desire an illegal circumvention of the Contituition at the State and Federal Judicial levels. I am asking if that is OK for the issues where you agree with The Constitution. In other words, are you willing to admit your hypocrisy?

          7. Midas Mulligan

            Then if you practice your profession, you live in the US not Costa Rica. Yes or no.

            You say that you choose to follow Constitutional law over state law. you are such a confounding idiot. did you know that Connecticut also has a Constitution? Further, this new Ct legislation has not been ruled unconstitutional so there is absolutely no reason to break the law until it is rendered obsolete.

            Once again, the origins of Libertarianism has anarchist roots in its French history. you may ignore what you need to in order to feel good on your philosophy but facts are facts.

            I don’t wish to deal in hypothetical when real legislation has been made into law. That is your game not mine.

            Finally, law is open to interpretation whether you wish to believe this or not. Conservatives will hide behind their strict constructionist lexicon but law is interpreted. You thought Obamacare was unconstitutional but you were proven wrong as you will be proven wrong by either the current make-up of the high court or a more liberal make-up when President Hillary nominates a jurist in the year 2022 when old man Uncle Thomas has a heart attack.

            you are a bad man, Johngalt. A real bad man. you are worse then the old gun slangier John Wesley Harding. At least,he only shot men dead for looking at him the wrong way. You prefer to strip a man’s principles before dispatching verbal death.

            You are a real bad man, Johngalt. A real bad man.

        1. Johngaltwhereru

          Ayotte also correctly thinks that expanding background checks would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook.

          People like the idiot, yes idiot, who asked that outrageous question of Senator Ayotte are too stupid to be involved in this discussion if they can’t acknowledge that simple fact background checks will never apply to stolen weapons.

          1. Midas Mulligan


            Stop being so doesn’t fit you as much as it would fit your side kick, Men’s Room Kim.

          2. johngaltwhereru

            I don’t like to be vicious, but that woman is ignorant, nasty and rude.

            Inferring that Ayotte’s vote against background checks is responsible for her mother’s death or future incidents like her mother’s death is disgusting.

            It is just like when that ignorant arsehole Bill Burton ran commercials saying Romney killed that guys wife. People like Burton and this woman deserve no respect of any kind.

          3. Midas Mulligan

            Johnny: How can you say she was an idiot. she lost a mother and she asked a senator why was a store inconvenience more important over her mother?

            Sometimes I think you really are very rude. Then other times I know you are. but I can’t believe you said that.

            No, really.

          4. Johngaltwhereru


            Losing a mother does not absolve you of being an idiot. All idiots lose their mother eventually.

            I am tired of people using emotion over logic in order to further government’s control over people’s lives.

            And no, she didn’t just ask the question you just stated. She clearly indicated that passage of that bill would have prevented her mother’s death, or a death like her mother’s.

            That is a lie. That is ignorant of reality. She had already spoken to Ayotte in a previous setting, which means this was nothing but an attempt to humiliate and damage a political foe through blatant lies. That makes this woman a typical political lying pig, regardless of what happened to her family.

          5. bill


            First, you are despicable to state that this petitioner is an idiot for questioning the senator for the following reasons: 1) an idiot lacks the ability to question anything and therefor she must have a modicum of intelligence, 2) while changing or expanding a background check obviously would have had little or no effect on her mother’s killer, the game plan is to continue fighting for more gun control until eventually the aggregate of new legislation will effectively reduce gun violence.

            If the intent of this woman was a gotch you moment, so be it. This is the game of politics.

            For you to call her the names you have signifies your very low moral stature in this life. This reaction of yours, being blinded by your extreme reckless partisan Libertarianism, has brought you to new lows. You are the very example of the unpleasently aggressive.

          6. Johngaltwhereru


            I didn’t realize we were sticking to the medical definition of the word “idiot”. I suppose all the times Bush, Palin, and Tea party members have been called idiots on these pages, you jumped to their defense with the text book definition of “idiot”, and I just missed those posts.

            I will change my classification of this woman to moron.

            There is no “if” regarding whether the intent of this question was a gotch you moment. Ayotte indicated in her response to the question she had previously interacted at a different event with this woman. The sole purpose was a gotch you moment.

            To be clear, I have no problem with gotch you questions, except when the question is based in lies and fantasy, which this question was.

            Mentally ill gun thief mass murderers will never subject themselves to background checks before shooting up schools. Her question implied not only that background checks would prevent these events, but they would somehow magically be retroactive to before her mother’s death and we could travel time and prevent Sandy Hook.

          7. bill

            You are naive (because you refuse to understand the political gamesmanship involved), demented (very likely in the clinical sense but perhaps only relevant to your blind surrender to ideology. the end purpose of this struggles is to outlaw all semi automatic weapons. We will use what ever it takes to achieve these goals whether you like it or not. I frankly don’t give a frick about your kind and any ignorant 2nd amendment excuses you wish to hide behind.

            Patriotism, is frequently the last refuge of a scoundrel. I wish I had stamped that line but not this time.

            We will win and if you consider our win to be your loss, then you all will lose.

          8. johngaltwhereru


            That is fine. At least you are willing to admit your side will use lies, distortion and propaganda to advance your agenda.

            I will note that the moron’s question was not related to semi-automatic weapons in any way. But, since you have made it clear, in true Marxist fashion, that the ends justify the means, and that truth, logic and reality are not relevant to your side of the argument, I guess that doesn’t matter.

            I will add liar and propagandist to the accurate descriptors of the moron.

          9. Midas Mulligan

            gault: Let me change the “we” to “I.” I can’t speak for others. As in any movement, there are all manner of methods and objectives. I am simply honest enough to air mine. And I lose no support here by expressing it.

            I have a suggestion; stay out of my country. We don’t want your kind here anymore. If you return, as a newly appointed commandant of a re-education camp, I will have you detained in the bird cage where the dodos live. Your fed will be corn meal and water until you are fattened enough to be lead to the slaughter house where you will be cut up into pieces and fed to hog cage full of hogs. Oh, you noticed we don’t try and re-educate the non-conforming.

            My watch – your sidekick should be arising just about now. Retirement has its privileges.

          10. johngaltwhereru


            I do not accept your change of “we” to “I”.

            There are 3 types of people in your movement.

            The first are people like you, who are consciously taking an ends justify the means approach of lies and propaganda to eliminate the 2nd Amendment against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population and against the proper Constitutional process of repeal. You speak for all of them.

            The second, is a group of people too stupid to realize the underlying goal of this movement; the useful idiots. The propaganda of the first group manipulates the people in group 2, so, in essence you speak for them as well.

            The third group consists of people who ignorantly believe that “Universal” background checks will apply to mass murdering criminals, those who don’t know the difference between an AR-15 and a machine gun and those who think banning a weapon will stop criminals from owning said weapon. This type of person does not understand or believe in the concept of Liberal Incrementalism, which adds them to the second category of useful idiot. You speak for them sometimes, when you are arguing in the language of the dumb masses. But, at heart, when you feel no need to sound reasonable, you are a true abolitionist, and mostly speak for category 1.

            Finally, I would never submit to Marxist re-education. I despise guns, but if I am alive when your desires for authoritarianism under the banner of the Democrat Party arises, I will be armed with the most destructive weapons I can find. I will live free or die, but if I die, I’m not going down without a fight. However, it will not be an issue, as I will not return to the US if it is ever again under unmitigated Democrat control.

          11. Johngaltwhereru

            At least you were smart enough to substitute an inconsequential insult in lieu of making a futile attempt at a reasoned argument against my post.

          12. Midas Mulligan


            funny you say that because i had finished my response only to delete it.

            but here is something though not what I wrote before. I won’t go point for point because I would need to scroll down.

            those 3 types are more easily found in your camp I’m afraid. you are so out in left field that it isn’t worth debating. You just enjoy the good debate while trying to nail your opponent. no matter how well i reasoned, you would simply negate it. so there is really no sense in debating.

            your side is filled with paranoid, free-base like brains only moments from insanity. one moment, they are law-abiding and the next, they speak of ignoring the new gun control laws. they run around like a gaggle of geese about to loose their heads

            I am just now finishing reading “A Team of Rivals” on Lincoln and you conservative gun nuts remind me of rabble muck kicked up in the Confederacy leading to secession.

            I am not surprised since you have shown overt racism in your statements.

            You and your lot are supportive a cause that is so dark, demented and evil.

            Enough? I need to do some work today as opposed to some who shuffle around in retirement pontificating how the country is going to hell. Stay out of my country and encourage the sleepy head, the Kim Pa Troll, to move in with you.

          13. Kim


            Well, you were almost right. I expect that gollum considers his lame responses to be “a reasoned argument against” your posts, but those with any sense of reason or logic recognize it for what it is.

            You are debating with a fool but you’re wise enough to realize you won’t get anywhere with his so-called ‘open mind’. It’s difficult to find minds more closed than gollums’.

            But please continue outlining your argument – there are those among us who are on the fence on these issues and will respond to rational, well-thought-out comments. Unfortunately, gollum isn’t one of them but at least he easily recognizable as a lost cause.

            gollums’ example of logic: you practice your profession so you can’t live in Costa Rica. That says it all

          14. Kim


            And I almost forgot since talking about gollum makes me so mad but did you invite me down to Costa Rica?

      4. Common Sensor

        Let’s ban cars with more than a 15 gallon tank. No one should be able to go that far on one tank of gas. Give me a break, what the daughter was asking STILL would not have prevented SANDY HOOK. Its not the guns, it’s about mental health.

  2. Will

    This is the most overhyped issue in the country – record unemployed, 50 million on food stamps, $4 dollar a gallon gas,…

    Like 99.99% of people I could care less about background checks

      1. Jeb

        Wow, another one. Way to go Brian. A a meaningless punchline rather than substantive comment

      2. Betrayed Democrat

        not as important as the 200,000 plus crimes that are PREVENTED every year by responsible gun ownership. But please, let’s continue to ignore reality and deal with partial truths Bryan. Doing otherwise might conflict with your personal, anti-freedom agenda.

        1. Robert

          Actually, a recent study (I don’t remember by who) says it’s more like 750,000 times a year that guns are used to prevent a crime. That doesn’t include incidents that aren’t reported to “authorities”. The actual number could be as high as 2,500,000.

          1. Kim

            The comment by Kim about gun control above was by gollum bill katz. He’s quite odd and stalks Kim around like gollum slinking around looking for his ‘precious’ ring. This is merely another example of his slinking.

            As is well known on these blogs, Kim is an unabashed proud member of the NRA who is for common sense rules to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. many of those rules already exist but they aren’t enforced

        2. Katz


          Why are you ignoring me Kim? Why aren’t you meeting me in the men’s rooms like I keep asking you? What do I need to do to make you believe how much I want you?

          I impersonate you, I sniff after your every step, I plead with you, I call you names – I don’t know what else to do to get your attention! Please be mine!

          If not, I may have to focus my attention on someone else. I referred to the size of a male someone’s anatomy on these pages this week so don’t think I won’t turn my back on you.


  3. Tom

    Erica Lafferty was quick to condemn Senator Ayotte, but I did not hear how more stringent background checks would have prevented her mother’s murder. Since Lanza’s background could never have been investigated, or even his mental disorder revealed, I believe Ms. Lafferty is barking up the wrong tree.

  4. Lynn

    I wonder what you’ll be saying when it’s your mother or daughter or son or nephew or niece or husband or wife who is gunned down.

    1. kev

      I’d be heartbroken. I’d also be heartbroken if a family member was killed by a drunk driver. What I wouldn’t do is kid myself by believing that Ford or Chrysler’s product was responsible. Neither would I go after Anheuser-Busch, Town Fair Tire, or Mobil, all corporations whose products contributed to my family member’s senseless death. It is that ass#$%& that put the key in the ignition and drove drunk that is responsible. Perhaps a bartender or party host would also bear some responsibility, no argument there.

      You believe that depriving responsible gun owners of their constitutional rights is going to prevent another Newtown – keep dreaming. The Boston Marathon brothers were armed and obviously dangerous. Somehow they were able to circumvent the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – laws that have been more restrictive than Connecticut’s since I was a child. How’d that happen Lynn? What’s your next move, cars made of balsa wood, alcoholic beverages sans alcohol? Grow up and hold people responsible for their actions. You might also consider not voting for a guy who thinks that allowing alcohol sales on Sunday is a good thing and won’t result in more DUI’s and alcohol-related mayhem.

      1. Jean

        If your family was killed by a drunk driver, then more than likely the car would have been registered and the driver would have been tested for competency to drive the car. The background checks might not have prevented Erica’s mother from being slaughtered but at least there would be less guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed. ayotte should have voted on the background checks. By the way I read that Adam Lanza had passed the NRA test to own a gun.

        1. Johngaltwhereru

          He stole the gun.

          What if the drunk driver stole the car and had no licence.

          Very weak argument Jean. But then again, every argument on the anti-second Amendment side of this argument has been weak. Partially because you are all ignoring the actual problem, but mostly because the real goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and very few of you have the guts to admit that is the case.

        2. Fake Thomas Jefferson

          Senator Ayotte did vote. She thankfully voted against the legislation. NRA test has nothing to do about owning a gun it is used to learn firearm safety.

    2. Robert

      I’ll mourn the loss. But only the killer’s rights should be taken, not everyone’s.

      1. Jean

        No rights would have been taken away unless you were not responsible enough to own one.A loophole that allows anyone to buy guns from the internet and from money grubbing people who sell guns to anyone with cash. just FYI I own guns, would use them if needed but I would be able to pass a background check.

        1. Kim

          jean, in case you missed johngalt’s comment: Lanza stole the gun. background checks would have done nothing to change that. Nor would these new laws.

        2. CT2A


          Have you actually ever tried to buy a gun over the internet? Please try it an document your purchase since it’s so easy.

          1. code green

            I’m stunned by how many low info voters actually think you can buy a gun online without a background check.

  5. Annie

    Good for Ms. Lafferty. This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment. Background checks for every commercial gun purchase would not infringe on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. Apparently Ayotte believes it’s perfectly okay for convicted felons and the mentally ill to purchase all the guns they want on the internet and at gun shows. It is obvious that when you make it so easy for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns more gun crimes will be committed. Ayotte has put her allegiance to the gun lobby above the safety of the public. She is a disgrace to her state and to the entire country.

    1. Minuteman

      Anne: With God’s help and the gun control forces at hand, she will soon be defeated as she should be.

      1. Kim

        and you, Jean, are a shill for the lies and untruths surrounding this issue. I know which is the more dangerous to this country – you apparently don’t

  6. John

    So according to all you Liberals. We should outlaw Cars, Alcohol, Bikes, Playsets, Pools, Ect. Then we will have the utopia they believe in. However most liberals are prescription popping, alcohol drinking, death penalty repealing moroX.

  7. Luciano

    What evey liberal would like to see is more gun control that way when the BIG GOVERNMENT comes calling on you telling you that all of your rights are as of now GONE you aren’t going to be in a position to protect yourself.

    1. Paul Castillano


      the 2nd amendment gave government the right to inspect and REGULATE the arms of the public but only for the purposes of being a part of a militia.

      Not you yahoo wild-eyed yoodles screaming of tyranny. The constitution laid out in the 2nd for regulation. That’s “regulatione” in Italian in case your English fails you.

      1. Kim

        that’s an outright lie paul/gollum bill. You could easily learn the truth and have been educated in it, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

        You will not and cannot point to any part of the constitution that allows inspectionion of ANYTHING having to do with the second amendment. You have incorrectly hung your hat on the word ‘regulate’. Again, read the book by Stephen Halbrook instead of continually pushing your lies on readers.

        and keep slinking around looking for your ‘precious’

      2. Common Sensor

        The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” How about you read it before you comment about it.

      3. CT2A

        Paul Castillano, the Founding Fathers were very clear in their definition of the 2nd Amendment. Your extreme ignorance doesn’t change that fact.

        “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
        – Richard Henry Lee ~ Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

        “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        – Thomas Jefferson ~ Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]

        “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
        – Samuel Adams ~ Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2.

        “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
        – James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”
        – George Mason ~ 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

        1. walls

          Thank you for this irrefutable clarity, cloaked in historical context. Liberals …. ball’s now back in your court.

    2. SAM7

      Really, is that the best you’ve got– you want guns to protect you from the scary “BIG GOVERNMENT?” Tell me how that works out for you when some pilotless drone takes you and your AR-15 out from 10,000 fett. Don’t make me laugh.

      1. Kim

        I don’t know SAM. Maybe we should ask the mujahadeen who fought off the russians. Or the Syrians who are unarmed and at the mercy of their tyrants. And just who is operating that drone? Could it be the same government that our forefathers tried so hard to protect us against?

        Your argument is nonsense. Because you believe that an armed citizen could not possibly defend himself aginst the US military, that citizen should have no defense at all.

        History is full of the underdog throwing off tyranny. And full of those like you who welcome tyranny for the comfort you think it provides for you by doing everyhting – including your thinking – for you.

        1. Jean

          Dude the Mujahedeen were supplied with much better arms like bombs, shoulder fired rockets, etc. by the americans. I would rather put my trust in the government than some soldiers of fortune who want to play army to protect me from tyranny.

          1. Katz

            typical liberal, Jean. You missed the point entirely about the mujahadeen and everything else.

            Or perhaps you simply choose to ignore the truth like your fellow liberals

      2. walls

        If the gubmint tried to pull some shyte, you’d have 50,000,000 law-abiding gun owners that would march on Washington. You better believe the gubmint would fear that wrath. The founding fathers knew it. You have patriots. You have the oath keepers. I do not believe the military would fire upon citizens under certain circumstances.

  8. John

    I have Newtown fatigue. I know it’s devastating for the families, but can’t the rest of us move on?

  9. sharrie

    The bill wouldn’t have helped her mom, never would impact guns already owned. I like expanded background checks, but newtown wouldn’t have been prevented, so why the lies?

  10. Ron

    If you’ve ever attended a weapon’s show down south, you know they’re just flee-markets for those who want to own something that can destroy a human body. If you oppose background checks, you should also oppose driver’s licenses…or, take an evening walk through one of our urban neighborhoods, and listen to all the inner city kids celebrating independence’s day 365 days per year.

    1. Kim

      Ron, you have a point there. I am beginning to see the side of gun control now that I have begun reading – period. Before, i never read anything. I just listened to my hero Rush Limpboug.

  11. Tom

    I think anyone would give Erica Lafferty sympathy for the horrific way her mother died.

    Yet, she’s quickly becoming the epitome of a jerk in the aftermath.

    First, she moans up a storm about how her family hasn’t been compensated from the charity funds donated worldwide. Now, if she was a young, dependent child of a breadwinner gunned down, sure she’d be entitled to such compensation but her mother had no young children. So her motives are suspect. I don’t think the majority of people who donated those funds intended them to go to anything but memorials, to dependent children or perhaps a replacement school, not to adult children of those killed.

    Then, she gets in the face of one of the many no votes on the background checks bill, no doubt thinking herself a crusader. But she comes across as seriously shrill.

    Again, we should show the Lafferty family our sympathy but that doesn’t give them licence to be jerks.

    1. Kim

      Tom, I would go a step further. Just because 26 people died should not prevent me from my constitutional right to bear arms. I call those 26 deaths collateral damage.


      1. Katz

        speak up gollum bill, impersonating Kim doesn’t make you credible. Slink back to your little cave and eat some raw fish

  12. Joseph

    First; I’m sorry for your loss, it’s very tragic. Second; don’t attack 2nd Ammendment. If it was a knife, would you be trying to outlaw them?

  13. Derek

    It is indeed true that expanded background checks would not have prevented the Newtown tragedy. Gun enthusiasts however must consider the responsibilities that accompany gun ownership. As a gun owner, I believe the rights enumerated in the constitution are not fettered by submitting to a thorough screening process. After all, those of us with knowledge of the capabilities of firearms are in the best position understand the judgement and restraint responsible gun ownership requires.

    1. Kim

      I agree with you Derek as long as that ‘screening’ does not become part of a ‘list’ that the government keeps on lawful citizens.

      we saw what authorities did with such information in New Orleans after katrina – they disarmed law-abiding citizens and left them at the mercy of the criminal elements.

      Personally, I have a large safe and several smaller safes around my home to ensure that safety is paramount

  14. Himmler

    The 2nd ammendment is a lost cause, give it up.
    Now I heard some disappointing news from boston during the search for the bombing suspects. The police were going house to house searching telling families to stay together and if you own a gun keep it close. They are suppose to protect us we don’t need guns to protect our families. If family members have to die to get rid of guns so be it.

  15. Roger

    The 2nd admendment is as important as the first, no one here has had to pass a background check to post a comment here !!!

      1. katz

        that you again gollum billy, slinking around praying for contact with Kim? Such a pathetic little creature you are

  16. LouB

    Seems like the same trolls they bused in for this meeting last night are all here to comment.

    1. katz

      I resemble that remark. Just because I live under a bridge and slink around eating raw, dead fish does not make me a troll! My online habits, on the other hand, do make me a troll.

      Kim, please be mine! I need you

Comments are closed.