Monday, February 4, 2013

Newtown Father Gives Gun Rights Lesson to Congress

Activist Post

In a similar vein as the impassioned speech given by Suzanna Gratia-Hupp in the wake of her parents murder by a gun-wielding madman, Newtown resident Bill Stevens absolutely owns Congress in the following video where he asks the same question: Want to know why people need guns?

Mr. Stevens' daughter was part of the lockdown that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. As he states, "lockdown, and 9/11 were not enough" to protect many of his daughter's peers that day. He tells the Working Group Public Hearing on Gun Violence Prevention in no uncertain terms that any proposal seeking to strip decent people of their right to defend their families is entirely unconstitutional - not only under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but under Section 15 of the Connecticut state Constitution as well; and it makes no mention of permits, registration and background checks.

"Legislation is not due process."



Read other articles by Activist Post Here




BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Logic check. You cannot protect your daughter if you die to save your guns.

Anonymous said...

Good job brother.

SNAKEBELLY said...

Kudos to Bill Stevens.

Anonymous said...

"inalienable right"...look up the words and realize the meaning this Father communicates to politicians who have no respect for rights or the rule of law.

As for the vulcan above who 'thinks' logic rules the universe...when you fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people, you have a republic, as long as we can keep it...so let's remind them about who OWNS who in these united States of America.

Co-opted Confederate said...

The Gentleman from Connecticuct had the biggest pair of balls in Washington DC for the period he was there. If Congress is to limpwristed to abide by their oath of office we the people should kick their pansy asses to the curb (read gutter where they efirst crawled into politics from.Last I knew this was a Constitutional Republic not a socialist Democracy. And let me reiterate Democracy as practiced by (ALL Democrats)and Log Cabin/RINO Republicans sucks

Anonymous said...

All I can say is AWESOME!!

Anonymous said...

I think you need to listen to him again and get a clearer point. He's not dying for his guns he's saying hell die protecting his family with his guns if you try to take them away.

Anonymous said...

alrighty then !!!!! now THAT is a Anerican Patriot

wishbone said...

AB-SO-LUT-LY right on bill. please run for president and help to stop the ZIONIST domestic enemy.!

Anonymous said...

I did. And I stand by my point. He cannot protect/raise his daughter if he dies fighting a SWAT team. I agree with him on EVERYTHING else he said. As a new father I believe dying for your guns is different than dying defending your daughter. You can't beat a SWAT team, whose objective is disarmament and not killing you. And if you do happen to win in some sort of Luc-Besson inspired battle. What then? You have to run.....leaving your daughter behind. Or take your daughter and family with you and live a hunted family. It doesn't really matter though. He was just speaking out of passion. But you have to think that stuff through when you are a father because your family's well-being trumps everything. Even your political beliefs about firearms.

Fab Fred said...

Anonymous said:
"Logic check. You cannot protect your daughter if you die to save your guns."

If you teach your daughter how to use the guns, she will have at least something to protect herself [and her children} if she has them.

Anonymous said...

Many distraught family members of victims at Sandy Hook spoke out AGAINST guns as is their democratic right.

The gun nuts reacted with vitriol and hatred and savaged these people.

This distraught family member of a victim spoke out IN FAVOR of guns as is his democratic right.

The gun nuts love this guy and praise him. Gun nuts don't care about other people, reality or logic. They just react on an emotional level, loving or hating, fearing or fighting. So easily manipulated, like chicks, all emotion no logic. No wonder you need guns so badly, fraidy cats.

Anonymous said...

Summary or argument:

1: Daughter's friend's sister was murdered by gunfire, but firearms aren't the issue.

2: Elected officials inexplicably have greater security measures than small town elementary schools.

3: Facts are irrelevant (said while seething contempt for the legislative process).

4: Connecticut state constitution states no restrictions regarding firearms, though they aren't the issue (refer to point 1).

5: Connecticuts constitution stands equal to the 10 commandments as it was apparently derived directly from the word of God "you" pathetic politicians (though they were holding the quill...)

6: We should wait in good conscience for all the facts before legislating new laws, even though he isn't here to talk about "facts"(refer to point 3).

7: Gun and Ammo possesion of any ammount should be given a pass.

8: His guns aren't dangerous (aka: useless).

9: Yet tyrants should be scarred of them anyway, for some reason...

10: Why is a public place different than a private residence?

11: Somehow this was all about him and the governments attempted vendetta of ensuring his daughter endangerment by dearming her father.

12: Obligatory Heston quote.

Anonymous said...

I thing 10 weeks is still too young. But at some point she will learn. However, allowing kids access to firearms without adult supervision is a problem....I guess I got time to think about it. But self defense classes make the most sense .

Anonymous said...

@Summary of argument;

1) They aren't. Perceived safety is. School was a "gun-free zone". Didn't stop the perpetrator from bring his stolen weapons in. Easier to go after the guns than address the root problem, mental illness.

2)True. So?

3) Facts are irrelevant- LIE He said that not all the facts are in, TOTALLY at odds with your LIE.

4)Federal 2nd Amendment is backed up by the State Constitution. Again, so?

5) Pull your head out. Amendments are difficult to pass for a reason. Everyday legislation will NOT be legal if it infringes any rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that's why he more or less said, try it in court of law, just because it passed Congress and even maybe the President, DOESN'T mean that it is legal OR that it will pass the Supreme Court.

6) Another outright LIE, see MY #3. You need to watch the video over.

7) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Quit conveniently forgetting that, "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." part when you shout out your well regulated militia partial quote. I have the FULL wording at the beginning of this particular argument because I knew you'd try. Our rights already have been infringed, but that's why I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them from being further eroded. Gun nut? I suppose, if your consider having been raised around guns, taught gun safety from the time I could talk, owning one or two guns most of my life, spending over 8 years in the military defending my country and then not wanting to lose any of my rights after separation from the military, then yes, I am a gun nut. And to answer your next question, my discharge was full honorable. Want to see my DD-214? I have never been in trouble with the law, other than one traffic ticket since I started driving in 1977.

8) Pretty well answered in 7, the greatest majority of us wanting to keep our RIGHTS are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, the only ones who will pay ANY attention to gun laws. I am 52 and have never accidentally discharged a gun because I always live by the safety rules that were instilled in me by my father as soon as I could walk and talk. I respect guns, apparently you fear them.

9) ONLY a tyrant or criminal need fear them.

10) The ones legislating have armed guards, some of them around the clock. Would THEY feel as safe if their guards were armed only with clubs or knives?

11) Again, this is because the only ones affected by legislation are those who are law abiding. If I am known to keep guns, and especially to have had fairly extensive training but my neighbor is known to be anti-gun, whose house will be more likely to be targeted? Criminals LIKE knowing they won't come up against someone like me.

12) It's a good quote. Kind of cliche, but truthful for many. I'm one.

Anonymous said...

Anti gun (slaves) folk are delusional in their beliefs. History of the world proves beyond refute or doubt that an unarmed populace become victims of tyranny absolutely in time.

This is how Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Lenin were able to murder 100's of millions of people in the 20th century alone. Mostly Christians. Look it up doubters.

The Right to life is an absolute Right - period. God gave us our Rights in America, not any man or government.

Abortions murder more children than any other action. Abortion clinics are baby murdering machines. Swimming pools are next, and car accidents. But you never hear a leftist say we need to ban pools....

An unarmed man is a slave. An armed man is a citizen.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the People having a means of last resort to protect them from a tyrannical government. All governments grow to the point where they become a threat to the citizenry. It is human behavior. The Founders knew this and were smarter than any group of a million people living today put together.

If you don't like firearms? Then move to Russia. America is for those who cherish Liberty & Freedom!

Read some quotes by the Founders and get a real education commies...

Post a Comment