Apparently, the “heckling” incident was mischaracterized, and I fell into that pattern, too. Maybe I was misguided by my own hubris and high horse, maybe just past experience with gun nuts who truly are nasty. I don’t know. But let this be a cautionary tale to not take everything at face value.
This is partially a mea culpa from me. Why only partially?
Well, it was of course wrong to jump to conclusions like I did. That I wasn’t the only one to do so is no comfort, nor is it an excuse.
But…
As far as people saying that Neil Heslin wasn’t heckled at all, I think that’s just a technicality.
I mean I guess I can give the benefit of the doubt that when Hecklin paused during his testimony after asking why anyone would need weapons like those used at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, some people may have thought he was actually soliciting a response and not merely asking rhetorically and pausing for dramatic effect.
But even so, heckling constitutes interrupting a speaker or performer during said speech or performance with comment, question or barbs.
Granted, I’ve heard hecklers that truly went beyond the pale of decency. And technically, the people that yelled out during Heslin’s testimony didn’t berate him. They yelled about the “Second Amendment” and that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon” (completely glossing over the bit about well-regulated militias, but that’s neither here nor there).
Perhaps it wasn’t exactly heckling. But was there intent to shout down someone who disagreed with their views? I realize I’m assuming, but I believe there was. I mean there were so many people who testified throughout the day. Why was this speaker singled out to get the most convenient half of constitutional text shouted at him? Whereas a speaker like Mark Mattioli – also a father grieving the loss of his child at Sandy Hook who also made very good points – that called for enforcement of existing gun laws, not imposition of new ones, was able to deliver without comment from the peanut gallery?
I think these people knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it, and I doubt it was merely an innocent response to a posed question. I mean, really, you can’t wait until it’s your turn to speak – and many people got their turn – to rebut the statements? Even if it’s not heckling, it’s still a total lack of any common courtesy. Which is made worse by, yes, the fact that it was a grieving father speaking.
But perhaps by the broader definition of heckling, that’s exactly what happened. By the more narrow definition, which involves overtly-malicious insults and barbs, there was no heckling involved. But I believe in the importance of action and intent. Most of the people in the hall, hell, most of the gun-rights advocates present at the hearing, were able to bite their tongue until it was their time to speak. Why did these few take it upon themselves to shout out half-quotes?
After we ask the question of why did media headlines sensationalize this story, and why did I fall for it and join in the misleading commentary, let’s ask that question. Why, in a room full of people on both sides of the debate, did those select few choose to yell out answers to what was likely a purely-rhetorical question uttered by Heslin as part of his point?
All that being said, I was going to delete in shame my blog post about the ‘incident.’ Instead, I’ve decided that for transparency’s sake and for a reminder to myself to do better next time, I will keep it up. I have edited it and crossed out the factually-incorrect first half of it. But the second half of that post retains its value as far as incivility in the gun debate, regardless of whether or not any heckling went on at this particular affair. Take a read.
