A little blip on where the guns may have come from:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...used-victimsw/
Printable View
A little blip on where the guns may have come from:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...used-victimsw/
He entered with a shotgun, got the pistol and rifle inside. No checking with metal detector, lack of security, mental illness untreated but those of us who own guns for protection, sport, hunting are to blame.
Yep. Obama and the Left would be wise not to use this for getting back up on their soap box.
I'd like to know as well. A shotgun can be cut down to almost next to nothing, I've handled many of those held by criminal types over the years. A handgun can be hidden almost anywhere on the human torso and underneath clothes. An AR-15, even an M4 carbine version, is not that easy to hide, although it can be done.
I find it hard to believe that he just walked onto the base with all 3 on him. He could have, but I find that highly unlikely.
What concerns me the most is the mental health implications.........again. How do we go about protecting the public from mentally unstable people like this and at the same time protect everyone else's right to keep and bear arms that would never dream of committing this type of act?
Wouldn't a place like that have some type of security at the gates, either DoD police and/or a Marine MP detachment? :confused:
Or is that all part of the POTUS's "sequester" program? :confused0007:
And stand by for a new round of assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights! :mad0049:
suncat, I think he'd gotten a job there and was going to report to work any day. They'd already issued him clearance, despite his mental health past.
Nice try, Left Wing Media
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...medium=twitter
Yes after Piers Morgan tried yet again to convince us to all be British and we'd be better off, we find out the entire basis of his blathering was inaccurate reporting by CNN. This follows a litany of other inaccurate CNN reports where they rush to conclusions within minutes of a breaking story as quick as they can get someone, anyone, to say it went down the way that suits their belief system.
Apparently he only had a Remington 870 shotgun, a standard hunting shotgun that isn't even semi-automatic and doesn't have a detachable magazine. It's not even on Feinstein's dream list of banned guns. Sounds like he may have used it to kill security guards and then took 2 of their handguns, and there was never any AR-15 anywhere. There may have been, we aren't 100%, but sounds like maybe there wasn't one at all.
So not a single law wanted by Feinstein or the hard core anti-gunners in Cali or anywhere else would have made ANY difference in this case. As pro gun people tirelessly point out the failings are in the system itself, not in the lack of gun laws.
We have the laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying weapons in a gun store, we simply refuse to enforce them in any meaningful way. That isn't due to the pro gun side, which is spending money lobbying states to enact laws to improve reporting of records to the FBI background check system. This is due to idiots like Piers Morgan ranting about the AR-15 instead of ranting about how a guy who may have shot into a neighbor's apartment, heard voices and played a LOT of violent video games got through both a gun background check and a federal security clearance background check to give him access to a secure military facility.
The problem is in the implementation of these laws. NSSF (the gun maker trade group) has begged Congress to fully fund the NICS system. It voted $500 million some years ago to overhaul and upgrade it, but hasn't spent 10% of that yet to get it done. Bloomberg spends millions to lobby to ban high capacity magazines, spends nothing lobbying states to require proper reporting of mental health records to the NICS system to keep them from being approved for gun purchases. Pretty clear where his priorities are and it's on disarming Americans, not preventing lunatics from shooting people. There are far more direct and politically doable ways to do that, and given the choice he never chooses that path, nor does Feinstein or the rest.
The media found in minutes enough on this guy to keep him from ever getting security clearance at a military base. The failing here isn't about guns or even gun background checks, it's about outsourcing the security of this nation to contractors who allow this guy and Snowden to get clearance.
I don't care what kind of clearance one has, they should have to go thru a metal detector at a place like that.
Any bets the old muslim terrorists are taking total note of our lack of clearanc. How many black muslims have they converted here that could easily get a job like this guy had. No guns, just a bomb attached to his body and blow up our entire software for the navy, army, marines. We have fools running the government.
And all these mass shooters have mental problems, all of them
The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 was proposed to require more mental health records to be reported to NICS by the states. Summary of improvements:
The proposal, supported by Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Mark Begich, D-Alaska; and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., would have changed the definition of mental illness in the federal database and alerted gun sellers to people who had been found by a court to be an imminent danger to themselves or others. The measure also called for individuals to be added to the database if they had been found guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case; found not guilty by reason of insanity; found incompetent to stand trial; or involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013.../#ixzz2fBbPK8M9
It got stuck in the Judiciary committee and couldn't get the votes to get out to the floor. Who is on the Judiciary Committee who opposed it? Why, the Whos Who of the anti-gun Senate Brigade: Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Franken, Leahy. NRA supported it, would have passed the Senate and House.
I can only presume they don't WANT the system fixed b/c if it were fixed it would potentially reduce the number of these incidents and thus would eliminate their primary justification for their gun ban proposals. If we were able to interdict a lot more of the lunatics so shootings with AR-15s were rare as hen's teeth there wouldn't be any need to ban them now would there?
The only reason I know of to oppose it is invasion of privacy, which is nonsense since it only included judicial rulings that are public, but even so they are fine to strip law abiding folks of a right they don't like to protect people who have been adjudicated a threat to others from people knowing they are a threat?
No, they just don't want this system fixed, which means they tacitly want enough of these shootings they can implement an anti-gun agenda. They care about banning guns, not about saving lives.
Feinstein asked today when enough would be enough. I wonder that too Diane, when will you abandon your crusade to disarm Americans and focus on saving American lives by doing simple things like fixing the background check system?
Citizen, tells a lot about our politicians
You can debate ideology and theories and people's words all day long but in the end the measure of a person and their beliefs is in their actions. Here we have a chance to improve the system and directly and specifically address the Newtown/Aurora type shootings and save lives, and it is blocked by the very people who most tout those incidents as justification for action. If that doesn't tell you where they really stand, what they really prioritize and what really motivates their words, nothing will.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
In fact this law does nothing but clarify and give meaning to the prohibition against the mentally incompetent getting guns that was in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The law right now is just not clear on what constitutes "mentally ill", leaving it up to the states, and many states have NICS reporting as a VERY low priority so the database is woefully unable to deal with the mentally ill part of the prohibitions. This law would standardize the definition and require specific reporting, it would be a huge help and it only goes after those adjudicated incompetent or deemed a threat to others.
The only reason to oppose it that I can see is that you don't want NICS to work, and the only reason you wouldn't want it to work is if you wanted bad people to get and use guns to do bad things so you could justify banning more guns.
that sounds very conspiracy oriented, but then why did ATF let 2,000 guns go to the Mexican cartels with absolutely no plan as to how to get them back or track them in any way? Why at the same exact time this was happening was Feinstein writing a new assault weapons ban bill using the alleged flow of guns to Mexico as the justification for the law? Why do the anti-gun leaders personally block improving NICS in obvious and meaningful ways? Why did Obama direct us to move forward on the Small Arms Treaty the very day after his re-election after walking away from the table months before and not a thing changing in the treaty? Actions, not words, and when you look at actions it's hard to not draw the conclusion they want solutions that let us keep our guns to fail so they can take the guns.
Since Feinstein has said if she could get 51 votes in the Senate she'd confiscate every gun in the country (yes she said just that), in this case her words line right up with her actions. This is about eliminating gun ownership, not about public safety.
Jon Stewart taking CNN to task for its stupid reporting
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewa...ting-coverage/
John Stewart is one of my favorite human beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Feinstein has claimed today that her assault weapons ban would have prevented this shooting. That is an outright, bald faced lie.
I know the bill very well, and it didn't cover 870 shotguns (other than pistol grips on them which is moot to their usefulness), and this guy PASSED the background check. Her bill didn't include anything on the reporting of mental illness that would have tripped it IMO, and certainly nothing not in the bill she killed that WOULD have required better reporting of such records.
So she kills the bill that would do the most to prevent people like this from buying guns, then claims a bill that would do nothing would be the solution. I can't decide if she's that stupid or that conniving. Probably a fair amount of both.
Really this guy proves the argument made against her bill: that a hunting shotgun is plenty of firepower for a lunatic to kill people, so focusing on "assault weapons" would at best only force them to change weapons. Maybe only 10 die instead of 15, would that then end calls for more restrictions, like on the shotguns? Of course not, theyd' be next on the chopping block. It becomes an endless cycle b/c you're treating the runny nose and not the disease. The key is to focus on people with mental instabilities, ideally treating them with mental health services but at a minimum restricting their ability to access firearms as best we can.
This guy didn't need an assault weapon to kill all those people. Ban them and you gain nothing in the way of public safety. Of course for Feinstein it's not about public safety, it's about banning every gun she can using whatever justification she can (remember it was going to be the Mexican cartels before these last shootings, that's in writing), chipping away at them any way possible.
Diane Feinstein is part of the cause, not part of the cure.
Considering that she's blocking a "common sense" reform of NICS that would report people who have been adjudicated incompetent or mentally ill, I'd say she's definitively part of the cause of the problem, seeing that she's blocking at least a partial solution on which nearly everyone agrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Citizen, she and others in DC aren't interested in solving the problem.. They are only interested in appealing to their looney base that has no regard for the constitution
Many of them don't like guns...although many are closet gun owners....so therefore no one should own one.
If they were interested in the problem Chicago would not be a war zone, 13 shot last night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I have a very hard time saying anything about these mass shootings other than "I hope the families find comfort somewhere in a time of horror and grief".
We just had a guy go home after an argument at a party, get his 20 gauge, and shoot 3 guys point blank. 3 blocks from my son's duplex, where he lives.
Alcohol, meth, crack, failure of veteran care for PTSD and other mental illness, the fatherless children culture, admitting and addressing our problems in these areas is critical.
Capitol PD Tactical Response Team May Have Been Ready To Neutralize Navy Yard Mass Shooting, Instead Ordered To Leave Scene! -
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...o-leave-scene/
Reported by BBC, sounds legit. Anyone else notice that our national media have become such pitiful lapdogs that all our real investigative news is coming from British media reporting on our government?Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
sky, that makes way too much sense to actually look into the problems and root causes, much easier to blame the gun owners and conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky