Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[Brain357]

There were no other shooters at the range.

Sometimes crimes happen in low crime areas.
MASS SHOOTINGS ALWAYS HAPPEN IN GUN FREE ZONES!!

I've given 2 examples now of mass shootings not in gun free zones. You want me to continue?

except those were NOT mass shootings. but a nice try

IHOP shooting: 4 dead, 7 wounded, total 11 people shot
Tucson: 6 dead, 12 others shot, total 18 shot

In who's sick world are those not mass shootings?

 

[eflatminor]

A military base is not a gun free zone, retard.

Wrong.

In 1993, under Clinton's leadership, the military ordered all military bases gun free zones. Only MPs are allowed to be armed, just like only police and security guards are allowed to be armed at the all the other gun free zones in which mass shootings have occurred.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

More here:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/r190_14.pdf

and here:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones | Fox News

Does it hurt to always be so damn wrong?

Now, you were saying something about being retarded???

 

[Missourian]

I just read on NBC Washington that Alexis only had a short barrel pump action shotgun when he entered the secured area.

He ambushed a guard and took his 9mm and ammunition...

He used that weapon to get the AR-15 from an officer.

That's the Lamestream media - you can't believe THEM!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've given 2 examples now of mass shootings not in gun free zones. You want me to continue?

Carson city was not a mass shooting.

Still no mass shootings at shooting ranges?
Wonder why?

Remember the statistic that 10 out of 10 criminals prefer an unarmed victim.
Guns prevent crime.
Gun crime increased 26 fold in DC with the gun bans.

4 dead and wounding 7 others isn't a mass shooting? That's pretty mass in my world.

Try the death toll at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Luby's Cafeteria and Columbine, then get back to me

Virginia Tech: 33 dead, 17 wounded

Sandy Hook: 27 dead

Luby's Cafeteria: 24 dead, 20 injured

Columbine: 15 dead, 21 injured

 

[Brain357]

Carson city was not a mass shooting.

Still no mass shootings at shooting ranges?
Wonder why?

Remember the statistic that 10 out of 10 criminals prefer an unarmed victim.
Guns prevent crime.
Gun crime increased 26 fold in DC with the gun bans.

4 dead and wounding 7 others isn't a mass shooting? That's pretty mass in my world.

Try the death toll at Sandy Hook, then get back to me.

So 4 dead and wounding 7 isn't a mass shooting? Clearly there are worse shootings, look at today. But your actually going to say that's not a mass shooting?

 

[eflatminor]

There are both military AND private security on that base.

They carry guns.

And how'd that work out? Thousands of disarmed people that can't defend themselves flee for their lives or cower in the a gun free zone corner while they're murdered. Once again, the criminals didn't care about your rules and people died. Their blood is on the hands of those that support laws that give an edge to crazies by disarming law abiding citizens. Shame on you.

And yet, the rw nutters want someone on grade school campuses armed so they can take out the shooter.

No, it was Clinton that put armed guards in schools with his 1998 COPS program. Is that the 'rw nutter' you're referring to?

Further, I've never suggested government requiring anyone to be armed. INDIVIDUALS should be free to arm themselves without the ridiculous interference of a 'gun free zone' by which no criminal will abide.

Who is at the other end of the campus.
Or off that day.

Again, allow individuals to protect themselves.

Or, how about you just post signs: "Mass shooters, Enter Here".

What do you think a 'gun free zone' sign means to a mass shooter? EXACTLY that!

Yeah, that sounds like something you tools would come up with

You nanny state suck ups already did! There a reason so many shootings occur at gun free zones. The shooters know they're not likely to encounter armed citizens, but disarmed victims. Duh.

 

[TemplarKormac]

4 dead and wounding 7 others isn't a mass shooting? That's pretty mass in my world.

Try the death toll at Sandy Hook, then get back to me.

So 4 dead and wounding 7 isn't a mass shooting? Clearly there are worse shootings, look at today. But your actually going to say that's not a mass shooting?

Well, the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi didn't really bother you that much, so no, I don't believe for a liberal this is a mass shooting.

Listen to how hypocritical you sound.

 

[Brain357]

Try the death toll at Sandy Hook, then get back to me.

So 4 dead and wounding 7 isn't a mass shooting? Clearly there are worse shootings, look at today. But your actually going to say that's not a mass shooting?

Well, the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi didn't really bother you that much, so no, I don't believe for a liberal this is a mass shooting.

Listen to how hypocritical you sound.

I'm an independent. Please show me where I ever said Benghazi didn't really bother me?

I was asking you. Is that a mass shooting? How many deaths does it take for you?

 

[williepete]

A military base is not a gun free zone, retard.

Wrong.

In 1993, under Clinton's leadership, the military ordered all military bases gun free zones. Only MPs are allowed to be armed, just like only police and security guards are allowed to be armed at the all the other gun free zones in which mass shootings have occurred.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

More here:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/r190_14.pdf

and here:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones | Fox News

Does it hurt to always be so damn wrong?

Now, you were saying something about being retarded???

Please guys, stop quoting Synthaholic in your responses. It's not necessary and the ignore feature is such a nice filter. Thanks.

Military bases being gun free zones were in place long before 1993. When I reported to my first AFB in 1977, I could not enter the base with a firearm or a large knife. I knew this beforehand and didn't bring them. After I settled in, I brought down my target rifle and pistol. The restrictions, regulations, storage and handling were strict and the punishments were severe. As in 'you're done' severe.

State-Side Military bases were the original gun free zones. Overseas non-combat areas were even more strict. The ignorance of this that I witnessed today while surfing the talking heads was amazing. Just goes to show how few people still serve our country anymore.

 

[Synthaholic]

A military base is not a gun free zone, retard.

Wrong.

In 1993, under Clinton's leadership, the military ordered all military bases gun free zones. Only MPs are allowed to be armed, just like only police and security guards are allowed to be armed at the all the other gun free zones in which mass shootings have occurred.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

More here:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/r190_14.pdf

and here:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones | Fox News

Does it hurt to always be so damn wrong?

Now, you were saying something about being retarded???

From your own link:

SUMMARY of CHANGE


AR 190–14

Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties

This revision--

o Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.

o Clearly establishes minimum qualification requirements for military police and Department of the Army law enforcement and security personnel (para 2-3).

o Expands authorization documentation options for authorizing officials (para 2-4).


o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).

o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition (para 2-6).


o Prohibits carrying of firearms by persons taking prescription drugs or other medication that may cause drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment (para 2-7).

o Prohibits consumption of alcohol within 8 hours of carrying firearm or flying
in aircraft (paras 2-7 and 4-3).

o Requires the use of deadly force with firearms be applied equally to personnel using a weapon or equipment which, when properly employed in their intended application, would exert deadly force (para 3-2)



​

FAIL

 

[Synthaholic]

I just read on NBC Washington that Alexis only had a short barrel pump action shotgun when he entered the secured area.

He ambushed a guard and took his 9mm and ammunition...

He used that weapon to get the AR-15 from an officer.

That's the Lamestream media - you can't believe THEM!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But how many times a day does a blind squirrel find a nut?

 

[Missourian]

I just read on NBC Washington that Alexis only had a short barrel pump action shotgun when he entered the secured area.

He ambushed a guard and took his 9mm and ammunition...

He used that weapon to get the AR-15 from an officer.

nobody could prepare for this..

I agree.

Guards fall into a routine...they become complacent.

There are techniques to reduce this complacency...and they'll be instated...for awhile, until the next bout of routine emerges.

 

[Synthaholic]

4 dead and wounding 7 others isn't a mass shooting? That's pretty mass in my world.

Try the death toll at Sandy Hook, then get back to me.

So 4 dead and wounding 7 isn't a mass shooting? Clearly there are worse shootings, look at today. But your actually going to say that's not a mass shooting?

She's a moron. Don't waste your time with her.

 

[eflatminor]

A military base is not a gun free zone, retard.

Wrong.

In 1993, under Clinton's leadership, the military ordered all military bases gun free zones. Only MPs are allowed to be armed, just like only police and security guards are allowed to be armed at the all the other gun free zones in which mass shootings have occurred.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.

Read more: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

More here:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/r190_14.pdf

and here:

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones | Fox News

Does it hurt to always be so damn wrong?

Now, you were saying something about being retarded???

From your own link:

SUMMARY of CHANGE


AR 190–14

Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties

This revision--

o Implements applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56.

o Clearly establishes minimum qualification requirements for military police and Department of the Army law enforcement and security personnel (para 2-3).

o Expands authorization documentation options for authorizing officials (para 2-4).


o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).

o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or ammunition (para 2-6).


o Prohibits carrying of firearms by persons taking prescription drugs or other medication that may cause drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment (para 2-7).

o Prohibits consumption of alcohol within 8 hours of carrying firearm or flying
in aircraft (paras 2-7 and 4-3).

o Requires the use of deadly force with firearms be applied equally to personnel using a weapon or equipment which, when properly employed in their intended application, would exert deadly force (para 3-2)



​

FAIL

Uhh...you overlooked the "law enforcement" part.

You trying to tell us soldiers and civilian contractors can freely carry a firearm on a military base?

Didn't think so.

Sorry dipshit, you FAILED.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No kidding. I'm still shaking my head. It's beyond bizarre. Nothing factual or historical which could lead to this conclusion.

For the benefit of Asclepias:

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Full essay:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

Conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the
only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create
a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

-DAVID E. VANDERCOY, Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law

Thanks for providing a link. Here's mine. Word to the wise. Historians omitted or glossed over lots of things.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

I'm POSITIVE that tinydancer will be along shortly to apologize to you.

Because she's classy!

he uses a conspiracy website references an article by Carl T. Bogus and you think he deserves an apology?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for providing a link. Here's mine. Word to the wise. Historians omitted or glossed over lots of things.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Truth out dot org? You consider that a reliable source?

Tell you what, just so that your brain doesn't fart if I try to explain why no legitimate law article would be written using a pseudonym, let us conclude that you are 100% right. I will then switch my defense of the right to keep and bear arms to the 14th Amendment, which was clearly ratified with the intention of arming former slaves so they could fight off the whites who wanted to oppress them. Unfortunately, assholes like you, argued that it did apply to the states, which allowed the states to prohibit people from owning guns without a background check that involved skin color. By continuing to argue that there is no personal right to bear arms, even for the descendents of slaves, you are a racist, not me.

The author is Thom Hartmann, and he is a reliable source, and not the only source.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Patrols-Violence-Carolinas-Historical/dp/0674012348/"]Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas (Harvard Historical Studies): Sally E. Hadden: 9780674012349: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]



We already had a whole thread on this subject, that I started back in January:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...endment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery.html

Keep telling yourself that, it might help you with your guilt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you want to wait until Friday to find that out?

I'm giving them enough time to start unwinding this guy's past.

Usually takes about three days to find all his friends to tell us he was nuts, and the gun store admitting they sold him a small arsenal despite that quirky look in his eye.

Fox news is reporting he told friends he was going to thailand and stayed for more than a month...

My guess is he didn't go to thailand...but instead headed to a training camp.

Just a guess, no proof...a gut feeling.

He claimed to be a Buddhist, did he go to a Tamir Tigers camp?

 

[Missourian]

NBC News correspondent Pete Williams is reporting Alexis purchased a shotgun in Lorton, Va. during the past week or so.

The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms.

13 Dead, 14 Wounded in Shooting at D.C. Navy Yard, Suspected Gunman Dead | NBC4 Washington

Hard to believe what anyone is saying just yet. Sad day though.

I certainly wouldn't take it to the bank...but listening to the multiple press conferences, when asked about weapons involved, they seemed quite guarded...more than should have been the case.

That coupled with this report, I expect we will learn that this is correct.

Very sad day. With all that security, there is an expectation of safety.

That makes the reality even worse.

What is the solution?

A rhetorical question arising from frustration...we can debate it next week.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two things we are going to find out about this guy by Friday.

1) Everyone in his life knew he was seriously disturbed with serious problems.

2) Despite that it was much too easy for him to get a gun.

Why do you want to wait until Friday to find that out?

^^^ Reading comprehension issues.

You should have used >>>.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What was the purpose of the Constitution, QW?

Let's keep it simple for you.

It was written so that idiots on message boards could argue about why it was written.

Is this an admission that you don't know?

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a guy that doesn't appreciate reality.