Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 #1 Share Posted September 17, 2013 It is better to honor the dead than clout up the topic dedicated to their tragic demises. The political aspects of the Navy Yard shooting should be discussed on a separate topic. Here we go! http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/following-navy-yard-shooting-dianne-feinstein-calls-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-20130916 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Senate's leading voices on gun control, called for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of Monday's killings at Washington's Navy Yard. The California Democrat said the deaths of the 12 people Monday were at the hands of a man armed with an AR-15, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic handgun, although details of his weapons have not been confirmed. Her statement reads in part: "This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted September 17, 2013 #2 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Yet again it was in a gun free zone. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 17, 2013 #3 Share Posted September 17, 2013 and yet laws are absolutely powerless to stop shootings, and she knows it. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted September 17, 2013 #4 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Yet again it was in a gun free zone. Of course it was a gun-free zone, it was a bloody military base. All firearms on a military base are scrupulously secured in the armoury. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #5 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Yet again it was in a gun free zone. More like a gun-free zone within a gun-free zone. Washington itself is a gun-free zone; military installations don't allow active members to carry. Except for Military Police; and even then, they may not have live or actual ammunition in their sidearms. and yet laws are absolutely powerless to stop shootings, and she knows it. She's an evil witch, in my opinion, who stood on the bodies of those poor dead children from Newtown. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted September 17, 2013 #6 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Saying a military installation is gun-free is kind of like saying a Chicago or D.C. police station is gun-free. That place had armed security and metal detectors. Not much you can do though when someone unloads into a crowded cafeteria. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 17, 2013 #7 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^^ so how come no one shot him?? why fort hood shoter was not stopped in his tracks? how long do you think someone would continue shooting if he started it at a police station? how many times have you heard of a shooting at police station?? (a hint, all cops are armed) why aren't soldiers? Edited September 17, 2013 by aztek 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #8 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Saying a military installation is gun-free is kind of like saying a Chicago or D.C. police station is gun-free. That place had armed security and metal detectors. Not much you can do though when someone unloads into a crowded cafeteria. Most weapons are stored on military bases. ^^^^^^ so how come no one shot him?? why fort hood shoter was not stopped in his tracks? how long do you think someone would continue shooting if he started it at a police station? how many times have you heard of a shooting at police station?? (a hint, all cops are armed) why aren't soldiers? The same reason.. Most workers were unarmed. The soldiers at Fort Hood had to wait for the police to arrive to be saved. It's clear to me that Gun Control doesn't work, and historically it's the policy of brain-dead or evil leaders. Gun-free zones + Gun Control + ? = Profit! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted September 17, 2013 #9 Share Posted September 17, 2013 yeah. Feinstein is an evil witch. we all hate her in California yet she somehow blows smoke up her cronies' arses and viola! shes in office for another term. I wish some gun man would break into DC and shoot with a paintball gun just to prove a point. but hit her in the eyes and blind the witch...seriously. I would challenge her to a dual if I could. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted September 17, 2013 #10 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Most weapons are stored on military bases. The same reason.. Most workers were unarmed. The soldiers at Fort Hood had to wait for the police to arrive to be saved. It's clear to me that Gun Control doesn't work, and historically it's the policy of brain-dead or evil leaders. Gun-free zones + Gun Control + ? = Profit! Yes... especially when the ones creating the laws walk around with fully armed body guards.... says a lot about who they're really protecting. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #11 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) yeah. Feinstein is an evil witch. we all hate her in California yet she somehow blows smoke up her cronies' arses and viola! shes in office for another term. I wish some gun man would break into DC and shoot with a paintball gun just to prove a point. but hit her in the eyes and blind the witch...seriously. I would challenge her to a dual if I could. I hope you'd pull an Aaron Burr / Alexander Hamilton and use flintlocks for the extra laugh. It's the gentleman's way. While Feinstein surely isn't gentle with her intentions, she sure is a man. Or at least looks the part with her evil eyes and need to enable destructive policies. Yes... especially when the ones creating the laws walk around with fully armed body guards.... says a lot about who they're really protecting. Themselves and no one else. They take the money of the poor (the ones not on welfare and food stamps), and live freely to excess, take vacation after vacation (or is it just Obama that takes eight vacations?), all the while almost passive aggressively passing laws that deliberately target the rights of the people that they are supposed to protect. To me, Miss Feinstein looks like she has another opportunity to put another tragedy to good use. Edited September 17, 2013 by Hatake Kakashi 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen_jacobs Posted September 17, 2013 #12 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Interestingly enough, there are a few sacrificial lambs that carry guns. They are meant to slow the bad folks down. Otherwise all guns from persons and/or residences on the base are stored in the Armory leaving 99% unarmed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 17, 2013 #13 Share Posted September 17, 2013 More like a gun-free zone within a gun-free zone. Washington itself is a gun-free zone; military installations don't allow active members to carry. Except for Military Police; and even then, they may not have live or actual ammunition in their sidearms. She's an evil witch, in my opinion, who stood on the bodies of those poor dead children from Newtown. Didn't she initially gain notoriety in SF after Harvey Milk was assassinated? If I remember that correctly I'd say she's been stepping on bodies for a while now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted September 17, 2013 #14 Share Posted September 17, 2013 yeah. Feinstein is an evil witch. we all hate her in California apparently you are in a vanishing minority. She won 63% of the vote in the last election. "everyone" has a strange meaning your mind... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #15 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Didn't she initially gain notoriety in SF after Harvey Milk was assassinated? If I remember that correctly I'd say she's been stepping on bodies for a while now. If it goes back that far, geeze, I'd say longer than a while. Then again, it doesn't surprise me. Most politicians make a living on the bodies of thousands; whether victims of gun-free zones or 'peace' bombs dropped on foreign soil as the result of drones, air strikes, or whatever mode of destruction. There is no boundary for their shame. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted September 17, 2013 #16 Share Posted September 17, 2013 ^^^^^^ so how come no one shot him?? why fort hood shoter was not stopped in his tracks? how long do you think someone would continue shooting if he started it at a police station? how many times have you heard of a shooting at police station?? (a hint, all cops are armed) why aren't soldiers? Cops on duty are armed. Soldiers on guard duty are armed. Cops don't walk around the office carrying, so neither do soldiers on a military base, in what's supposed to be a safe country (ie they are armed and armoured in Iraq). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #17 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Cops on duty are armed. Soldiers on guard duty are armed. Cops don't walk around the office carrying, so neither do soldiers on a military base, in what's supposed to be a safe country (ie they are armed and armoured in Iraq). It is logical, because although the soldiers may be active, they are not in a combat zone. (Unless you consider the 2012 NDAA which labels all of the world, including America, as a battlefield) It is just unfortunate that none of the soldiers or workers had a sidearm. That sucker would have been done in quicker than you can spread butter on toast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderOTD Posted September 17, 2013 #18 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) From what I understand the shooting took place in a contracted civilian area, many of which were once active duty military personel, not surprising that there wouldn't be to many fire arms as they were relying on the 2 to 3 check points in place to keep the area secure. edit: i don't believe this has anything to do with the on going gun debates myself, just a matter of how the security in that building failed so far as to allow an armed man using a stolen ID card to enter and kill indiscriminately Edited September 17, 2013 by EnderOTD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 17, 2013 #19 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) Cops don't walk around the office carrying, . they sure do. they are armed 24\7. in the office, on the streets, off duty...... Edited September 17, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted September 17, 2013 #20 Share Posted September 17, 2013 they sure do. they are armed 24\7. in the office, on the streets, off duty...... really? Not here in a sane country they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 17, 2013 Author #21 Share Posted September 17, 2013 From what I understand the shooting took place in a contracted civilian area, many of which were once active duty military personel, not surprising that there wouldn't be to many fire arms as they were relying on the 2 to 3 check points in place to keep the area secure. edit: i don't believe this has anything to do with the on going gun debates myself, just a matter of how the security in that building failed so far as to allow an armed man using a stolen ID card to enter and kill indiscriminately Apparently he had secret clearance and might have used that to get in. I'm not sure. they sure do. they are armed 24\7. in the office, on the streets, off duty...... I live across the street from a detective in my town's local police force. He doesn't have his gun on him all day every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberKen Posted September 17, 2013 #22 Share Posted September 17, 2013 and yet laws are absolutely powerless to stop shootings, and she knows it. She is a con artist. She wants to gain your confidence with a false narrative and then take your guns. Gun grabbing liberals get thrown out of office. Look what happened in Colorado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 17, 2013 #23 Share Posted September 17, 2013 live across the street from a detective in my town's local police force. He doesn't have his gun on him all day every day. than he either one of a kind, or you just don't know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted September 17, 2013 #24 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I know the local police were I grew up always had a firearm with them. Even at the station. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted September 17, 2013 #25 Share Posted September 17, 2013 More like a gun-free zone within a gun-free zone. Washington itself is a gun-free zone; military installations don't allow active members to carry. Except for Military Police; and even then, they may not have live or actual ammunition in their sidearms. Yep. The MPs don't even have actual ammunition in their guns most of the time. I wouldn't want to have that job..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now