• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now They're Saying The Naval Yard Shooter Only Had A Shotgun!

OK....how do you feel about a national registry and thirty day delays in weapons purchases? How about closing down gun shows which sell 40% of all purchases in a parking lot or even worse than that dishonest managers....not that that is even a possibility. Yeah Right.
All of that doesn't solve any of the problems we'd like for it to. I could buy an AR from a private seller with no record of the transaction at all, collect the weapon immediately, and no one would be the wiser. None of what you suggest will ameliorate such business, and you and I both know that such transactions happen all the time. Do you honestly thing for even a second that those who intend to use such weapons illegally are concerned with meeting the letter of such laws? They aren't.

Don't forget that it hasn't been long at all since a crazy son-of-a-bitch mowed down 20 first graders and half a dozen more who were brave enough to try and stop him. He didn't have a shotgun and he had multiple thirty clips for his AR-15.
And if the shooter had an automatic shotgun with 30 round drum mags he would've done worse. The key here, as in other such events, is that the sumbitch was crazy. I have to say that I hope I have your enthusiasm at 79, if I live to see it. I just hope it's derived from something besides politics, but I have to give you the credit you deserve for keeping the blood flowing and the fires burning.
 
Kind of amazing but it's the way you folks think. You blame Obama for everything from his inheiritance of the Bush mess to who has the clap but when something negative happens under one of your tax cutting presidents you look through every congressional record technicality and every possible way to blame it on anybody or anything else. Keep it up. You've been found out. Besides losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections Romney won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under thirty I'm betting that you've seen the last Republican in the white house for the next few decades....maybe longer than that.

OK, now I have you pegged, a libtard.

Now where did I say a single thing about President Obama? And where did I say a single solitary thing about Congress or the Congressional Record?

I did not, in fact I stated 2 decisions by the Supreme Court, which would make any "Congressional Record" irrelevant.

But you do not care, because you want to place blame for something on somebody that had nothing to do with it, and are evidently pissed that I so totally destroyed your claim that you are coming back with a bunch of complete nonsense in a blatant political attack, that has nothing to do with the facts.

Now since in your own words I "blame Obama for everything from his inheiritance (sp) of the Bush mess", kindly where I have done so, hmmm? I think you will find that I have actually blamed him for very little over the last 6 years, and in fact defended him in here on several occasions.

So now sir this is "put up or shut up". Please find any instances where I blamed President Obama for anything that he himself did not do. Oh please-please-please do so, because I would love to see it.
 
Jared Lee Loughner, as well

*nods*

Was not trying to go into a detailed list from Charles Whitman to present, just trying to point out that the law for background checks needs to be enforced. And since there is no system in place to list or verify mental illness, that is a week point of the entire system that must be resolved.
 
*nods*

Was not trying to go into a detailed list from Charles Whitman to present, just trying to point out that the law for background checks needs to be enforced. And since there is no system in place to list or verify mental illness, that is a week point of the entire system that must be resolved.

But it must include due process of law, not merely the "professional" opinion of some wingnut. The problem with involuntary commitment is that you are typically evaluated, given some diagnosis and quickly released yet never get a hearing of any kind, thus if you are ever given treatment, you are likely then banned for life from having your 2A rights, yet never were given due process. Being "crazy" is not a crime.
 
If the weapons weren't for sale they would have been stopped. The idea of military styled assault weapons being in the hands of every kooky son-of-a-bitch in the country is asinine. When a guy can drop 300 rounds(10 30 clips) and a semi automatic rifle into some kind of fanny pack or book sack and proceed on the streets unnoticed and commit mass murder there's something really bad going on. ***Only In America***

And you see, this is why you completely fail.

In the 3 latest mass shootings by crazy people, no military style weapons were used!

I wish I could put that up on blazing lights. Jared Lee Loughner killed 6 and wounded 19 with a pistol.

Aaron Alexis killed 13 and wounded 3 with a shotgun and pistol.

In neither of these instances was a "military styled assault rifle" used in any way.

AR-15.jpg


And if you think this is an "only in America" type of thing, maybe I should tell you about countries where seeing people walk down the street with AKs was not uncommon.

But thank you for making my list of people (both right and left) that I consider nothing but "political stooges", and have nothing of interest to say.

However, if you ever want to discuss facts, please come again. If you only want to throw around political sewage, I don't need you.
 
Last edited:
But it must include due process of law, not merely the "professional" opinion of some wingnut. The problem with involuntary commitment is that you are typically evaluated, given some diagnosis and quickly released yet never get a hearing of any kind, thus if you are ever given treatment, you are likely then banned for life from having your 2A rights, yet never were given due process. Being "crazy" is not a crime.

No, it is not. But I look at the sheer number of people who are (not was, are) mentally ill and then go on and shoot people, and it really pisses me off.

And it is not all mass shooters either. John Hinckley and Mark David Chapman likely would not have been allowed to purchase a firearm if a check of their mental history had been done. And I want to keep firearms out of the hands of people that are legally prohibited from owning them.

And that is the largest problem with everything from The Brady Law on down. It mandates this and demands this, but leaves gigantic gaping holes which nobody does anything about. Like mandating that crazy people not be allowed to buy guns.
 
All of that doesn't solve any of the problems we'd like for it to. I could buy an AR from a private seller with no record of the transaction at all, collect the weapon immediately, and no one would be the wiser. None of what you suggest will ameliorate such business, and you and I both know that such transactions happen all the time. Do you honestly thing for even a second that those who intend to use such weapons illegally are concerned with meeting the letter of such laws? They aren't.

And if the shooter had an automatic shotgun with 30 round drum mags he would've done worse. The key here, as in other such events, is that the sumbitch was crazy. I have to say that I hope I have your enthusiasm at 79, if I live to see it. I just hope it's derived from something besides politics, but I have to give you the credit you deserve for keeping the blood flowing and the fires burning.

That is the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard. With a shot gun there ain't no such bull**** as carrying 300 rounds in extra magazines and you have two choices for the six or eight rounds you do have. Either spread a wide pattern of smaller shot in which case you would more than likely wound several but kill no one or choke it down and get in a couple of shots. This guy was lethal because of the Glock he took from a cop. He was lethal because of the lack of resistance. In Sandy Hook one of the teachers lost her own life but more than likely saved a dozen. Anybody who thinks there's a need for military styled semi automatic assault weapons on the street for other than law enforcement is cruel and uncaring....in other words Republicans.
 
That is the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard. With a shot gun there ain't no such bull**** as carrying 300 rounds in extra magazines and you have two choices for the six or eight rounds you do have.

Nope, wrong.

s7_231119_010_01


It is called a "drum magazine", and you would probably know about it if you knew anything about weapons. Not that this is really all that needed. I was more then capable of firing 10 shots from a 5 round tube magazine in less then 10 seconds. And hitting all of my targets at a range of 10 meters.



Now how about you stop trying to steer the discussion to "assault rifles" and "gun control", and stick on topic, eh?

And no, I would not say the guy was "more lethal" because of the Glock at all. If somebody came up to me and said I was going to be shot, did I want it from a Glock or a Shotgun, I would take the Glock every single time. This is because a shotgun is not just a killing machine, it is designed to turn it's target into shredded Hamburger Helper (tm). And this is by design, because when you are trying to take down big game like an elk or moose or bear, you do not want to mess around with putting nice clean little holes in him. You want to chew up his vital organs fast, so hopefully he drops before he gets to you.
 
Last edited:
Late Flash! They just said Alexis had modified the shotgun and had no specific targets. If he had done the same thing to an AR-15 he could have killed 100. Modifying an AR-15 would make it fully automatic. With a weapon like that, 300 rounds and firing indiscriminately I'd say the only real limitation on the number of potential victims would be practically unlimited for someone who met no resistance.

Bottom Line......we need to get these damned military weapons out of the hands of killers.
 
Last edited:
I can't, because the requirements are the same. Military, Civilian, Contractor, we all go through the exact same clearance process.

In fact, that is why such jobs are frequently sought after by former military who have clearances. They are generally good for 7 years, and are simply deactivated when we are no longer in a position that requires them. All he would have basically had to do is file to have his clearance reinstated because of job needs for the DoD, and they would have granted it.

I myself have a clearance, and had them several times. From 1984-1987 I had one because of my position in the military, it was suspended in 1987 because I moved to a position that did not require my having a clearance.

Then in 2008 I got a new one, once again because of my position. I held that until 2012 when I left active duty. It was reactivated in January 2013 and remains current because the job I now have in the Reserves mandates that I have an active Secret clearance. ANd reactivating the clearance is a simple administrative procedure, nothing more.

This guy got out of the Navy 2 years ago, where he had a position that mandated such a clearance. I bet they did the exact same thing for him. The clearance is the same for all members who work for the Government, it does not matter who they are or where the work.

There is no "Military Secret Clearance", "DoD Secret Clearance", "State Department Secret Clearance", "FBI Secret Clearance", etc, etc, etc.

What about all of this do you not comprehend?

I also had clearance back in the 90's so I could come in an uranium enrichment plant operated by a contractor of the DOD. They call my local sheriff and chief of police after no discovery of criminal activity. SO either alot has changed or someone did not do their job.
 
I also had clearance back in the 90's so I could come in an uranium enrichment plant operated by a contractor of the DOD. They call my local sheriff and chief of police after no discovery of criminal activity. SO either alot has changed or someone did not do their job.

I got my last clearance in 2008.

No, it has not changed at all. What is it that you do not understand about this. Having a criminal record does not preclude you from getting a clearance!

I myself have an arrest record. Shoplifting when I was a juvenile, failure to appear on a speeding ticket (45 days in county jail), and for failing to pay a no insurance ticket (2 days in city jail). And I know guys that had clearances even though they had incidents with assault, petty theft, one even had an involuntary manslaughter conviction!

Let me say this one last time, see if it sinks in yet:

A Security Clearance only cares about the handling of classified documents and materials!

Yes, they check your police record. And if you have arrests or convictions of things like embezzlement, prostitution, fraud, identity theft, things that might make you a risk handling classified material (or a risk for blackmail which might compromise such material).

Just like they check your credit. If you are living beyond your means or deep in debt you will not get a security clearance either. Everything else may be perfect, but if they think you might be a target for bribery, no clearance for you.
 
Damn.....If he can fight off a company and the DC police and kill twelve people with a shotgun I definitely want to be on his team. NRA Influence? Surely Not!

I've never heard of a sniper using a shotgun. 'Course I'm just 79.

You're 79 years old, now your posts make sense.


You clearly have senile dementia.
 
I got my last clearance in 2008.

No, it has not changed at all. What is it that you do not understand about this. Having a criminal record does not preclude you from getting a clearance!

I myself have an arrest record. Shoplifting when I was a juvenile, failure to appear on a speeding ticket (45 days in county jail), and for failing to pay a no insurance ticket (2 days in city jail). And I know guys that had clearances even though they had incidents with assault, petty theft, one even had an involuntary manslaughter conviction!

Let me say this one last time, see if it sinks in yet:

A Security Clearance only cares about the handling of classified documents and materials!

Yes, they check your police record. And if you have arrests or convictions of things like embezzlement, prostitution, fraud, identity theft, things that might make you a risk handling classified material (or a risk for blackmail which might compromise such material).

Just like they check your credit. If you are living beyond your means or deep in debt you will not get a security clearance either. Everything else may be perfect, but if they think you might be a target for bribery, no clearance for you.

That's nothing surprising. About 2003, 2004 when the mission was accomplished in Iraq the military couldn't get up enough volunteers to hold a good cockfight. Guess What??? They lowered the requirements for enlisted personnel to the point where a person who never graduated from high school and had a rap sheep for drug violations and misdemeanors could get in:

GB-mission-accomplished.jpg
 
That's nothing surprising. About 2003, 2004 when the mission was accomplished in Iraq the military couldn't get up enough volunteers to hold a good cockfight. Guess What??? They lowered the requirements for enlisted personnel to the point where a person who never graduated from high school and had a rap sheep for drug violations and misdemeanors could get in:

Seriously, I must be trying to have a debate with a 12 year old child here.

"Wahhhh! I can't win so I am going to sidetrack the discussion by slamming Bush again! Waaaaa!"

political-pictures-vladimir-putin-expelliarmus.jpg


Expelliarmus, foul troll!
 
That's nothing surprising. About 2003, 2004 when the mission was accomplished in Iraq the military couldn't get up enough volunteers to hold a good cockfight. Guess What??? They lowered the requirements for enlisted personnel to the point where a person who never graduated from high school and had a rap sheep for drug violations and misdemeanors could get in:

GB-mission-accomplished.jpg

dude seriously.

the fact that the gunman had security clearance is probably a result of a large bureaucracy being slow to update its records and make changes.

this senseless bloodbath in the naval yard had nothing to with Iraq, and personally i am not going to assume the gunman's political ideology until they actually give evidence of political ideology being a motive.
 
Seriously, I must be trying to have a debate with a 12 year old child here.

"Wahhhh! I can't win so I am going to sidetrack the discussion by slamming Bush again! Waaaaa!"

political-pictures-vladimir-putin-expelliarmus.jpg


Expelliarmus, foul troll!

SHUCKS....I was showing the poorer personnel in the military. You know......like the Bush recession and what it has done to what used to be the middle class in this country. Not To Worry.....your asses have been found out. You can be sure that blacks, latinos, Asians, women, gays, etc. will take your asses to task in every election going forward. The two faced bible thumpers will lose again.
 
Last edited:
That is the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard. With a shot gun there ain't no such bull**** as carrying 300 rounds in extra magazines and you have two choices for the six or eight rounds you do have. Either spread a wide pattern of smaller shot in which case you would more than likely wound several but kill no one or choke it down and get in a couple of shots. This guy was lethal because of the Glock he took from a cop. He was lethal because of the lack of resistance. In Sandy Hook one of the teachers lost her own life but more than likely saved a dozen. Anybody who thinks there's a need for military styled semi automatic assault weapons on the street for other than law enforcement is cruel and uncaring....in other words Republicans.
Pfft. I have an automatic shotgun with 30 round drum mags. Last time I checked, I hadn't participated in any mass murders. You're barking up the wrong tree.
 
SHUCKS....I was showing the poorer personnel in the military. You know......like the Bush recession and what it has done to what used to be the middle class in this country. Not To Worry.....your asses have been found out. You can be sure that blacks, latinos, Asians, women, gays, etc. will take your asses to task in every election going forward. The two faced bible thumpers will lose again.

Oh my goodness, you mean my wife and son are now going to come after me? Not only that but I myself am a minority, I guess I am going to have to go after myself!

And will you make up your mind the timeframe you are talking about? The "reduction of standards" was not until 2007, when they ran short of recruitment. It was not in 2003-2004, recruitment was still high then from 9-11.

And the "Bush Recession, that was 2008 dude. We were already in one when he took office in 2001.

And yea, "poor military". I can buy that, in a way.

When I went back in in 2007, I took a pretty hefty pay cut. So yea, while in the military I will not deny I was "poorer". And now I am back in the Reserves, my civilian pay is much higher then my military one. In fact, they are nice enough that when I go on orders they pay the difference between my military and civilian pay, so I am not not on a financial hardship do to being activated.

Why can you not just stick to the issue at hand? You keep sidebaring it to several other themes, all because you are unable to back up anything that you say.

That is really pathetic. I must really be dealing with an 8 year old here, 12 year old's have better comprehension.
 
Pfft. I have an automatic shotgun with 30 round drum mags. Last time I checked, I hadn't participated in any mass murders. You're barking up the wrong tree.

It will take a while but finally every NRA supported congressman/woman will see what an utter failure the Right has become. Then...maybe Americans on the street will be able to leave their home or office in the middle of the night and not feel like they have to go armed. We're the only industrialized nation in the world which hangs onto those primitive values.
 
Pfft. I have an automatic shotgun with 30 round drum mags. Last time I checked, I hadn't participated in any mass murders. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Don't expect much. He has not even acknowledged that shotguns can have magazines. Or that somebody who is experienced can reload them almost as fast as they can pull the trigger.

And that a Glock is more deadly then a shotgun. I guess he has never seen what a slug can do to a body, or 00 buck at close range (in a 12 gauge, that is 9 32 calibre pellets all fired at the same time).

With a 5 round magazine in 12 gauge, that is the same as having a 32 calibre pistol that can fire 45 rounds without reloading.

But no, a Glock is more deadly... because it is a Glock!
 
It will take a while but finally every NRA supported congressman/woman will see what an utter failure the Right has become. Then...maybe Americans on the street will be able to leave their home or office in the middle of the night and not feel like they have to go armed. We're the only industrialized nation in the world which hangs onto those primitive values.

Wow, a mite bit paranoid, are you not?

I have lived in Compton, Inglewood, and East LA. I have never once felt the "need to go armed". If I can not live in that kind of fear in some of the worst slums in the country, that tells me the level of fear and paranoia that you live in.

Seek psychological help, please.
 
Wow, a mite bit paranoid, are you not?

I have lived in Compton, Inglewood, and East LA. I have never once felt the "need to go armed". If I can not live in that kind of fear in some of the worst slums in the country, that tells me the level of fear and paranoia that you live in.

Seek psychological help, please.

By God somebody feels like they need to go armed. The NRA is a tool and the Republican party is an accomplice. Check this in your spare time:


How Many Guns Are in the United States?

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey that in 1994, 44 million people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns(25). Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one firearm(26).

According to the ATF, by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States(27). That total includes roughly 72 million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64 million shotguns(28). By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259 million: 92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns(29). By 2007, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns(30)….

By … 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns(36). Per capita, the civilian gun stock has roughly doubled since 1968, from one gun per every two persons to one gun per person…

Sources cited:

25) Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NCJ 165476, May 1999, http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf.

26) Ibid.

27) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000, pp. A3-A5.

28) Ibid., pp. A3-A5.

29) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002, ATF P 9000.4, April 2002, pp. E1-E3.

30) U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Annual Firearm Manufacturing and Export Reports for 2002 through 2007, along with firearms import data provided by the ATF Firearms and Explosives Import Branch.

36) U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Commerce in the United States 2011, August 2011, pp. 11, 13, and 15.


Congressional Research Service Reports - Miscellaneous Topics
 
Last edited:
By God somebody feels like they need to go armed. The NRA is a tool and the Republican party is an accomplice. Check this in your spare time:

And what does this have to do with what happened in Washington, or the fact he had a shotgun?

Nothing, how about stopping the derailment of the thread and stick to the topic and the facts.
 
I got my last clearance in 2008.

No, it has not changed at all. What is it that you do not understand about this. Having a criminal record does not preclude you from getting a clearance!

I myself have an arrest record. Shoplifting when I was a juvenile, failure to appear on a speeding ticket (45 days in county jail), and for failing to pay a no insurance ticket (2 days in city jail). And I know guys that had clearances even though they had incidents with assault, petty theft, one even had an involuntary manslaughter conviction!

Let me say this one last time, see if it sinks in yet:

A Security Clearance only cares about the handling of classified documents and materials!

Yes, they check your police record. And if you have arrests or convictions of things like embezzlement, prostitution, fraud, identity theft, things that might make you a risk handling classified material (or a risk for blackmail which might compromise such material).

Just like they check your credit. If you are living beyond your means or deep in debt you will not get a security clearance either. Everything else may be perfect, but if they think you might be a target for bribery, no clearance for you.

No, a criminal background will keep you out of an uranium enrichment plant, the big red letters only make you look worse.:roll:
 
No, a criminal background will keep you out of an uranium enrichment plant, the big red letters only make you look worse.:roll:

I see, and are you trying to tell me that nobody there has ever been arrested? They all have absolutely clean criminal records?

Nope, did not think so. It depends on what the criminal record is for.
 
Back
Top Bottom