Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

Diane Frankenstein Calls for Stricter Gun Control Following Navy Yard Shooting


Recommended Posts

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/following-navy-yard-shooting-dianne-feinstein-calls-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-20130916

 

Maybe IF bubba hadn't disarmed troops on U.S. military bases, this could have been stopped.....when the only one armed is the thug, not much good can happen.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/following-navy-yard-shooting-dianne-feinstein-calls-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-20130916

 

Maybe IF bubba hadn't disarmed troops on U.S. military bases, this could have been stopped.....when the only one armed is the thug, not much good can happen.....

Lap Dog, you'd miss a beach ball with a tennis racket. But we half way agree...gun control is not the answer in this instance. Tell me however why didn't a background check "out" this nut? As .some were trying to point out on another thread, resposibility starts with identifying the nut cases and restricting their access to jobs, guns, positions of responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lap Dog, you'd miss a beach ball with a tennis racket. But we half way agree...gun control is not the answer in this instance. Tell me however why didn't a background check "out" this nut? As .some were trying to point out on another thread, resposibility starts with identifying the nut cases and restricting their access to jobs, guns, positions of responsibility.

How will any of that prevent a criminal from getting a gun illegally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lap Dog, you'd miss a beach ball with a tennis racket. But we half way agree...gun control is not the answer in this instance. Tell me however why didn't a background check "out" this nut? As .some were trying to point out on another thread, resposibility starts with identifying the nut cases and restricting their access to jobs, guns, positions of responsibility.

 

Now just who do you suppose dropped the ball when the man a SECRET clearance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How will any of that prevent a criminal from getting a gun illegally?

"Prevent a criminal from getting a gun illegally"? Criminals get (possess) guns illegally...for the most part. A big question is , how did this man pass a background to gain access to this facility"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Diane .... they announced today the gunman only had a shotgun and also used a handgun he picked up from one of his victims. He never used a dreaded "assault rifle" in his killing spree. She has really got to be disappointed in learning these facts, as it doesn't help her anti-gun agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew this was coming. Liberals can't wait to run to an open microphone every time something like this happens. Punishing the people that did not shoot, or kill anyone yesterday will not make us safer. Criminals will not follow the law anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Diane .... they announced today the gunman only had a shotgun and also used a handgun he picked up from one of his victims. He never used a dreaded "assault rifle" in his killing spree. She has really got to be disappointed in learning these facts, as it doesn't help her anti-gun agenda.

Shotguns are very effective close range weapons. They can be "killing machines" and the range is restricted to the raid area. Stray projectiles don't travel across the street etc. I don't see this as a gun control issue...and I am a proud educated experienced liberal Democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shotguns are very effective close range weapons. They can be "killing machines" and the range is restricted to the raid area. Stray projectiles don't travel across the street etc. I don't see this as a gun control issue...and I am a proud educated experienced liberal Democrat.

No way Sherlock ... where did you get your first clue? Educated? ... that's a laugh There are a lot of educated liberal idiots. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lap Dog, you'd miss a beach ball with a tennis racket. But we half way agree...gun control is not the answer in this instance. Tell me however why didn't a background check "out" this nut? As .some were trying to point out on another thread, resposibility starts with identifying the nut cases and restricting their access to jobs, guns, positions of responsibility.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".......the fact that he had a clearance goes to show that background checks are a waste of time......

Link to post
Share on other sites

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".......the fact that he had a clearance goes to show that background checks are a waste of time......

 

Exactly right ... They need to do something about these mental nutcases before they act. More gun laws isn't going to do squat to stop them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shotguns are very effective close range weapons. They can be "killing machines" and the range is restricted to the raid area. Stray projectiles don't travel across the street etc. I don't see this as a gun control issue...and I am a proud educated experienced liberal Democrat.

What's your definition of close range? I've seen skeet shooters take out clay pigeons at 30 -40 yds. I've seen people miss at shorter distances with AR-15's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comic character and Lap Dog , neither of you add anything to a discussion but ignorance and hate.

 

Dude ... You don't add anything but ignorance to any discussion. You are about as clueless on the issues as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your definition of close range? I've seen skeet shooters take out clay pigeons at 30 -40 yds. I've seen people miss at shorter distances with AR-15's

Exactly. Range...inside a room or home at the most; the pellets should not penetrate and exit walls with enough energy to be deadly. Clay pigeons or a brittle clay at 30 to 40 yards...OK did the shooter hit these clays through a wall...no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Range...inside a room or home at the most; the pellets should not penetrate and exit walls with enough energy to be deadly. Clay pigeons or a brittle clay at 30 to 40 yards...OK did the shooter hit these clays through a wall...no.

You never mentioned walls in your initial post. Also, slugs are available for shotguns which makes it a very formidable weapon at medium range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You never mentioned walls in your initial post. Also, slugs are available for shotguns which makes it a very formidable weapon at medium range.

I try to give people credit for at least a little bit of common sense but on this forum it is obviously an error in most instances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly right ... They need to do something about these mental nutcases before they act. More gun laws isn't going to do squat to stop them.

 

 

Who is "they?"

 

Tell us your suggestions. What measures can "they" take to stop them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who is "they?"

 

Tell us your suggestions. What measures can "they" take to stop them?

 

"They" meaning lawmakers. If THEY are going to do anything, it should be doing something to stop mentally ill people, not passing more laws that restrict gun owners. Existing laws aren't even being enforced, we surely don't need more gun restriction laws. What are my suggestions? Simple ... prosecute criminals to the max and look at ways to keep nutcases from acting out in violent ways. Leave law abiding citizens and their guns alone. Go after the criminals, not gun rights and guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"They" meaning lawmakers. If THEY are going to do anything, it should be doing something to stop mentally ill people, not passing more laws that restrict gun owners. Existing laws aren't even being enforced, we surely don't need more gun restriction laws. What are my suggestions? Simple ... prosecute criminals to the max and look at ways to keep nutcases from acting out in violent ways. Leave law abiding citizens and their guns alone. Go after the criminals, not gun rights and guns.

The laws were "on the books" in 1968 but due to the grred Why don't we go after the NRA for putting out misinformation to the weak minded persons just to line their own greedy pockets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws were "on the books" in 1968 but due to the grred Why don't we go after the NRA for putting out misinformation to the weak minded persons just to line their own greedy pockets?

 

Don't know what your first incoherent sentence means. What misinformation is the NRA putting out that had anything to do with this tragedy? I think you are a prime example of "weak minded" when it comes to providing any solution to this type of senseless killing spree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"They" meaning lawmakers. If THEY are going to do anything, it should be doing something to stop mentally ill people, not passing more laws that restrict gun owners. Existing laws aren't even being enforced, we surely don't need more gun restriction laws. What are my suggestions? Simple ... prosecute criminals to the max and look at ways to keep nutcases from acting out in violent ways. Leave law abiding citizens and their guns alone. Go after the criminals, not gun rights and guns.

 

Ok, you answered who "they" are. Ironic you call on the same that you loathe to solve your problem. Do you really expect government to solve this?

 

You still have not answered "They need to do something about these mental nutcases before they act." Prosecuting someone after the act is not doing something before they act. So again, how do "they" do something about these "mental nut cases before they act?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, you answered who "they" are. Ironic you call on the same that you loathe to solve your problem. Do you really expect government to solve this?

 

You still have not answered "They need to do something about these mental nutcases before they act." Prosecuting someone after the act is not doing something before they act. So again, how do "they" do something about these "mental nut cases before they act?"

Who knows the nuts can hardly be locked up, that would be discriminating against nuts and who is to determind who a nut is...I got a sister in law who is about as nuts as they come and she is walking the streets at 55 and nobody don't want to fool with her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws were "on the books" in 1968 but due to the grred Why don't we go after the NRA for putting out misinformation to the weak minded persons just to line their own greedy pockets?

 

Now that's interesting... A conservative group that fights for 2nd Amendment rights of gun ownership...

 

Now, take your argument and blast it all over the place to every single liberal organization you believe warrants it......GREED!

 

Weak-minded... only coming from those who are too weak minded to see the truth of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...