Feinstein uses Navy Yard shooting to call for more gun control.

Thanks for the link, Glenn -- that piece by Krauthammer is a good one. At least he gets that a big piece of the problem is that it's so easy these days for people, including police, to say "Not my job" when they encounter someone like Mr. Alexis. There's not much sense of compassion, or of what, for want of a better term, I'd call "neighborly responsibility" any more.

The other piece of the problem, of course, is money. Fixing the mental health system won't be cheap, while it costs little or nothing to pass more laws. I should say, "won't be cheap in the short term," though -- I suspect that in the longer term, the cost to society of treating mentally ill people would be a lot less than that of leaving them to fend for themselves...

But that's a very unfashionable point of view in a society based on individualism run amok.
 
There are issues I agree with and disagree with on every politician. Feinstein's no different. My respect for her did take a big dent, though, when she proudly and publicly displayed a list of proposed firearms to ban to protect the public after the Colorado shootings. The very last weapon on the list was the Ma Deuce belt fed machinegun. Because..it will make our schools so much safer to make sure no one carries that 100+ pound beast for a hip shooting massacre that even Hollywood knows has zero connection to practicality.
 
Fixing the mental health system won't be cheap, while it costs little or nothing to pass more laws.
Click to expand...
So does implementing minimum sentencing for gun-related crimes.

On one hand, the antis expect us to give up rights and possessions in order to comply with regulations that have been proven to have no effect. On the other, we present them with ideas that could have an effect, and they balk because of cost or logistics. It really calls their commitment to reducing violence into question.

Any program that aims to better treat mental illness is going to be expensive and difficult to implement. To take a page from the Biden/Feinstein playbook, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Perhaps it's time to pull the guilt & shame card on them.
 
Any program that aims to better treat mental illness is going to be expensive and difficult to implement.To take a page from the Biden/Feinstein playbook, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's time to pull the guilt & shame card on them.
Click to expand...

I am with you, though I have no faith the Antis will have it.

Politicians like Feinstein and her Anti-gun Cohorts are politicians that are not just going to tell you what they really want and why as many of us already know. I also don't believe they will take a partial deal. I think they are content to use it politically until they can have it all.
 
President Clinton's executive order making bases gun free zones is responsible for the body count at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood.
Click to expand...

Not exactly:

The DOD Directive dates from 25 February, 1992. It has been amended/ extended by every administration since.


From the DOD Directive:

POLICY
It is DoD Policy:
1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD
military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry
firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there
is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be
jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the
necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this
expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of
accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel
regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be
armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of
firearms are in enclosure 1.
Click to expand...


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/


Some outlets are citing Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases, to cast blame on Clinton.

However, that policy specifically notes part of its purpose is aimed at implementing “applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56,” which, as previously stated, was put into effect by Bush Sr.’s deputy secretary of defense:

Further, DoD spokesman Mark Wright told TheBlaze Army Regulation 190-14 would not apply to other bases under different branches of the military, including the site of Monday’s shooting, Washington Navy Yard.

“No, it would not apply,” he said Tuesday afternoon.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top