Second Amendment

Washington Navy Yard Already Suffers the Restrictions That Gun Control Advocates Favor


Aaron Alexis

Yet another mass shooting, and flags fly across the country at half-mast to mourn the 13 dead at the Washington Navy Yard—well, 12 of them, anyway, since one of the bodies was that of the murderer. Gun control advocates wasted no time in demanding new restrictions on the means of self-defense. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who used to carry a pistol for her own defense, responded to the crime by saying, "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." But the unhappy truth is that the scene of the crime, the Washington Navy Yard, is subject to many of the restrictions that gun control advocates favor. And the perpetrator, Aaron Alexis, had passed a background check for a security clearance. Unfortunately, laws and databases don't create magic forcefields against criminal intent.

Navy public affairs officers have full voicemail boxes, today, for obvious reason, so it's difficult to learn if there were specific restrictions that applied to the Washington Navy Yard or to Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters, where the shootings took place. But military installations, despite their obvious role in waging war, come pretty close to being gun-free zones, given the rules by which personnel and visitors must abide. Or, if not strictly gun-free-zones, they're subject to tight regulations that keep most (law-abiding) people largely disarmed.

Firearms regulations at military installations are sufficiently byzantine that the Quantico Shooting Club at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, cautions members and guests about them and maintains a listing of restrictions (PDF). In particular, U.S. Navy Regulation 1159 (PDF) states:

Except as may be necessary to the proper performance of his or her duty or as may be authorised by proper authority, no person in the naval service shall:

a. have concealed about his or her person any dangerous weapon, instrument or device, or any highly explosive article or compound; or

b. have in his or her possession any dangerous weapon, instrument or device or any highly explosive article or compound on board any ship, craft, aircraft, or in any vehicle of the naval service or within any base or other place under naval jurisdiction.

The Quantico summary clarifies interpretation of the rules for the base, adding, "Under no circumstances will the transportation of loaded or concealed handguns, shotguns, or rifles be permitted on MCBQ except under those situations outlined in paragraph 7 of this Order." That's specific to Quantico, but there's little reason to think that's at wide variance from policy anywhere else.

Then-President Clinton issued an order in 1993 (PDF) severely tightening gun restrictions at all Department of the Army installations. The directive said in part, "The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." The same rules seem to apply to the other branches of service, to go by the Navy regulations above.

That makes military bases much like other "gun-free zones." They're only as well protected as the willingness of would-be perpetrators to follow rules allows, along with the ability of a thin line of personnel authorized to carry arms to deter or stop criminals.

And detecting would-be perpetrators isn't as simple as imposing ever-tougher background checks. Aaron Alexis passed such a check. "Alexis had a security clearance that was updated in July, approved by military security service personnel," said Thomas Hoshko, CEO at The Experts, Alexis's employer. That's despite being pushed out of the military "over a pattern of misconduct that included insubordination, unauthorized absences and other infractions" as well as two criminal incidents—one of which involved shooting out a car's tires. Alexis also reportedly sought help with mental health issues from the Veterans Administration.

And yet he received a security clearance last year which was renewed in July.

Background checks are only as good as the information in the database and the people running them. Alexis passed his background checks, then was issued credentials that allowed him to enter the Navy Yard, bypassing such armed security personnel as guarded the perimeter.

After that, he faced unarmed victims, deprived of the means to defend themselves. At this point the choice of weapons, nevermind Sen. Feinstein's fixation on AR-15s, was moot*.

This is gun control.

*Update: The FBI now says the weapons used by Aaron Alexis in the Washington Navy Yard attack were one shotgun and two pistols.

NEXT: Breaking Bad Hits Record Ratings High With 6.4 Million Viewers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But Gun Control is working so well in DC/Chicago/California/everywhere else with strict gun laws~!!!!



      1. Didn’t have time to watch the whole vid so don’t know if this was done:

        Did anyone dump an entire magazine of 00 buck?

        1. Not sure about that, I know they shoot mini frag grenades though.

      2. The 8 round box magazine is just sad on a full auto weapon. The drum mags would be the way to go, if they feed very well (a perennial problem with drum mags).

        Assuming a 20 round drum mag and 3″ OO shells with 1.5 ounces of lead per shell, this will put nearly two pounds of lead in the air in, what, 4 seconds?

        1. Jesus, what’s the recoil impulse for something like that? Did the AA-12 have a brake or a compensator? Cause otherwise….damn.

          1. You have to watch the video. Minimal recoil.

      3. I just drooled all over my keyboard.

      4. OMFG!

        That was totally awesome! Makes your average assualt-style rifle look like a single-shot squirrel gun. Well worth the time to watch the whole video! Thanks for the link anon!

  3. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who used to carry a pistol for her own defense, responded to the crime by saying, “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.”

    DiFi trying to restore her lib credibility after banging the war drums for Syria and siding with the NSA.

    After that, he faced unarmed victims, deprived of the means to defend themselves. At this point the choice of weapons, nevermind Sen. Feinstein’s fixation on AR-15s, was moot.

    I’ve recently read that there was no AR-15 involved at all and that Alexis simply had a shotgun and then a pistol taken from a fallen guard.

        1. That guy is suck a fucking idiot. To think people voted for Obama because they thought Palin was unfit to be next in line. Fuck.

          1. That guy is suck a fucking idiot.

            Who do you think you are? John?

            1. There are some cognitive similarities.

              1. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

              2. There are some cognitive similarities.

                Fuck you I’m no chubby chaser!

                1. Fat chicks need loving too…

  4. I’m just glad the shooter ate shit too, rather than spend money incarcerating him for life plus all the legal hassle.

    1. What you didn’t want to here his “manifesto”?

      1. …here…

        ….hear his manifesto.


        1. Oh no. I think people have been infected with Johnitis.

          1. It’s spreading faster than HIV at a porn shoot.

          2. Otherwise known as the Red Death.

      2. Only angry white men have manifestos.

  5. Yup. I spent last week working with the Navy, and everywhere I went there were warnings about the base being a gun-free zone. You were warned two miles before the gate that no firearms would be allowed under any circumstances. Those personnel checking your passes did not appear to be armed at all. Mall cops are better equipped than these guys. Once inside there were similar signs everywhere you looked. How a military base can operate under such restrictions is beyond my comprehension.

    1. How is it the Navy cares less about security now than they did in the 80’s?

      1. Before 9/11 they were really bad, you could drive into most bases without even stopping. The got rid of the gate guards to save money.

        1. During the Cold War they almost cared because they were worried about Spetsnaz attacks. But they got really pissed when Richard Markinco went around pointing out all their security gaps. His team supposedly stole a nuke out of a sub and planted a dud bomb under Air Force One.

    2. Did you see signs banning cell phones with cameras?

    3. Let’s assume that there’s some good reason for a Navy yard to be a “gun free zone”.

      But no metal detectors? No one checking the guy’s bags? He had a shotgun, he had to conceal it somewhere.

      How was he able to pass background checks to (1) buy a gun (2) gain access to military base after being arrested for gun offenses?

      1. Not a felon. Tarrant County D.A. evidently bought his story that he was cleaning his pistol and he had an ND. Into the apartment of a woman he had beef with, but I digress. King County in 2004 evidently never indicted him. My thought was that he could have gone up at least on a C felony (malicious mischief), which would have flagged him forever on a 4473 check. But nothing else happened.

        Now, why the military gave him a clearance after all this, I’ve no idea. Depends on his clearance, I guess.

        1. Didn’t he also shoot out tires? Or was that the incident in 2004?

          If he was indicted, would that have prevented him from buying the shotgun? If so, the DAs who failed to charge him with something should resign.

          Now I’m wondering if he bought the shotgun before his gun mishaps, which means nothing could stopped him.

          1. If he originally entered the base with only a shotgun, then all of this could have been prevented if he had to go through metal detectors or someone searched whatever container that surely concealed the shotgun.

            It boggles the mind. We can send futuristic drones to assassinate terrorists in a desert, but we don’t have common sense to check bags at a military compound – a few days after 9/11, and with talks of war with Syria intensifying.

            1. Supposedly he bought the shotgun very recently. Which was why, I suspect, the BATFE was able to tell very quickly that it was his.

              The shooting out the tires was from 2004. The ND into the apartment below him was either 2010 or 2011, I forget. Indictment doesn’t equal conviction, though. 18 USC 922 does mention not being able to be sold to, or ship/transport/receive a firearm if currently under indictment for a crime with punishment of imprisonment for more than one year. I do not know how well the different databases talk to each other. Supposedly he was turned down recently when he tried to buy an AR; whether by the store itself or because his BATFE background check said No, I don’t know.

              We can send futuristic drones to assassinate terrorists in a desert, but we don’t have common sense to check bags at a military compound – a few days after 9/11, and with talks of war with Syria intensifying.

              Well, he did have a badge and a clearance…what, you don’t trust our brave Servicemen and women? It boggles me too. Again, ordinary office building in D.C., I can see it. But I thought that NAVSEA would be a bit better protected, especially right after 9/11.

              1. But it was protected. By making it a gun-free zone. (Too bad that Alexis apparently didn’t get the memo.)

          2. A mere indictment doesn’t make you ineligible for anything. Assuming that any prosecutor worth his salt can indeed get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, that’s the way it should be.

            1. A mere indictment doesn’t make you ineligible for anything.

              The federal law I cited says differently. Relevant cite (in part: (d) prevents one from selling to someone the seller knows or reasonably should have known is under indictment):

              (n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

              Now, we can argue about ‘receive’ vs. ‘possess’. But (n) is still on the books, even if it’s unclear.

              I agree with you about what the law should be, and I think (n) should be struck down as unconstitutional.

      2. Maybe a few reasons:

        You can transport guns & ammo onto base, but it then must be stored at the base armory

        You can check out said gun & ammo from the base armory

        You can buy guns & ammo on base

        Search & seizure that possibly violates the 4th Ammendment

        Searching each person, bag, & vehicle would take a lot of time and manpower, each of which costs money, and sounds alot like TSA, NBP, etc checkpoints

  6. There is a Marine Barracks at the Navy Yard. Armed Marines didn’t come pouring out of the building – because they were completely disarmed.

    Pre-WWI Marines used to be responsible for their own rifles and could buy ammo and go to the range in their free time. They proved themselves to be some of the best shooters in the world.

    1. It is the draft which did so much damage.

      Slave soldiers cannot be trusted with weapons any more than slave farmers or slave factory workers.

      For example, my ex-father-in-law’s men tried to fragg him while they were out on maneuvers (the grenade’s fuse made a “sput” noise but didn’t detonate). This was in the early 70’s.

      A professional army can threaten to kick the soldiers out of the unit, and esprit de corps will keep most people on the straight and narrow.

      For a slave army, one has to use threats of violence to keep the slaves in line, and that means minimizing their ability to fight back.

      1. I hate conscription with the fury of a Jezzie scorned. Slave armies should have died with the last of the Mamelukes.

      2. Cruiser: I joined the army ’cause my father and my brother were in the army. I figured I better join before I got drafted.

        Sergeant Hulka: Son, there ain’t no draft no more.

        Cruiser: There was one?

  7. You have a duty to die for your country — and by that we mean you should be thrilled to live and work in an environment where you cannot defend yourself.

    So when random violence occurs, you should smile and take one for the team.

  8. You have a duty to die for your country — and by that we mean you should be thrilled to live and work in an environment where you cannot defend yourself.

    So when random violence occurs, you should smile and take one for the team.

    1. Man, the squirrels are fucking vicious today. They must be amped up on GTA V.

      1. Got me twice today already.

  9. Ultimately, the legacy of this shooting will be the madness of the Teahdsists:

    GOP SLASHED security budget for Navy Yard

    And for good measure:

    Evil Colorado Republicans take delight in people drowning by blocking dam maintenance bills

    1. That bit by bullshitinfo might have had some resonance if the Colorado House, Senate, and governorship wasn’t all run by Democrats.

      So either the Colorado Dems failed to properly fund dam maintenance or they’re too incompetent to get their funding proposals past TEATHUGLICANS!!111!1! when they have leadership over the executive and legislative branches of the state.

      Nice non-sequiter about the Johnstown flood, too.

  10. CNN acknowledges that reports of AR-15 being used were inaccurate, pushes conversation towards their legality anyway.

    A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, “When will enough be enough?”
    However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one — a shotgun — that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
    The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning’s shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.
    Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate. The weapon has been used in several other rampages that shocked the nation:

    1. But Piers Morgan was in full voice last night against the AR15.

    1. Practical jokers? or best friends ever?

      1. The practical joke–they didn’t get a permit.

        1. Backwards countries like New Zealand probably don’t require the same permitting as the freest nation on Earth.

          1. Oh, they have the Antipodean socialist bug even worse than Oz.

      2. I was just thinking, I hope the beer didn’t get into his hot water tank. That could become an expensive prank.

        1. I tangled with the 3 o’clock squirrels and won! Ha! I rock!

    2. I’d say Marky Mark did just fine without his public education indoctrination.

    3. Re: Mark Wahlberg – Why?

      You’re *already* a successful actor and its not like you *need* a diploma to go to college.

      1. Wife told me it was to set a “good example” for his kid.

      2. To set an example.

        1. The example that I see is: bail out; make lots of money; then study online in your spare time.

          Seems like a sound plan to me.

          1. Like Eddie Murphy? Oh, wait. I think he only did the first two.

  11. The ban on weapons on military bases just utterly mystifies me. 1) The banners are always going on about background checks and training, well, wouldn’t soldiers and sailors and Marines count as background checked and trained? 2) What disaster were they trying to prevent that was worse than this and Ft. Hood? 3) Does it just never occur to the Top Men that making a base a soft target just might be a bad idea? I mean, for fuck’s sake, they might at least see fit to let the MPs carry.

    1. There are several factors at play:

      1) A conscript army is dangerous. You need to keep them disarmed when you don’t want them killing their officers.

      2) Nice army weapons can command a great deal of money on the black market. The gun violence in Mexico, for example, is mostly carried out with American-made weapons that were once in the armories of the cops and the army.

      3) Soldiers walking around with weapons make nice targets for theft.

      Those are the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

      1. I’m confused. Are you under the impression that we still have the draft or something?

        1. No, but the policies and attitudes invented for the slave army that fought the Vietnam war are still around.

          1. “No, but the policies and attitudes invented for the slave army that fought the Vietnam war are still around.”

            No, no they aren’t – when was the last time you served? even 20 years ago we were kicking people out for the most trivial shit if we didn’t think they could mesh well. You don’t do that with conscripts. No physical violence allowed, hazing is forbidden, the restrictions on fraternization are much less severely enforced.

            1. No, no they aren’t – when was the last time you served? even 20 years ago we were kicking people out for the most trivial shit if we didn’t think they could mesh well.

              Well, 15 years ago, in the nuclear propulsion arm of the navy, we were keeping people in and punishing them severely even when they weren’t a good fit. It’s possible that you guys weren’t as valuable to the US govt as we were? 😉

          2. That’s a fair point…one I overlooked earlier.

          3. Isn’t the whole disarming military bases thing something passed during Clinton?

        2. I’m confused. Are you under the impression that policies to disarm drafted soldiers would change once the draft ended?

        3. That confused me too. I wonder what alternate universe Tarran is living in where our army is made up of conscripts.

          1. To be fair, I was under the impression that the draft hasn’t ended, just indefinitely paused until we need to draft people again.

            1. just indefinitely paused until we need to draft people again

              Good point. As long as us males have to register with the Selective Service, the draft really isn’t ended.

              1. It’s a little known fact, Normie, that Eric Dondero was for a long time one of the board-members of the Selective Service for his locale.

                He got all huffy when I taunted him about it, too.

      2. DJF’s comment reminds me of another reason:

        4) Suicide prevention: the navy reg he speaks of was put in place after a guy posted to a sentry watch relieved his predecessor (and was turned over the weapon assigned to the watchstation) waited until his relief was far enough away, and blew his brains out with it.

        After that, the policy was no armed weapons; weapons were to be kept unloaded with ammo on the belt. It was a stupid, absurd policy driven by the need to do something(tm). And thus typical of the Navy.

        1. That policy does not seem to be universal, or maybe it’s new. All the armed watches I supervised on a submarine carried the M9 with a round in the chamber (which had to be ejected every turnover for accounting).

          1. I was in in the mid to late 90’s, and that was the rationale given to me for the guy standing watch on the gangplank having a shotgun with no rounds in it.

        2. That’s been changed for a long time. I’ve stood security and OOD on ship armed with a shotgun and pistol respectively each in condition 3, I’ve stood waterline security with an M-16 on a frigate pierside in San Diego – our homeport. All these weapons were in condition 3.

          Naval base Groton, CT has an M-2 emplacement at the end of every other pier, manned and facing into the river and *ever* ship I’ve served on has had at least one, if not more people standing watch on the brow and/or gate who were armed.

          1. Translate for lifelong civilians, what is “Condition 3” in real-person speak?

            1. It means he had bullets in his gun.

              1. Thank you.

              2. So semen then?

            2. Condition 3 – Magazine inserted, slide forward, chamber empty, and safety on.

      3. 1) We don’t have a conscript army any more. It’s all volunteers. Do you think they just like to leave the option open?

        2) Soldiers are responsible for their weapons and if they “lose” them they get punished severely (court marshal up to and including discharge).

        3) I don’t think trained killers ever make a nice target for theft.

        1. I don’t think trained killers

          BWA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

          Dude, if you ever were in the service, you’d realize that the vast majority of us weren’t trained killers.

          1. Well, I had been trained, but wasn’t much of one…stupid proportionality always getting in the way.

      4. 4. Like most young people, service members enjoy a drink from time to time. Having firearms locked up is a good idea in that case.

        You should have seen how the USAF SPs partied at the base I served. I wouldn’t trust them sober with an M-16.

        1. Dad’s comment about Vietnam. “If you saw wingnuts (AF enlisted) with guns you knew that command thought the S**t hit the fan and nothing could make it worse.”

          My own story we had a group deployed to Desert Storm w/weapons. When they landed the local command took the weapons away. Said that in the event that the base was BEING overrun the weapons/ammo would be issued in the order as determined by the commanding officer.

      5. Tarran,

        1. We don’t have a conscript army any more, not since the 70’s.

        2. Most of the guns in Mexico *don’t* come from the US directly, they come from the Mexican armories that are supplied guns by our government and funneled to the criminals. And you think getting $500 bucks for your M-16 is worth a couple of years in jail? That’s what can happen to you if you *lose* your issued weapon, let alone what they’ll do to you if they actually catch you selling it.

        3. No more than anyone else.

        1. Most of the guns in Mexico *don’t* come from the US directly, they come from the Mexican armories that are supplied guns by our government and funneled to the criminals.

          That was the point I was making. Apologies for my unclear language.

          Just because the U.S. government isn’t actively enslaving 18 year olds does not mean that the attitudes and policies put in place to keep the slaves in line went away.

          1. Well, they *did*. The military today is far, far different than it was even in the 80’s.

            In the Navy at least, there was a huge transition in culture between the late 80’s and early 90’s.

            I came in in 1990 and by 94 damn near everything had changed.

            1. How about this: if you let soldiers and sailors carry on base, the odds that one of them will fuck up and have an ND are awfully high. If one does, this is a black mark on their commanding officer’s record, and the military is still fairly zero-defect. OTOH, if they are armed, then a Fort Hood type shooter isn’t going to get very far, maybe only killing two people instead of twenty. But it’s going to be a black mark on the commander’s record either way. Plus the odds of such a shooting are astonishingly rare.

              So, you can let people carry loaded weapons, and take heat when one of them screws up, as they will, or you can mandate a gun-free zone (for everyone other than MPs/SPs/Security Police, etc…)and avoid that potential set of screw-ups. You’ll have a much worse time when the Alexises of the world show up, but that probably won’t happen during your stint in the command billet, and you’re going to get a black mark on your record either way.

              Looking at it that way, the military’s policy towards personal weapons isn’t surprising at all.

              1. A related version of this is probably why liability insurers would shit bricks if you proposed allowing employees with CHLs to carry at work.

                Anyone have a better solution for stopping shitheads like Alexis from committing crimes like this? We aren’t banning shotguns. Though I guess the Navy Yard could stand to improve their security a tad if dude was able to slip, what db said yesterday was an 870, past their guard station.

        2. Most of the guns in Mexico *don’t* come from the US directly, they come from the Mexican armories that are supplied guns by our government and funneled to the criminals.

          There’s also the little issue that many of the deaths in Ciudad Juarez are probably caused by the occupying army that the Mexicans sent. Not only does the Mexican government help supply drug lords through the loss and sale of firearms, but by sending the army in they actually supply the drug lords with ready and willing enforcers who moonlight with the drug lords.

          The cartels are known to have paid several former U.S. army operatives to work as hit men. If they’re getting comparatively well off U.S. soldiers to do that job, imagine the kind of corruption you can expect from Mexican soldiers actually living in a city run by the cartels.

          1. I wouldn’t call any of the military in that article “operatives” by any stretch of the imagination.

      6. 1) As noted, we have no conscripts.

        2) Has nothing to do with being allowed to carry a weapon.

        3) [Anyone] walking around with [anything of any value] make nice targets for theft. Therefore we must require trained soldiers be shot to death. You convinced me.

        1. I’ve convinced you to implement useless, absurd and counterproductive policies?

          My goodness, I think we might have makings of a fine flag officer here folks!

          1. Well, I don’t know if how long I could sustain a career based entirely on offhand sarcastic quips, but if my country needs me…

      7. tarran, you give us the reasons for not issuing a weapon to a soldier at all until they are getting off the truck in a hot zone.

        None of those are specific to military bases, and one at least (theft) seems particularly inapt there.

    2. Security has gotten better since 9/11 but they don’t trust the personnel. Plus the average military person gets very little weapons training. I used to go out in town and shoot at a range were I could rent weapons just so that I would feel proficient to handle the weapons

      Before 9/11 there was an incident of two pier guards on a Naval Base having their guns stolen at gun point. The two guards were not allowed to have their guns loaded, loaded clips were in their belt, so the guy just walked up with a gun and ordered them to turn them over.

    3. 1. Navy MP’s are often not ‘MP’s’. In addition to our professional police force (Master-at-Arms they’re called) the base police force is augmented by a lot of people who are not trained as police officers – just regular sailor filling what are basically security guard positions.

      Typically the actual police *are* armed, the others aren’t unless their duties specifically call for it (armed patrol for example). Gate guard doesn’t qualify in general. Typically there’s one or two armed guards there along with a bunch of other people checking ID and doing the occasional search.

      2. Yeah, that ‘background check’ isn’t much. Unless they have reason to believe you have something that needs to be checked, the average sailor never gets so much as a criminal background check prior to enlisting.

      1. It’s different in the Marines. I got pulled for gate guard duty with PMO when I checked into Yuma in 2004 while my squadron was in Iraq, and we carried condition 3 shotguns. Same thing in Pensacola in December 2001 – there was a big backlog to begin training because the schools had shut down for a while after 9/11, and you’d have to wait 3-4 months to class up. So they pulled some of us for what they called ASF – Auxiliary Security Force. Some of us worked the checkpoints with m-16s where they did the vehicle searches (which in Dec 2001 was 100% of the vehicles coming on base) and others of us manned gun emplacements with loaded SAWs.

        1. Yuma 2004 huh, MCAS Yuma was my last duty station in the Navy – I showed up mid-2009.

          Yeah, Marines do things a little different than we do.

          1. Plus, nowadays even the MC doesn’t check *everyone*.

            Even on a small base like MCAS Yuma that would be an impossibility. It’d take three hours just to get in the gate in the morning.

            1. Very true. We didn’t even check everyone in Yuma in the fall of 2004. If I recall correctly, we were supposed to do 5 random searches per hour, and half the time we wouldn’t even do those.

              Navy in Yuma, huh – corpsman I guess? Who with? I was with MACS-1, Det C. We weren’t even actually on the air station. We were at the P-111 annex way off in the middle of nowhere, past a bunch of orange groves outside of town, a long ride down County Rd 14 through the desert.

    4. why do you need a gun unless you are in a combat area…honestly, you gun nuts won’t be happy until we are back in the wild west

      1. Go crawl behind a SWAT tacticool, you little pussy-willow.

      2. Possibly because someone will get a gun and come into your workplace, past the armed guards and start killing people?

  12. Epic shitbag Tom Scocca haz a sad…

    Despite the best marketing efforts of the gun industry, law enforcement officials now say that Aaron Alexis did not use an AR-15 in yesterday’s massacre at the Washington Navy Yard. All 12 of the murders were committed with the shotgun Alexis had bought despite his history of gun violence, or with the handguns he apparently took from victims who were unable to stop his armed killing spree with their own handguns.

    Way to mock the dead, you sickening dickwallet.

    1. ThisMachineKillsNeoliberalsUTom Scocca1L
      Open question to the 2nd-Amendment devotees, would you concur that there are some mentally unstable/racist/violent people out there that are currently in legal possession of guns that shouldn’t be? 16 minutes ago

      Neo-liberals is their term of abuse for us, right?

      1. Hell yeah!

        I don’t see why racist people should be deprived of their Second Amendment rights, unless I can deprive dipshit proggies of their heads First Amendment Rights.

      2. No, neo-liberals are the equivalent of RINOs. They are secret centrists.

        1. In Europe, “neoliberal” is increasingly becoming the replacement for “fascist”, that being a catch-all word for “I don’t like this policy!”

          1. Yeah, I wonder if they just picked it up from “neocon.” Neo means “I hate you.”

            1. Was it because of the blue or red pill?

          2. At least the European statists correctly use the term “liberal” to have something to do with liberty (which they, of course, hate).

      3. Why should a racist be deprived of second amendment rights? Is that guy literally arguing in favor of thought crime?

        1. When you think all people should be deprived of 2a rights, it’s not hard…

          1. Yeah, but he uses racists as the example. The guy is basically arguing that we should worry about someone owning a gun based on their personal beliefs. Thoughtcrime is double plus good.

            1. The natural progression of the direction we are headed in (progress, as in progressivism) is that thought crime must come into play.

              Your future doctor: So Mr. Irish, how many times a week do you have sex, and do you have any guns in your house? Do you play violent video games or sometimes have anti-government thoughts?

              1. Sort of like how Obamacare requires doctors to ask very invasive questions about your sex life even when they have nothing to do with the reason you’re there?

                Remember though: Liberals want government out of your sex life. They told me so so it must be true.

      4. Yes, I agree that there are. What I don’t agree with is that we have a reliable way of identifying them. The gun-grabbers would say that that’s a good reason for not letting anyone have guns. The answer to that is to point to how well gun-grabbing policies have worked in countries like England, Jamaica, and Russia.

        1. Or Mexico, and Canada as a couple more examples.

          Along with Australia, most of Europe and Central and South America.

          Funnily enough, in all the gun-control zones in the world (and places like Mexico have a near-universal ban on gun ownership – Mexico literally has ONE gunstore in the whole country) guns are still pretty damn easy to get.

    2. Despite the best marketing efforts of the gun industry, law enforcement officials now say that Aaron Alexis did not use an AR-15 in yesterday’s massacre at the Washington Navy Yard.

      What the fuck is that even supposed to mean as a sentence? They’re running ads featuring the shooting, which demonstrates the lethality of the weapon?

      I get what he was trying to say, but he writes like a syphilitic chimp hopped up on stims.

        1. I know it doesn’t take much of anything to twist their knickers into mobius loops, but seriously? That’s it? That’s a halfway decent ad, which could easily be run by Chrysler for a pickup triuk.


            1. JW is a man? I thought his handle meant “Juicy Woman.”

              1. It’s Jellied Wombat, and now my secret is out, you bastard.

                1. I thought it was JeW. Dude, you mean you weren’t dropping a hard J on us all these years?

                2. Sounds delicious.

            2. Meh, I wasn’t using it much any way. Marriage and kids, you know.

        2. As if anyone at Gawker would qualify for a Man Card in the first place. These nerds (male and female) still haven’t gotten over the fact that the star quarterback wouldn’t fuck them in high school.

      1. he writes like a syphilitic chimp hopped up on stims.

        That’s because he is a syphilitic chimp hopped up on stims.

  13. How did this man get a shotgun into the Naval Yard? I mean, he would have had to travel through the district o get to the entrance and we all know that it is against the law to transport firearms in your car while inside DC (unless traveling to or from a shooting range).

    We have the laws in place to prevent these kinds of events, I just don’t see how this event is even logistically possible.

    1. Maybe he went around the Beltway. 🙂

      1. Not possible. You literally have to drive within the confines of the district to get there.

        1. Uh, no you don’t:


          1. Except for the westernmost part of Woodrow Wilson Bridge south of downtown Washington (the water below is considered part of the District of Columbia), the Capital Beltway encircles Washington, D.C., in adjacent Maryland and Virginia.

            1. Tim is saying that you have to enter the District to enter the Navy Yard.

              1. Just get off of 295 by accident, right after crossing the river to the north, and you will get there.

              2. JEFF is giving the correct reading. The Navy yard is bordered by a river and the District. You have to enter the District before you enter the Navy Yard. It’s like Swaziland.

    2. They were busy getting dangerous people loading shotguns in the district in the early morning, like Adam Kokesh.

      Speaking of which, now I wonder how his charges are…

  14. Like I said yesterday, this is not a great mystery to anyone with a bit of knowledge. The three-star spokesgeneral for Fort Hood explicitly stated that military bases are gun-free zones.

    This is what happens when you unleashed 90s PC-ism onto the military. You end up with sexual harassment classes on 24/7 repeat, gun-free zones and shitty toilet paper we “have” to buy because blind people made it.

    And my Colonel has the temerity to ask me why I’m leaving.

    1. shitty toilet paper we “have” to buy because blind people made it

      Um, what?

        1. Yeah, the big rolls come from Lighthouse for the Blind too. Although I did see some Georgia-Pacific rolls once, which means my masters are becoming more powerful than ever.

          1. the big rolls come from Lighthouse for the Blind too

            Back in the late 80s/ early 90s they used to make lightbulbs.

            *pauses to let irony sink in…*

            They managed to sucker my dad once into buying some, which of course landed our number on their suckers list. Until my mom answered once and informed that they’re lightbulbs sucked and perhaps they shouldn’t have blind people making light bulbs. I guess they moved on to toilet paper.

  15. If I’m following, the grabbers are now saying that even though no AR-15 was used in this shooting, it nonetheless proves that we need to ban them?

    1. What, you don’t think that logic follows? God damn you teathuglican racist bastards!

    2. Yes, exactly.

    3. Gunz awr baaad, mmmk?

      1. Funny that, so are marijuanas.

    4. By George….

      Now, take 2 Advil and go lay down until the headache subsides.

  16. Looking at his mugshots, I’m saddened that someone who could change his complexion and the width of his head did not choose to use his powers for good.

  17. And yet, at the end of the day, even with laws in place banning this mass shooting, somehow it will come down to “We need more laws to prevent these tragedies that no law can possibly ever prevent.”

    Laws punish people for committing crimes, they don’t prevent crimes.

    1. How dare you doubt their good intentions!

  18. Gun free zone in a gun free city. The only thing preventing more of these is the willingness of the would-be perpetrators.

  19. You’re all missing the point. Just a few more gun laws, drafted by smart people in government who are only concerned about public safety, not politics or anything else, is all it will take to achieve a peaceful public Eden thoughout the land.

    And you evil libertarians and anti-statists and Rethugs are ruining it.

    1. And you evil libertarians and anti-statists and Rethugs are ruining it

      And we plan to keep ruining it, thank you.

    2. Once the smart people in government build a peaceful public Eden, the world will be safe enough for Jesus to return and rule over the Millennium….

  20. “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.

    Like remove the concept of a federally mandated gun-free zone from the law?

    1. No telling what could happen if we start arming our Sailors and Soldiers.

    2. “If putting the children into concentration camps where only responsible adults can take care of them can save even one life, don’t we have an obligation to try?”

  21. OT:

    …it could also be that when men become more involved as caregivers, their testes shrink.

    Testicle size and nurturing

    I have been waiting patiently for such a study. A legitimate excuse for my wife to do the bulk of the parenting.

    1. How do you know if your nuts are big or small? I’m not going to compare with my friends.

      1. As your significant other how they compare with everyone else she’s been with?

        1. I think you have a masochistic/cuckolding problem.

          1. Is it wrong if I volunteer to help with this?

            1. …the cuckolding problem…just to be clear…

            2. As long as everyone’s consenting I guess…

          2. I think your sarcasm detector (if you ever had one) is broken.

  22. If what you are doing is not working, it’s only because you need to do MOAR of it. So if that splash of gasoline is not putting out that fire, throw the whole damn can on it!


    1. See Paul Krugman’s comments about the stimulus.

  23. So let me get this right:

    Our shooter hears the voices say “kill-kill-kill”.
    Our shooter takes Joe Biden’s advice and buys a shotgun.
    Our shooter shoots a guard and takes his 9mm handgun.
    Our shooter uses the 9mm to take an AR-15 from responding police
    Our shooter kills a dozen or so defenseless people, with the AR-15, in a gun-free zone with the toughest gun-control laws on planet earth.

    I wonder how many other insane folks listened to Biden?………..

    1. I wonder how many other insane folks listened to Biden?………..

      If you listen to Biden and you’re not already insane, you will be driven to insanity soon enough.

    2. He didn’t use the AR-15, or so the reporting goes.

      I have no idea how a man was able to enter a navy yard and go straight to the cafeteria with a shot gun. He must have concealed it in a travel bag of some sort.

      1. Guys, it isn’t as if the guards at the gate tear your car apart every time you come on post. Most of the time I don’t even get searched at all. The shotgun could have been in the trunk.

        1. I mean, just so everyone knows, getting through a gate at a military post if you have an ID is as easy as entering a national park.

          1. But walking into Building 197 toting an 870 is a bit tougher though, isn’t it? Shouldn’t it be? I mean, don’t they deal with all sorts of classified data there? They don’t do bag checks?

            1. They’ve got a sign that says your camera phone isn’t allowed, but that’s about it.

            2. No, not really if you have the proper credentials.

  24. I hadn’t seen a picture of the shooter until this blog post. I was wondering why his face wasn’t all over the news everytime I walk past a TV. Now I know why: he wasn’t a white male so there’s no way to link the shooting to TEATHUGLICAN RACISM!!11!!! (facts be damned).

    1. Really? I’ve seen his face everywhere online.

      I don’t watch T.V. news though.

      1. He could have been Obama’s son!

        1. Now there’s a campaign ad . . . .

          Too bad B isn’t running for anything ever again.

          1. Too bad B isn’t running for anything ever again.

            Don’t be so sure. Dear Leader has the type of ego based rewards system that I doubt he’ll be able to go too long without public adoration. Watch his ass run for senator.

            1. CW was that he would try for a SCOTUS seat.

            2. My money is on a SCOTUS appointment if Hil or Biden wins in 2016. Probably take Ginsburg’s seat.

              1. Great minds…lol.

          2. He’s running for King of the World next, man, KING OF THE WORLD! How else can he save us, now that the teathuglicans have ruined it for him as POTUS?

  25. with the handguns he apparently took from victims who were unable to stop his armed killing spree with their own handguns.

    Wow, so in his lust to attack all things guns, Socca makes the guards sound like assholes who thought guns would make them Rambo instead of individuals who died in the line of duty trying to save other people.

  26. I think a big concern will be the libs saying that “clearly the gun laws are not working so we must take away the guns!” Or at a minimum, they may try to make it a serious pain in the ass to buy firearms with more feel good legislation.

    Cant wait till DiFi is no longer in the senate.

    1. “clearly the gun laws are not working so we must take away the guns!”

      That is the ultimate goal.

    2. Cant wait till DiFi is no longer in the senate

      Just like I said yesterday about Pelosi, they will be carrying her into congress in a jar of embalming fluid, long after her death, her constituents will continue voting for her.

      1. Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.

  27. Since this is evidence we cannot trust the government when it comes to giving unstable individuals guns, including those with security clearances, that we’re better off trusting ourselves than depending on some government person who may be unstable.

    I assume all of those who have jobs protecting the public have undergone security clearances, but you never know how incompetent government is, as this example shows: Alexis was active in the Naval Reserves; thus, was a government employee, and was working for a company contracting with the government.

    It seems we call workplace violence “going postal” (a government agency) for a reason: those working for the government are dangerous.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.