Police Search For D.C. Shooter at Navy Yards

It's because your "agreement" comes with this huge fucking asterisk qualifying what you would do to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Background checks lead to registration, which leads to confiscation, period. If you're willing to take that chance with my rights, because the benefits you imagine it yielding outweigh the erosion of my freedoms, you absolutely fucking are a gun grabber.

Now if you're willing to rule out any and all intrusions into my privacy in your efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands, state it for the record and I will never call you a gun grabber again.

Well, well, well.

Turns out the bad guy did not have and did not use an AR. He started with a shotgun, used it to take two handguns from security guys, and went from there.

Golly wonkus. Even VP Biden said shotguns were okay. Whatever shall the grabbers do now?

Like agreeing with you, you mean? Or is this another of those things you just make up to fit your preconceived notion of what you want the other person to have said?

For killing humans? Strange world you live in. Maybe the voices in your head can talk to the ones in UA's.

Why yes, actually. Try again, G.

You've essentially said "Killing random strangers is EXACTLY THE SAME as defending your home from an intruder."

You should change your username to "Volpone Too."

Addressing the rest of that post would dispel my preconceived notions.

Ahh, the games never end, do they? Sure, that's exactly what I said.

And yet:

^At least they got 1 out of 4 headlines right.

The answers should be self-evident, but okay:

And you can link to where I mentioned background checks as a standalone, rather than agreeing with you that people with a history of violence should be taken off the street. Go on, now.

We won't even address your delusion that you're a Jew in 1930s Germany.

• Do the voices in your head tell you to shoot random strangers?
  
  Have you "accidentally" fired through your neighbor's ceiling recently?
  
  Have you been diagnosed with PTSD (I'd argue that a negative answer indicates a societal oversight, but I digress)?
  
  Excluding ranting on the Internet and cussing at other drivers, have you displayed any other violent tendencies?

If the answers to those are "no," you have nothing to fear from me.

That's pretty damn good for the Daily News.

And you wonder why we think you're a gun grabber.

As a standalone? So you're letting yourself off the hook if you implement them in conjunction with other measures?

Except your means of ascertaining those answers. If you're suggesting I be subjected to mandatory questionaire or be required to submit my medical history for examination at the point of sale, you are not ruling out intrusion into my privacy.

Because I'm saying exactly what Zombie and UA are saying about people with a history of violence and mental disorders?

And you wonder why I don't trust your judgment.

Seriously, Forbin, you'd have given Alexis a pass?

I seriously doubt you are agreeing with me on any meaningful level. I'm saying I will be subjected to zero scrutiny or oversight. No background check. No medical history. No permits or certification or any other kind of paperwork or recordkeeping. I remain innocent and anonymous until proven guilty, at which point I should be permanently removed from society.

You agreeing with that? Doubtful.

Because it's all about your feelings. Gotcha.

Meanwhile:

Navy Yard suspect Aaron Alexis sought treatment for mental issues

So, overworked VA staff? Budget cuts? Who screwed up here?

Why does anyone even bother debating with Garamet on gun control. Her posts are consistently anti-gun, yet when called out on her gun-grabbing position she plays coy and denies it in a lame attempt at trolling.

Stop taking the bait.

Her posts are identical to Zombie's and UA's, and Black Dove doesn't call them gun-grabbers.

So what's wrong with Black Dove's reasoning?

because you posts aren't identical. Just similar.

And because we all have functioning memories and have seen enough of your words to know better.

The AR-15 platform is BY FAR the most popular defensive weapon on the market. To those who understand such things, the seeming surprise expressed by some that one could EVER be used in a crime is akin to being shocked that a Ford or a Toyota was used as a getaway car.

And, as it happens, there was no AR-15 involved here anyway.

Oh good lord no, just being irritated by your 2nd amendment snark.

This was another failure of the mental health system, though, not of the 2nd amendment. The current news is that he started the rampage with a shotgun - and nobody's ever suggested outlawing or controlling shotguns - and then took the better arms from security guards he killed - and nobody's talking about disarming security guards.

All you have to do to remove any misunderstanding is to commit to an unambiguous point of view. "No, I do not advocate any of those things. Your privacy would be 100% intact, with no paper trail of any kind."

Can you do that?

Judge Dredd says if you fail to retain control of your primary weapon, it is an immediate fail.

If this isn't a wake-up call to folks that we should look at fixing the state of mental health care in this country before removing guns, nothing will be. This is not Aurora or the Sandy Hook guy where the people closest to him shoved their heads in their asses. This guy was seeking help--or trying to--and was getting turned away. As mentioned by Frontline (and touched on by Techman in the days before his fatal heart attack as a reason he refused to see the docs), VA is full of so much bureaucracy BS that it's a wonder that anyone gets treated at all. Hell, it ain't even that great for active duty personnel, either. But I digress.

More likely, I suspect this story will die off faster than the other shooting stories this year, since there are no kids to exploit and the shooter not being a white redneck or a Jewish Hispanic that passes for white, the Dems can't use it to bash on the Tea Party. But never worry, because I'm sure we'll get to do this same song and dance for the next shooting in six weeks.

Wait, I heard the guy was a white black guy. Zombie, check me on this...

Ah, so the default position is "if garamet says it, it's wrong, even if we agree." It'll be fun to work with that going forward.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that in some parts of the world it's perfectly normal to walk down the street with a loaded shotgun.

The thing is, the Second Amendment imbues everybody's thinking in this country, whether it's law enforcement ("Dude, the guy's a veteran. We can't take his guns.") or the mental health professionals who let him walk ("He's functional on the job, isn't he? If we recommend taking his guns, there'll be all this paperwork...").

In no other developed nation does that conversation even happen.

Do you realize that you're advocating incarceration for a crime that hasn't been committed? How is that more reasonable, to deny someone his very freedom, than to deny him a gun?

How is it more reasonable to take the freedoms away from millions of people who have done nothing, than to take it from one who has evoked reasonable suspicion?