Just when you think it is safe to tweet, Moe Davis gets cyber-stalked by the Washington Times. Moe has some 8,000 followers on Twitter.
A Howard University law professor and former chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo military commissions took to Twitter on Monday to blast the National Rifle Association amid the Washington Navy Yard shooting.
“Traffic in Capitol area snarled, Washington Navy Yard on lockdown as gunman enters & opens fire … or as we call it in Gun-merica, Monday,” former Air Force Col. Morris Davis tweeted to his nearly 8,000 followers only an hour after the shooting occurred.
“Expect @DarrellIssa to hold hearings on US gun slaughter now that we’ve got a #Benghazi in our backyard,” he added.
“Pres Obama: In response to US gun massacres, we’ll do ‘everything that we can to try to prevent them’ … provided it’s OK with the NRA,” he tweeted later.
Doubling down, the officer called out the vice president of the NRA by name.
“There’s plenty of blame to go around. I’d put Wayne LaPierre at the top of the list,” he said.
Fair enough. It’s always good to hear what Moe has to say. I guess it was too tempting to think that all it takes is a good guy with a gun to stop a rogue assassin. Lots of good guys had guns. Lots of people died.
I am sure some of the gun crowd will try to shift the blame from LaPierre to Obama. That’s just how they roll.
Why not…it seems that certain people are blaming LaPierre and the NRA instead of the shooter.
You know…the shooter that turns out to have been violent and should have been arrested in 2004 for illegal use of a handgun and was discharged due to misconduct from the military.
How did the Navy give this man a clearance and access to a base? Reports are mixed…..ie, no one knows what actually happened, but it seems that he brought a shotgun and armed himself from Navy sources.
We should hold an investigation to find out how security failed so badly.
Convenient “leaks” are blaming the sequester but the excerpted paragraph shows that this problem is not related to “budget cuts.”
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/16/exclusive-navy-yard-dropped-its-guard-pentagon-inspector-general-says/
The audit shows a history of those with criminal records managing to bypass the Navy’s security. Fifty-two “convicted felons received routine unauthorized installation access, placing military personnel, attendants, civilians in installations at an increased security risk,” according to the audit.
@Cargo,
I think the word ‘blame’ is a little vague. Obviously the shooter shot people. However, LaPierre did all in his power to make up excuses and threaten legislators so that laws that might reduce the likelihood of disturbed individuals shooting up innocent people never got passed.
In fact, after the Sandy Hook murders, LaPierre boldly pronounced that ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’
That sure didn’t work out so well yesterday did it?
How many more of these mass killings are the American people going to accept before they DEMAND that reasonable gun laws be enacted. right now, any A-hole can legally get a weapon of any sort. How many people have to die before the voters and the legislators stop being bullied by the gun lobby? It isn’t really a matter of all or nothing. Who gets to decide common sense? ALL the American people. right now, many of us are being locked out of the discussion.
I simply do not know what it will take to get the guns out of the hands of the insane. Obviously the gun lobby doesn’t care.
Obviously sane people don’t go around doing mass killings.
Thanks to the Washington Times for repeating Col Davis’ tweets. People should hear what he says. The gun hugger lobby should be ashamed of themselves. They defend the rights of psychos, drug dealers, murderers and other vermin to own guns.
Yea, Moe should be flattered. I am tongue-in-cheeking the cyber stalking thing.
You all feel free to use this thread to discuss the Navy Yard shooting. Its as good of a place as any.
Yes, I absolutely and unequivocally defend your right to own firearms.
The reports coming in are that Alexis entered the building only with a shotgun. he blasted his way in and took a gun off of the security at the door and somehow acquired an AK-15.
So much for the good guy with a gun theory, Wayne.
Let’s not make the same media-driven mistakes made during gun-related incidents in the past; namely trying to ascribe motive and assign blame before all the facts are in…and verified. Yesterday, the press incorrectly reported the name of the suspect. The situation was in progress, and Senator Feinstein was calling for a ban on AR-15’s. This morning we learned that two of the three weapons (handgun and AR-15 rifle) were taken by the shooter, after he shot a security guard with the shotgun that he brought to the scene. We are also learning that this individual has had multiple gun-related interactions with police, and was treated for mental illness by the military.
My point is, there is an irrational inclination on the part of many to jump to conclusions, each and every time there is a high-profile incident where a firearm is involved. Facts are twisted, (and in the Zimmerman case.. outright manufactured0, for the perpetuation of a political narrative. Yet, once the facts are known, we see cases where the root cause is mental illness. The Giffords shooting, Virginia Tech Aurora Theater, Sandy Hook, all have one thing in common: The shooters were demonstrably mentally disturbed, and this was known to authorities. I suspect we shall come to find the Navy Yard shooter similarly afflicted.
I just don’t believe people normally shoot up places and kill innocent humans unless they are either mentally ill or terrorists. I will even go with the govt. def. of terrorist, whatever that is.
Having said that, this country doesn’t do jack about mental illness. I have recently had a tragic event in my own family regarding someone with mental illness. I am not quite ready to share online but I will get to that point. Our entire national attention on mental illness is a total systemic and institutional failure.
Until America gets some grasp on how to handle the mentally ill, it is simply going to have to determine a way to keep those afflicted away from guns, even if it means that some folks have to have their rights squeezed a little, for the general safety of us all.
Perhaps the gun lobby and its followers need to lead the charge on doing something lots more substanitive about treating and caring for the mentally ill. obviously the progressives haven’t gotten very far.
Feel free to ask me personally about what I am referring to.
@Steve
Welcome back. You were missed.
“In fact, after the Sandy Hook murders, LaPierre boldly pronounced that ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’
That sure didn’t work out so well yesterday did it?”
Well, unless the autopsy shows that the shooter took his own life, LaPierre’s statement will prove truthful; the shooter was stopped by a “Good Guy with a gun”. But you are taking his statement completely out of context. LaPierre wasn’t talking about police or security guards. He was talking about legally armed citizens, and was speaking against the whole false security presented by “gun free zones”.
There’s another saying: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Every day (if the press is so-inclined), we see instances where a lawfully-armed citizen used a legal firearm to defend the lives of themselves and others. Granted, this crime took place on a government installation or federal “gun free zone”, but let’s look at who was disarmed. It wasn’t the shooter. He brought a shotgun from elsewhere. It wasn’t the security guards, DoD police, or Military Police. It was the civilian workers and DoD personnel who aren’t allowed to carry in a “gun free zone”.
In Virginia, CHP holders can carry concealed in the state house. Citizens carry there. Legislators carry there. When’s the last time there was a shooting there? Deranged individuals seek out places where they know individuals have been disarmed: Schools, Churches, and now, Federal installations.
Thanks. It has been a most enlightening sabbatical.
How so? Did you find out you simply cannot stay away?
@Moon-howler
“Our entire national attention on mental illness is a total systemic and institutional failure. ”
On this I can agree with you, 100%. I too have a fair amount of personal experience with our nation’s so-called “mental health system”, and how it treated an immediate family member.
I am just learning how horrible horrible is….or in this case…WAS.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
Facts are sticky things:
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.
Entire story here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1
Why do people get to rent an AK-15?
Maybe that would be a good place to start restricting. If someone has a strong desire to shoot one, I think they should have to find a friend with one.
@Steve Thomas
Don’t tempt fate by even asking.
If the mental ill are the primary shooters in these types of crimes and I truly believe that all crimes of this nature are by the mentally ill, I seriously don’t think they are that logical.
I don’t mind responsible citizens being armed.
I welcome it even. However, I don’t think it is such a sacred right that ALL citizens should be armed. I know I know…felons can’t be. That’s now where most of this is coming from.
I am assuming that cops, guards and military also fit into the subset of ‘good guys.’ The problem is, we don’t always know who the good guys were. Steve, I would trust you with my life with a gun. I don’t feel that way about a whole lot of people though…starting with training and working its way on down to stability.
I also think nothing will happen now. If a person crazier than a bucket of bat sh!t can go in a school and kill a classroom full of first graders and no legislation arises from this massacre, then people simply won’t care about military and dod workers getting slaughtered either.
I feel like I am wasting my breath or my typing. Nothing will change.
I guess I want to know, what will it take? I just want tighter control over who gets to buy a gun to try to weed out some of these wackos. I guarantee you, someone will come along and try to challenge me and ask who gets to decide. Society gets to decide. Obviously we have evolved from the wild west and we don’t all go around armed.
Expanded background checks would probably have prevented this tragedy. The repugs opposed it and now we are paying the price.
Moon,
I do believe this is a case of the news media commenting on things they don’t understand. You can go to a gun range, and rent a firearm for an hour or so, but you can’t remove it from the establishment. It’s not like renting a car. I can go to my local range and rent a firearm for recreational shooting, but I must return it when I have completed my hour or so on the range. I can’t go rent an AK-47 or AR-15 and take it home with me. It doesn’t work that way. But here we have another example of the media throwing stuff out there, with little or no context or supporting information, and all it does is cause further confusion.
Prove it. I challenge you. The shooter had a Secret clearance for his job, which involved a background check. Mentally unstable people are not supposed to get clearances, and yet he was recently issued a Secret clearance. If he could pass this background check, he would have easily passed the most stringent gun background check. I know, because I have been through both.
I am sorry Starry, but I’m not letting you get a pass here. Several times in this thread you’ve tried to spin this tragedy into a partisan issue. What would be your reaction where I to paint Kermit Gosnell as representative of all pro-choice advocates?
@Moon-howler
“I guess I want to know, what will it take? I just want tighter control over who gets to buy a gun to try to weed out some of these wackos.”
While no system is perfect, the NCIS system used today is pretty good. State law determines whether or not a sale or transfer requires a background check. Private sales in VA don’t have to go through a check, like when two collectors sell and trade. Statistics show that very few crimes are committed by people using guns obtained through legal private sales. The crimes are committed using guns “straw purchased” or stolen and sold black-market.
Where the background check can be improved is not through expansion, but by improving the data in the system. Cho at VA Tech, Jared Loughner, and now this guy…alll had either a history of mental illness, were “on the radar” of a cognizant authority and/or had a previous interaction with law enforcement. But in order for a background check system to be effective, it must have “good data”. In order for a person to be prohibited from owning a firearm, they must have been adjudicated “mentally deficient” or somesuch, by a court. Courts have been reluctant to do so. What is odd is if I am the subject of a protective order, I cannot purchase a firearm under the law in many states, (VA included) and a background check would come back “denied” but if I am court-ordered to outpatient psychiatric treatment in VA, I can still purchase a gun. This is how VA Tech shooter Cho was able to purchase his guns.
Systems require data. “Garbage in…garbage out”. If we’re going to change the law, lets change what data gets put into the system, to include involuntary psychiatric treatment. It’s the lunatics with the guns that are the problem, not the guns. In drunk-driving cases, it’s the drunk behind the wheel that gets the blame, not the car he used to kill someone.
I haven’t seen any evidence that the shooter had a secret clearance. @Steve Thomas
I would suggest you do a bit more research then, because it has been widely reported. He was a subcontractor to Hewlett Packard working on an upgrade to the Navy’s IT infrastructure, which required a minimum of “Secret”.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Aaron Alexis, the 34-year-old suspect in Monday’s shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, had “secret” clearance and was assigned to start working there as a civilian contractor with a military-issued ID card, his firm’s chief executive told Reuters.
“He did have a secret clearance. And he did have a CAC (common access card),” said Thomas Hoshko, CEO of The Experts Inc, which was helping service the Navy Marine Corps Intranet as a subcontractor for HP Enterprise Services, part of Hewlett-Packard Co.”
I’ll share it with you over a cup of coffee sometime.
Sounds good. Let me know.
Australia passed restrictive gun laws following a massacre there in 1996. The number of murders and suicides attributed to guns declined 59% and 65%, respectively, shortly thereafter. Here’s an article about it in the Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
Australians have never had a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution. Also, even with their restrictive laws, they continue to have a higher overall violent crime rate than the United States:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
@Steve Thomas
Thank you for the interesting, informed discussion of this matter, and for shooting down uninformed comments made by others who are motivated only by hatred of people belonging to the opposing political party rather than a desire to find truth and solve problems.
I agree that the root of the problem lies in our mental health system rather than in our gun control laws. I know from first-hand experience with a family member years ago that the process is to institutionalize the person long enough to get them medicated, and then turn them loose with their promise to continue their medications and keep their doctor appointments. The patients don’t do this even in cases of previous violent behavior, as happened with this family member. I’m not talking about just hitting someone, but actual attempted murder with a knife in one instance and multiple, serious threats to commit murder. Several times, the police took this person to the psychiatric hospital, where they doped them up with psychotropic and other types of drugs, and then released them only to repeat the same pattern.
Regarding guns, they were all removed from the home where this person lived when not institutionalized. Had the person had access to a gun instead of just knives during that one incidence the outcome would likely not have been one with no one injured. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a key element of the solution. The question is how best to accomplish this. I suggest that anyone with a documented record of violent behavior and/or clinically diagnosed with a serious mental illness be put on a blacklist of people not permitted to obtain firearms of any kind at any time.
I am going to agree about the mental illness discussion. I don’t agree about the guns. As you all know I am a moderate and I don’t think just anyone has the right to own whatever weapon they choose. I believe all our rights are somewhat restricted by common sense and the good of all. Not Bernie, if you wanted a nuke, I would have to say no. Having one isn’t in the best interest of all. Where do we draw the line? Maybe I feel that way apart from the violent massacres. Each one is different and has a different set of what ifs. There isn’t going to be a one size fits all situation.
However, we do have the common denominator of mental illness and we have the ability to kill a number of people in rapid succession. I think that is where we start. I also think we need to hold gun owners responsible for their weapons. If a gun gets stolen, then perhaps the owner must supply authorities with a registration number that heretofore has been kept by the owner. Naturally parents need to keep guns from minors.
Inner city gun violence is a totally different problem and has different issues all together. It can’t be a part of this discussion.
Not Bernie,
The challenge is finding that “equant” where the privacy rights of the mentally ill are respected, due process is observed, and the safety of the public considered. I do not think it nearly as difficult if there is a public will to do so. But first we need to have the broader discussion on mental health. We need to look at the over-prescription of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications and what their long-term effects are. We need to look at the thresholds that must be breached before a person is remanded to the care of the mental health system. Most of all, we need to take a serious look at the “community based” mental-health system. Perhaps it was better than the asylums of the 19th and 20th centuries, but closing the majority of institutions to save a few bucks only moved the problem into our neighborhoods. Neighborhoods ill-equipped to deal with serious mental illness. There is no more therapy. It’s all medication…and no one can force a person to take medications…they have rights don’tcha’know? Fine, except for the fact that now its neighbors and family members that deal with this on a day-to-day basis, and local law-enforcement and the schools in extremis. These are the wrong institutions for dealing with this issue.
@Steve Thomas
You have hit the nail on the head. The system is based on medication – dope them up and push them out the door. Families and friends are not equipped to deal with these situations, especially when they involve an individual who is prone to violence as was the case with our family member. This situation was resolved only when this person passed away about a decade ago at the age of about 50 from heart problems brought on by alcoholism, heavy smoking and prescription drug abuse. There has to be a better way of resolving these situations than doping people up until they die or institutionalizing them. I’m not a mental health professional so I don’t know what the answer is other than to say that the solution is not politicizing the matter and turning it into a partisan fight as one of the other commenters so crassly tried to do. To me as someone who has actually dealt with this problem, those comments were highly offensive, ignorant and inappropriate.
Starry,
So much for your theory: The shooter purchased the shotgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer in Lorton, and passed both the VA State and FBI background checks:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/
Like I said, had his previous gun-related interactions with law enforcement (Seattle in 2004) Ft. Worth in 2010 been prosecuted, he wouldn’t have been able to pass the background check. Had his recent treatment for “hearing voices” and “being targeted by vibrations, preventing him from sleeping” been deemed enough for him to be ordered by a court for treatment, and this been reported to the background system, he wouldn’t have passed the background check.
He was background checked for the shotgun purchase. He was background checked for his secret clearance, which enabled his access to the base. Please explain to me how banning AR-15’s or high capacity magazines would have “probably prevented this tragedy”? How would “expanded background checks” beyond the TWO he went through to purchase the gun, and the deep check he went through to get his secret clearance prevented this?
The issue isn’t guns. The issue isn’t the 2nd Amendment. The issue is the broken mental health system, not to mention the broken justice system in Seattle and Ft. Worth. Lastly, what should also cause a great deal of concern…how did this individual obtain a secret clearance, when he has had run-ins with the law, a spotty service record, money troubles, and most of all, was exhibiting signs of paranoid schizophrenia?
@Moon-howler
You do realize that he bought only a shotgun, right? With a background check.
And because law enforcement didn’t arrest him for prior events, he was not a convicted felon. That same law enforcement will be the ones enforcing your new laws.
We have reasonable laws. But they keep not getting enforced. As for the mental health issues, it wasn’t the NRA, but your beloved ACLU that shot down any increased “background check” on mental health. Its not the “gun lobby” stopping efforts concerning mental health.
No..it didn’t work out that well because the NAVY dropped the ball on security. He shot the security that they had. And military law forbids any other weapons be available to troops. So, he was in the gun free zone of DC and the further enforced gun free zone of the base…and then a man with a gun finally stopped the bad guy with the gun.
Cargo, I am well aware that he only brought a shot gun. I believe I mentioned that fact on this blog as a matter of fact.
My beloved ACLU? I challenge you on that remark, to find anything that supports your statement. Is your own position so weak that you need to misrepresent my position?
About the strongest ACLU statement that you have ever gotten out of me is that I suppose they are a necessary evil to keep govt from trouncing on individual rights.
@Steve Thomas
Also, they didn’t have 200 million guns out of a population of 300 million. They only had 22 million people in the entire country.
And they’ve had a lower crime rate, including murder, at the height of their gun ownership. Same with England.
Its not the guns. Its the culture.
@Moon-howler
Sorry if I missed that you knew that he only brought a shotgun. Apparently no rifle at all was involved. As for the “beloved ACLU”, I do admit that because you seem to support so many other liberal agendas….that you would like the Democrat’s legal wing.
I stand corrected. But it was the ACLU, not the NRA.
I think the NRA is a very destructive force now. I know lots of gun owners who will have nothing to do with that organization. You obviously don’t share my opinion. I am not that much of an absolutist with my issues.
There are several key words that tip your hand, Cargo–one of them being ‘agenda.’ Another would. be “Democrat’s legal wing” Actually, if you think about it, the ACLU had supported all sorts of things that might seem repugnant to many of us such as KKK rights. I think it is more accurate to say that the ACLU supports the rights of the individual and keeps the government from running rough shod over the little guy.
They are just another form of checks and balance but they generally piss most of us off.
Do you really think it is fair to align me with ACLU just because I support reproductive rights?
I think everything is liberal from where you sit, Cargo. Not sure what happened to you along the way. Is your entire family like you are or are you the anomaly?
I don’t know…IS it fair to align you with the ACLU? As you say…they fight for rights, especially ones that you seem to support. But as I said…. I stand corrected.
They just skip over the 2nd amendment rights and against free public exercise of religion, and tend to focus on the ones that liberals like….thus…Democrat’s legal wing. Snark….nothing serious.
I know gunnies that can’t stand the NRA. Your position isn’t shocking. Its not for everyone.
Everything liberal? No..not everything. I am neutral on same sex marriage. I support ending or reforming the “drug war.” I am against the Patriot Act. I do not support DOMA, but, once enacted feel that the President should defend laws enacted by Congress. I am a staunch anti-communist. I am also anti-progressive/socialist. I do not support collectivism. From where I sit, the nation has moved away from its classic liberalism, from the ordered liberty of its founding towards a more socialist/progressive totalitarian ideal. And by that, I mean the top/down progressivism of Wilson…. not the good idea programs by the grassroots, like child labor laws. Congress has given up its prerogatives. The executive has seized too much power. The press is corrupt and has chosen sides. Very, very few politicians follow their oaths of office.
And the voters have become apathetic boobs that know nothing about their country.
My brother is a staunch conservative Catholic. My sister is a liberal atheist. My other brother, I think is somewhere in between. I think that he’d have to be, I guess.
Details are too iffy right now to discuss the fact that the gun used to kill the majority of the people was purchased legally in Virginia. Details about Alexis’s sanity are also sketchy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-ar-15_n_3944209.html
@Cargosquid
That seems like a lot of labels to keep up with.
As for your family, I bet family gatherings are ….interesting. Do you all agree ahead of time to not bring up politics or religion?
I don’t think that there is much left to the profession of journalism. I will agree with you there. it seems that one’s political position is a matter of public record. When I was growing up, it was unprofessional to display one’s “colors.”
I guess I find it odd that you have your belief system all laid out. Do other people on the blog have their belief system as well mapped? I have a couple issues that are important to me mapped and that is about it. I am not big into labels and half the time I don’t think they fit anyway. I think common sense should rule.
I am watching Snake Salvation on TV. Bizarre. I am not sure that I think there should be laws about it if children are not involved. If someone wants to stick his or her hand in a cottonmouth’s mouth…at what point is that none of my business?
I don’t know if that belief is liberal or conservative. As long as I don’t have to worship with snakes and as long as children aren’t subjected to it (captive audience) then I am not sure it isn’t a violation of religious practice.
I also reserve the right to laugh although it actually isn’t really funny.
re the ACLU: I have always thought of it as an essentially conservative group, at least with regard to having a very strict constructionist litigation policy re the First Amendment.