Navy Yard Shooting and Gun Control Talk: So it Begins…….Again

Washington Navy Yard Sign

Yesterday, as the tragedy of the Washington D.C. navy yard shooting began to unfold in the news, I mentioned that gun control proponents were hinting at ramping up talk about increased legislation. That was in the early afternoon. By the evening, the talk was outright open about how this newest shooting is proof that more gun control laws are now obviously necessary.

Timing is Everything

It didn’t even take 24 hours. I would say that it was more like six hours. But when a group is desperate to make something happen, then they will use desperate measures.

Just like with Newtown, it appears that certain groups and individuals were simply waiting for their next opportunity to take advantage of the momentum from the next groundswell of fear. Because fear is exactly what it takes for us to trade our liberties for “security”. We see a danger in the news, the government says that they can keep us safe if we just surrender a little more of our Second Amendment rights and we agree.

State of the Heart

The issue that can be exploited  here is the difference in mindset between the American populace and some of those in power. Most American citizens (either for or against firearms) do not have a hidden agenda regarding guns and gun control. On the other hand, those at the top, who lead the gun control movement, don’t tell the rest of us what they are really after……control.

In the midst of a crisis (like yesterday’s shooting in D.C.), the average citizen reacts with heartfelt rage, injustice, compassion and even fear. Looking to take advantage of us while we are down, the elitists pushing gun control move on a preplanned agenda with a cold and calculating desire for power.

The Whole Truth

As I said yesterday, if we are going to tell the whole story here, let’s remember that our military are restricted from being armed on their bases. Would this shooting even have occurred if the shooter knew that most of the people on the facility would have been carrying? I say no.


Before commenting, please read my Comments Policy. Comments that do not comply with this policy will be removed.


  1. I was listening to the President on the radio around lunch time the day this tragedy happened. This part of the speech made me angry.
    “we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to try to prevent them. ”
    Because I know what he meant. He meant Gun control. He didn’t mean more mental health help for people who need it, and as details come about, this man clearly needed. He didn’t mean, to make sure a person who “hears voices” will have their Navy base pass revoked until further notice.
    My prayers go out to the vicitms families.

    • That’s a good point. I think a lot of us know what he meant. Unfortunately we aren’t dealing with someone who shows his real motive. It will begin to come out soon.

  2. To your point yesterday re allowing military members to be armed on base: \

    I both agree, and disagree.

    As a (former) soldier who now carries a weapon from time to time as a civilian, I believe that I would definitely want to have the ability to defend myself and my brothers/sisters while on base.

    As a (former) soldier who lived on multiple Army bases, I can see why President Clinton changed the policy – with the approval of senior officers. As much as we like to think of the military as being wholly comprised of honorable, reasonable folks, there actually are quite a few psychotic knuckleheads whose psychotic knuckleheadery shows up, by and large, in garrison when they are not deployed or in the field. At a number of bases, including Fort Hood incidentally, there was actually a fairly widespread culture of violence prior to the rule (and gangs are sadly very present on military bases). The number of gun related incidents was frankly, and shockingly, high. There is something to be said about viewing the base you live on as a refuge from this stuff. Furthermore, as it is, the number of suicides among military personnel is tragically high. This policy almost assuredly reduces some of those opportunities and provides the chain of command with an opportunity to intervene before a suicidal event occurs.

    Now, having said all of that, and given recent events and the obvious environment of idealogical conflict that we now live in (as well as the general change in on-base culture from the late ’80s/early ’90s to now), I certainly lean more heavily in favor of permitting firearm possession. The caveat is that I would not agree to a general “2nd Amendment” application to military bases. I would want it to be severely limited, with the determination of who is allowed to carry a weapon to be entirely up to individual commanders, perhaps at the company level, but certainly at the battalion/brigade level.

    It’s a tough situation.

    • Thanks, Barry. I really appreciate your perspective. Being a civie, I had not considered the angles you’ve brought up. I can see the value in letting the commanding officers make the decision on a man-by man basis. It’s a shame we have this issue in front of us in the first place.

      Considering the way the war seems to be making it’s way onto our shores, I would still like to see those who are responsible in our military forces be able to defend themselves on base. There has got to be a reasonable solution here.

Leave a Comment