Monday in America

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Apparently, this guy has had previous shoot-outs with law enforcement, was a military contractor, and was a disgruntled employee.

This incident might actually be "workplace violence".

An unfortunate incident perpetrated by another disturbed individual. it's a shame people are unable to find other means to vent their anger and frustration.

It's just a crazy fvcked up mess...
 
Another sad day in 'merica...

Without trying to sound cynical, i can't wait to see what the internet will lay us on the so-called gunman's identity.
Muslim?
Freemason?
Osama?
An Iranian spy?
A guy kidnapped by an alien?
An alien?

Bets are on .... (ok. now I'm a little cynical)
 

Black flag operation by Obama to get our guns, our freedom guns that shoot democracy.





Im pulling from news I read this morning, but it looks like the dude stole a rifle and a pistol from the navy lockup after buying a shotgun at a gun store.

So two problems here 1) why the f*ck would a civilian contractor (Please read any civilian) have access to a military gun safe? 2) Why the f*ck was this dude able to buy any kind of weapon after several arrests for..... shooting guns.
 
I thought it was oldmangamer but I recently sent him one of my armadillo hats and he reported it was doing the job.

Sadly this guy really needed one of those hats ...

I feel really conflicted about having closed that part of the business down.

I blame the chinese ...
 


1) Most employees are civilian contractors to the government. There is a old law on the books that states that the US military can not and will not secure or protect any civilian run installation. These jobs are all contracted out for a couple reasons, therefore all employees are civilian contractors and the military can not guard it. So, even the guards are civilian contractors but almost always with former military history.
2) He fired a shot one through the floor/ceiling as the news has since come out. It isn't felony because things can happen and they weren't able to prove anything but neglect. To charge someone with a felony (keeps you from purchasing a gun) is dangerous as it will pretty much destroy someone's life. It was determined to probably be an accident and he was charged under another code. Also, since he didn't attempt to kill/attack someone with it and it could be ruled accidental, a felony was never on the table.
 
I was talking about this incident yesterday with some people and over my recent government experience. My experience shows that these locations do not proactively protect against this. These locations are almost exclusively set to react, not prevent. No doubt if you attempt this you will die, that I can assure you, but you can cause mass death.

What I have noticed out of the information about the last several mass murder shootings... Not a single one has a been a right wing nut or gun grabber. If they were, that would be getting blasted all over the news. I dread the day if that happens.

What we have noticed is that these are generally quiet people who aren't left wing nuts either, but they lean left. The Aurora shooting, the Gabby Giffords Shooting, and now the Navy yard. The people they talked to all have said they were either left leaners, more liberal, or not supporters of the Right/Conservative policies.

I'm not pointing this out to make it political, only to point out one's ideals and those that commit these crimes. I'm trying to understand the connection as to what trips in these people's minds to go out and do a mass murder. Everyone at some point thinks about some form of violence, it's the person who acts on it that becomes the issue. We haven't had a gun grabber go shooting places up yet, so I'm wondering why the people with this ideals resort to guns to play out their anger?
 
Liberalism is considered a mental disease. :)

In fact, he grew to have a sense of entitlement, that others and the country owed him something. He felt he was being discriminated against for being black, that the gov't contractor didn't pay him his wages, etc.

Sense of entitlement.. Hmmmm. Could it be possible that when the someone with a liberal mindset and mental disorder isn't happy with their situation, there could be a tendency to lash out in a rage of violence at others? I only provoke that idea because I have yet to see some conservative minded person with mental illness go out a killing rampage. The conservative mindset doesn't have sense of entitlement; moreso is often a mindset of doing for yourself and not relying on others to do for you.
 
Story has since changed. There was no AR involved, only a shotgun and 2 glock handguns, which were likely the 2 police officer's service weapons.

Funny how the media somehow instantly reported an AR was used.. again, then retracted and has remained that way on this story.

The area he walked into was a common area that did not require any kind of security check to enter. It would be like walking into your company lobby. The problem is that it was a gun free zone, meaning even active service members not designated as security were not allowed to carry a weapon. Regardless, carrying or not carrying likely would not have prevented this as he would have probably targeted the area with the least likely resistance.
 
From what I have heard on this story, this guy represents a failure of existing multiple government background check systems. The first is that the guy did not have an honorable discharge from the Navy. In pretty well every licensed profession having anything less than a honorable discharge from the armed services makes you unlicensable. Many private companies use similar rules for their hiring screens. He never should have been able to get his Top Security clearance with that history, and especially his history of two reckless discharge of a firearm charges. The government failed there. The board that licenses me won't license anybody with any record of more than parking tickets and minor traffic violations. Even most other minor misdemeanors like disorderly conduct or minor in possession of alcohol are essentially automatic rejections. And I just work mainly as a date entry/IT guy in a hospital and don't have anything nearly as important as a government Top Security clearance. The contractor also should have yanked his access credentials when he was fired, they screwed up. If I decide to quit, I have to turn in my badge at security and TWO of them escort me off the premises immediately. Computer logins, etc. immediately are locked. That's SOP at most other places as well. And finally the vaunted NICS background checks didn't catch his two priors and his less than honorable discharge from the Navy and approved him in getting the shotgun. So all I see there is a system that is broken allowing a guy who sounds like an untreated schizophrenic to go and shoot up a place he never should have been allowed to be in.
 
He only had a Secret clearance, not a Top Secret clearance. There is a significant difference in levels of access. A Secret clearance runs about $500 and does a very basic background check to verify you're not a wanted criminal and basic things like that. It doesn't take very long to get that and is generally something a lot of people receive when doing basic jobs where they might see something that is FRD, or Formerly Restricted Data.

To 'quit' my job with my top secret clearance, it took approximately 12 hours of my time. It isn't like a private sector company where someone quits and you disable their access. Oh no, there is a lot of paperwork that needs filled out, hand written signatures or emails to be retrieved, organized, and then submitted for approval for termination. Once approved, the accounts are scheduled to be disabled. I started my process 3 weeks prior to termination. After about 12 hours of my time getting information together, they submitted the paperwork. My accounts were scheduled to be disabled at 5pm end of day, but I'm told it took over a week before it actually happened. They were marked for disabling but the job didn't run for a week.

Digging further, he received an honorable discharge.

The guard gate wasn't anything impressive, other than something to show a badge. It said he showed a badge. Was it a visitor badge or his own badge? My experience the visitor badge is something very basic that says VISITOR on it with a number. Or he could have simply said he was a visitor and needed to get a badge inside. The guards generally aren't paying attention especially with the hectic morning rush of people coming in. I've been through those gates hundreds of times and know it wouldn't be hard to get through one of those basic gates. If it was a Top Secret place he was trying to access, no way in hell would he have made it through.. but these were just basic workers that weren't going into sensitive areas.
 
This will go on and on with no end in sight. Something has to be done asap!

 
In the 90s G. Bush removed the rights for service members with permits to carry their firearms. For reference, police officers are provided carry rights when becoming officers and qualifying. They are able to legally carry. Why can our service members who have qualified not carry? Let's start getting rid of gun free zones. Some areas I can understand gun free zones like where I previously worked which was Federal property. But at places where the general public can easily enter, these should not be gun free zones. That alone is a deterrent against this kind of action.

There is a new petition on whitehouse.gov to allow service members to carry their firearms again. It has to reach 100,000 signatures by Oct. 17th to prompt a response from the White House.
 

I'm all for allowing active duty service members carrying. Heck, I'd trust an active duty service member carrying more than some municipal police I've met. But then again, I'm for allowing all citizens the right to carry, regardless of whether civilian, police, or military!

 
I read an article this morning where two people got into a road rage incident. The first call pulled into a parking lot to let the other car pass. But it followed the car into the parking lot, the guy got out, pulled his gun and started shooting at the first car. That guy got out, pulled his gun, shot back. They both killed each other. They were relatively close in the same age.

The question now.. is there more to it than road rage? Both guys had carry permits, were carrying, and got involved in a shootout? I'm guessing there was more to it than that but with both people dead, they'll probably just close the case.
 
Issued under Bush, shortly after Clinton was in office something slightly changed. It was reaffirmed in 2011 as well. It was a 1992 item put out by Bush's deputy defense something or other.
 
Law written Feb. 1992.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
Implemented March 1993.

The end result is that a government employee not authorized for security is not able to carry a firearm. This is why a lot of security is outsources: liability. What if a government security person shot and killed someone and it was not warranted? This is to remove any government liability.

In doing so, only security people can have firearms. That makes sense to me. Going further, in my personal experience, the people working there were not military people anyhow, they were civilians. You can't carry firearms onto Federal property.

All that, the Navy Yard did a poor job protecting their assets. What we have a serious breakdown in securing facilities. This is not the first time in recent years a government location was compromised, only this time it was with force. They need to do a nationwide review of all secured government locations.
 
Nah, riser, that makes too much sense. It might make an overpaid government job-for-life bureaucrat look bad and doesn't do anything to accomplish the government's goals. What the government will do is have another call for more gun control, longer waiting periods, and possibly mandatory mental health exams or at least a push for the NICS system (the same system which overlooked his two reckless discharge of a firearm charges) to query medical records for psych disease.That fits the narrative and objectives of the administration a whole lot better than a security review of military installations.
 
In order to allow them to check your psych record, they have to repeal a portion of HIPAA.. which is a Democrat's baby because they implemented it to allow teenage females the option of abortions. In order to review psych history, they have to remove that portion.. double edged sword for the liberal agenda.
 


HIPAA is the Democrats' baby as it was originally intended to pave the way for a national EMR system which would be needed for socialized medicine. The acronym is "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act" for chrissakes. They're practically telling you right out front what it's for, especially today when "accountability" is synonymous for "heavily government-regulated." Remember when it was passed that the Democrats just saw Hillarycare shot down. Do not think for a second that the thought of eventually getting that passed ever left their minds. Much of HIPAA enables Obamacare and why Obama's two main healthcare bills, Obamacare and the HITECH Act, all added things to the HIPAA legislation.

The other main function of HIPAA is to allow the Office of Civil Rights the authority to levy enormous fines on hospitals as a money-making racket. Note that Obama increased these fines in 2010 and also greatly increased the fine liability of hospitals.

I highly doubt that HIPAA had much to do with trying to keep abortions secret. Hospitals and doctors' offices already had privacy policies in place and it was very much in their best interest to not leak their patients' information all over everywhere, lest the patients not come back. If it was really about abortions, why did it take until 1996 to pass this law when Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973? The Democrats controlled the government during the 1970s, they would have passed it then. There also have been many other laws passed which are not HIPAA which deal with parental non-notification of certain medical conditions and counseling such as for contraception and STI treatment.

HIPAA could also be easily modified to allow for disclosure of mental health records for firearms background checks. All Congress would have to do is pass a law that amends HIPAA and says something to the effect of "information pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions may legally be disclosed to the FBI for the sole use of performing NICS checks." That would otherwise leave the law completely intact except for that one specific exemption. HIPAA is already full of exemptions of certain things for certain uses.
 


Not all news outlets retracted the story. The good ol' liberal agenda machine was hard at work on this story. The British version of Yahoo was all too quick to write about how the "AR-15 is killing Americans". Sensationalism at its best.

http://The Gun that is Killing America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom