National Journal Writer Says Navy Yard Shooting Proves Fallacy of NRA's "More Guns" Solution

National Journal's Mathew Cooper has this story that is just flat out wrong.  He either is uninformed on the law related to military facilities and firearms or he simply does not care about the facts:

The Navy Yard shooting exposes a fallacy in that argument. A military facility, the Navy Yard had plenty of good guys with weapons who were nonetheless were unable to stop Aaron Alexis, the alleged shooter, from killing a dozen innocent persons. In the coming weeks, we'll learn more about Navy Yard security and how Alexis was able to thwart it. (We'll also learn more about how he obtained his arms, but let's leave that aside for now.)

A little education Mr. Cooper; Military installations are technically “gun free” zones meaning that military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization. This policy includes those living on military bases who are not allowed to keep personal weapons in their domiciles. Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases and was implemented by President Clinton in 1993.

Cooper then tries to qualify his totally incorrect statement:

True, the Navy Yard is not a heavily armed facility. It's not like, say, walking into a military base in the U.S. let alone onto a war zone. But neither was it the kind of gun-free school zone that the NRA has described as an inviting target for crazed shooters. It was at least as heavily armed as we can expect any elementary school could ever be under the National School Shield program. And yet, carnage.

Which is the point we have been making about why teachers and administrators should have the right to be armed.  If the security guard at the school, or in the case of the Navy Yard, facility is taken down, you need additional people to be armed as back-up.  Speaking to the issue of military installations, we trust enlisted personnel to be armed on the battlefield, but not on base?  We saw at Fort Hood just how prohibiting military personnel from being armed worked out.  The bad guy (the Fort Hood shooter) disobeyed the regulation and went on a shooting rampage while his victims abided by the restriction and paid the price. Gun Free Zones (which the Navy Yard was in essence) only prevent law abiding people from carrying firearms.

Manchin's Messaging on Background Checks

With the U.S. Congress in recess, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has been using a likely focus group tested soundbite to explain his support for Chuck Schumer's attempt to require background checks on private firearm transfers.  In both Roll Call and National Journal, there are stories about how he responds with a rhetorical question that the uninformed can simply shake their head in agreement.  In Roll Call:

And he reiterated a line on guns he used repeatedly at the state fair and likely has been well-honed in his time at home since the spring: “Don’t you want to know if a person is a criminal or a crazy person or a terrorist?” Many in the group nod.

And in National Journal:

Manchin said to the crowd. "Do you think it's unreasonable if you went to a gun show or online that there'd be a background check? That's all we're talking about."

Manchin should know that was not all Manchin/Schumer/Toomey would do.  He even repeated the false statement to the crowd in that meeting covered by National Journal that the amendment would have expanded gun rights.  According to Dave Kopel, the amendment was a "bonanza of gun control."  

Unlike Pat Toomey, who has moved on, Manchin continues to push the gun control proposal.  Will he pay a price in his home state?  Comments like this:

"Hey, I'm Joe, you know me."

...leads one to the conclusion that he thinks in the end, he can talk his way out of his votes when it's time for reelection. Time will tell.  He is not up for reelection until 2018.  That's a long time for voters to remember.