Stephen Gutowski is a writer and firearms expert for the Washington Free Beacon.  He is probably the most knowledgeable writer on the topics of firearms in any non-firearms specific media publication.

He took to Twitter to counter the political “we must do something” following yesterday’s Saugus High School shooting.

California, where today's school shooting took place, already has universal background checks. https://t.co/LP71iDuaRy

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019

Police have now identified the shooter as a 16-year-old who used a handgun. It is illegal for anyone under 21-years-old to purchase a handgun under federal law. It is also illegal for adults to allow unauthorized access to guns under California law. https://t.co/hNw7LLfuQv

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019

We still do not have all the details about the shooting, however Gutowski’s assertions are true.  The shooter was 16 years old and by every law in California, was not able to buy a gun and should have been unable to get his hands on one.

Over to the Daily Mail for a second.  They published an anti-gun article on this shooting – mostly attacking the shooter’s father for being a hunter that reloaded – that had a few decent nuggets of useful information in it.

As authorities continue to investigate and try to determine a motive, details about the suspect and his family have started to emerge – including how there were signs of trouble at home.

Berhow’s father, Mark Berhow, died of a heart attack in December 2017, according to his online obituary.

A childhood friend of Berhow’s speculated in a KTLA interview that the death of the teen’s father two years ago could have triggered the rampage.

So the shooter’s dad died suddenly when the boy was 14.  I would say that the loss of a dad at this age was probably the proximal cause of the shooting, as we know what the effect of a boy raised without a father can be.  For his dad to have died suddenly and unexpectedly just adds fuel to that fire.

Jared Axen, who lives next door to the family, said Berhow used to go hunting with his father and that firearms ‘weren’t a mystery to him’.

My suspicion is that the father’s guns were not secured by mom after dad’s death.  If she is not familiar with guns, she may have not have known how to do that or where all of them were.

That’s the end of my speculation.

Enter Charlotte Clymer.  Clymer is the communications officer for the Human Rights Campaign, which is a far Left-leaning LGBT rights organization.

Did I mention they were far Left-leaning?

Not so fun fact brought to you by a military veteran + gun owner from Texas: firearms are transported across state lines. There are no metal detectors on the highway. You're welcome for this new information, @StephenGutowski.

So, yes, Kamala Harris is right to call for this. https://t.co/zmYffhcjk8

— Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019

First, two points:

One: being a veteran or from a Red state doesn’t mean you know fuck all about guns or American gun laws.  I have known and worked with many veterans who are as ignorant about guns as any member of Moms Demand Action.  Most military jobs do not require firearms knowledge and none require knowing about US gun laws.  “I served as a Finance officer/JAG officer/Public Affairs officer, so I am an expert on why you shouldn’t own an AR-15” is horseshit.

Two: I thank all veterans for their service.  But I am getting very suspicious of all these raging Leftists who come out of the military and immediately attack our civil liberties, from guns to free speech and the presumption of innocence.  Pam Bondi, Ted Lieu, Amy McGrath, all of them have the message “I served in the military so you can’t question my patriotism/love of America” then proceed to advocate for gun confiscation, call the NRA a terrorist organization, and argue that men accused of decades-old sex sexual assault, without evidence, are guilty.

I know the military has never been partisan, but this is starting to disturb me, as in are we headed in the direction of a Leftist Junta in the US?  Maybe I’m being paranoid, but this seems to be the root of the Ukrainian Whistleblower thing.  “You can’t question Vindman’s motives, he’s a Lt. Col, his loyalty and patriotism are unimpeachable” is the defense, but it seems that he was a partisan hack in uniform.

Clymer seems to be using that same defense in her Tweet.

She continued:

Sweetie, we're trying to tell you how this works, and yet, per usual, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that people DO purchase firearms in private sales without background checks and transport them into other states.

Don't be a child. https://t.co/MQtgsTQjTa

— Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019

Does anyone want to teach @StephenGutowski how basic geography works? Y'all are obsessed with one border to our south and then completely lose all logic when it comes to state lines. I would hire a 3rd grader to teach you, but it'd be a waste of their time. https://t.co/irLHRUpV6O

— Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019

It doesn't matter if transporting firearms is illegal if you can LEGALLY buy a firearm in a private sale without a background check in one state and carry it to another with no checkpoints to ensure it's not happening.

And you know this, Sweetie. https://t.co/dF1XmYrmfS

— Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019

First of all, that is fucking condescending.  There really is nothing like the contempt and condescension of the self-righteous Progressive.

And while yes, Clymer might be technically correct, there has not been one school shooting or mass shooting I am aware of in which the shooter went across state lines to buy a gun in a neighboring state that was illegal in the shooter’s home state.

Considering that this shooter was 16, what would adding a UBC to this situation do?  A 16 year old is prohibited from buying a gun anywhere, and a unlicensed seller would have to willfully break the law to hand the gun over to an obvious child.

I don’t think Clymer is too dumb to get that.  It’s that those points are irrelevant.

She wants these gun control laws passed, this shooting is a perfectly good puddle of blood to dance in, and she wields Progressive brow-beating condescension as a brickbat to get her way.

Its not about stopping the next school shooting.  It’s about attacking the rights of law abiding gun owners.

And if you disagree or call her on it, she’ll remind you that she’s a veteran from Texas so is more American, more patriotic, and know more about guns than you, so you need to shut your mouth, sweetie.