Last time I wrote about Charolette Clymer it was when she was ignoring the facts about the most recent California school shooting.

This time she decided to use the Pensacola Naval Air Station shooting to push gun control, proving once again, that the facts are irrelevant, she just wants to take your guns.

To bring you up to speed:

‘Barbaric’: Saudi national opens fire on Pensacola Navy base, kills 3, injures 8

A Saudi man training at the Naval Air Station Pensacola opened fire on the base early Friday morning with a handgun, killing three and injuring eight before deputies fatally shot him, authorities said.

The shooter was identified as Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a member of the Saudi military, a U.S. official told The Associated Press. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity. A motive for the attack is unknown.

The shooting began around 6:30 a.m. CT and the suspect was halted by two Escambia County sheriff’s deputies, who arrived on scene in less than five minutes, Sheriff David Morgan said. An official who was not authorized to speak publicly said that the gunman did not use his military-issued service weapon.

The shooter is a Saudi national and a member of the Saudi military.  He would be prohibited by Federal law from buying – or as Miguel pointed out, even using – a gun in the United States.

So where did he get his gun, because I couldn’t have just gone off base and bought one at the local gun store?

Knowing how tight security is around foreign nationals is for training at US installations, I wonder how much free access he had to wander around off-base to find a gun?

Furthermore, Pensacola Naval Air Station still prohibits personal weapons on base, making it a gun-free zone.

None of these facts made any difference to Clymer, who used this attack to call for more gun rights restrictions.

Tell me exactly what loophole or law allowed this to happen, I’m curious.

When she was challenged on this she acquiesced to the fact that guns are not allowed on the base, but people could still smuggle them in.

So someone who will break the law to smuggle a gun onto a military base will obey the law buying the gun?  I doubt it considering that the law prohibits foreign nationals from buying guns in the US.

When she was called out on this, she resorted to “but I’m a veteran.”

You know what.  Fuck her veteran status.  Her status does not give her the right to eliminate the civil rights of American civilians.

Do you know what a system is called when the military has special rights to dominate and restrict the freedoms of the citizenry?  A junta.  Clymer’s fantasy land is a Progressive junta where Leftists in uniform get to decide what rights the rest of us have.  Because she’s a veteran.

And just for good measure, she decided that insulting her opponents intelligence was a good counter to facts.

Nothing about a foreign national getting his hands on a gun in the US and trying to sneak it onto a US military base is legal.  There is no passable gun control law that would have prevented this.

But that doesn’t matter, Clymer wants total civilian disarmament because she’s a veteran.

Also, I suspect that this is a coordinated act of terrorism and there is a conspirator in the US who provided this guy with his gun.  I’ll continue to monitor this event.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

10 thoughts on “The worst argument for gun control yet from Charlotte Clymer”
  1. I think the canonization of veterans and the fantasy that they’ll all be on the conservative side if bad things happen is misguided and stupid. I know plenty of veterans who don’t think civilians should own guns. (I know a lot who believe in the Second Amendment, too. Bear with me here.) I think it comes from the volunteer military. Young people who voluntarily enter military service, especially the ones who make it a career, are used to and comfortable with rules that restrict their constitutional rights, especially those protected by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, since they’ve lived under those rules all their adult lives, until they leave the service. Contrast that with veterans who were drafted, or enlisted, during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, who saw the military as an unpleasant duty they had to perform to end an emergency, then went home and went on with their lives. They saw themselves as citizens first and were protective of their rights in a way that a lot of people today who see themselves as soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc.) first, and citizens second, aren’t.
    An acquaintance of mine, a retired high-ranking officer, told me he used to tell his troops, “We defend democracy; we don’t practice it.” I think that mindset has seeped into the ranks of more veterans than some of us would like to believe.

    1. The canonization of veterans was a product of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Typical “if one side goes one way, we will go the other.” It was the Right’s opposition to the Left’s calling troops imperialists and baby killers.

      The volunteer military has always been split 50/50 politically. A lot of people join out of a sense of duty. A lot join because it’s the best pay and job security you could get with a HS diploma. I used to teach math to Airmen just like that. They really didn’t care about the Air Force any more than the paycheck, it was a way to get 4 years of paid training for a job better than flipping burgers.

      I knew an actual factual socialist, Che poster on his wall, who was in the Army. He thought it was the best thing in the world to get paid to sit behind a desk and drink coffee getting paid by tax dollars.

      When it comes to guys like Buttigieg and Ted Lieu, I think they join for the boost that veteran status gives to their political ambitions. It allows them to deflect criticism by saying “I served my country so [opinion]” and get away unchallenged.

      I seethe ever time I watch some general who looks like damn n00b firing an AR-15 explain why that weapon is too dangerous for civilians because he carried one for 30 years.

      1. Which means the mantra “Veterans will be on our side when the time comes” is a dangerous delusion. Some will,some won’t, and the ones that won’t are often as well trained as the ones that will. Witness the SF sergeant who trained Al-Qaeda.
        I agree with your assessment of the volunteer military. It coincides with mine,so it has to be right.

  2. I would agree that she is a person who CLAIMS to be a veteran. Whether that claim has any basis in fact is entirely open to question.
    And even if it is, I say that a person who once served in the military but now disavows her oath “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic” has thereby abandoned any right to the honorable title of Veteran.

  3. So, “Sweetie” is the Internationally Recognized Sign that your argument has no “steam, eh, Ms. Clymer?

    And, nice how you (Ms. Clymer) handled Ms. Loesh’s arguments. “Don’t worry your pretty little head about grown up stuff, Dana! Now, just you run along, and bake sumpin!”

    Well, bless her heart!

    1. Seth Moulton was a USMC infantryman and Tulsi Gabbard is an MP.

      The rest seem to be administrative or chairborne. Buttigieg was finance, Lieu and Pam Bondi are JAG.

      Almost all of the “I carried an M-4 so I know AR-15s are too dangerous for civilians” Leftist veterans were as far from door kickers as they could be. Moulton was the only one I can think of who was combat arms, and he is a born and raised Masshole.

Login or register to comment.