You’ll Never Believe Who Republicans Are Now Blaming for the Navy Yard Shooting

clinton-navy-yardIt goes without saying that Republicans would probably find some way to blame President Obama for the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, and I’m sure many do.  What I didn’t expect was for many of them to skip back thirteen years to try to blame former President Bill Clinton.

But that’s exactly what many of them seem to be doing.  After some attacked the left for “politicizing” the shooting, the right-wing media seems to be taking that a step further to attack Clinton, someone who hasn’t been president in well over a decade.

So how is it they’re making this “connection” to levy attacks against the former president?  Well, by acting ridiculous and not knowing their history.  You know, two staples of the Republican party.

Apparently these people are going back to the 90’s in a feeble attempt to try to pin the blame on the former president, claiming that the first thing he did in 1993 was to sign legislation which created “gun-free” zones that disarmed all military personnel on bases except for the Military Police.

Well, thankfully the New Republic dug a little deeper and actually found that the legislation these conservatives are referring to was Department of Defense directive 5210.56 — which was passed on February 25, 1992.

You know, before Clinton became president.

Shocking, I know.  Republicans trying to blame a Democrat for something that happened before they ever became president.

But it gets worse — the legislation these Republicans are referring to doesn’t even create “gun-free” zones.  It simply specifies certain guidelines for who’s allowed to carry weapons on military installations.

The legislation says that all DoD personnel must carry a firearm when engaged in “law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.”  What the legislation aimed to do was “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”

Again, legislation which was passed during the George H.W. Bush presidency, not the Clinton presidency.

But this pathetic attempt to blame “gun-free” zones is stemmed from the right’s ignorant belief that somehow more guns are the answer to gun violence.  That somehow if everyone carried a gun, that would solve a lot of our problems.  They always want to place the sole blame on “mental health.”  I agree that someone must be suffering from some kind of mental health issue for them to kill anyone.

But that doesn’t mean guns aren’t also part of the problem.  And it also doesn’t mean that the easy access to guns isn’t also part of the problem.  You know, it is possible that both guns and mental illness are the problem.

And while Democrats like President Obama and Bill Clinton have supported sensible gun regulations, conservatives have stood fiercely against any such legislation.

“Radical” ideas like:

  • Expanded background checks
  • Magazine capacity limits
  • Banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings

So while Republicans sit there, look liberals right in the eyes and say, “Guns have nothing to do with gun violence!” — all liberals like myself can seem to think is…

Anyone who believes that must be suffering from some kind of mental illness.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Leave it to the republiKKKans to blame a man who wasn’t even in office at the time.

    • Darkthunder

      Logic according to Republicans:

      Who’s fault is it for the failing economy? Obama (Truth: George W. Bush). In truth, the economy ISN’T failing. It’s successively been improving ever since Obama was first sworn in as President. Republicans refuse to acknowledge this.

      Who passed the so-called “gun-free zone” legislation? Clinton (Truth: George H. W. Bush)

      Both instances involves a “Bush”, and they are both Republicans. I guess Republicans are unable or unwilling to blame their own party members, both past and present.

      • gemma liar

        its also obamas fault that flatchested scum–such as pissed off michelle malkin– are getting boooobjobs to assuage (??) their self hatred

  • ChristinaM33

    I find it strange that I have yet to see anyone point out that Navy (and Air Force) personnel aren’t issued firearms as a matter of course the way that Army and Marine personnel are. So I wonder how much impact that 1992 order had on any given Naval base anyway. Probably the only people affected were the Marines.

    Anecdata but I also find it interesting that whenever I come across an ex-military gun extremist*, nine times out of ten, he** will be ex-Navy or ex-Air Force. The Army and Marine folks I have run across with few exceptions look at open or concealed carry of weapons the same way they look at camping, i.e. “Fuck that. BTDT, it’s work. I don’t need that kind of hassle.” I guess when you’ve been responsible for a gun 24/7, cleaning it, securing it, having it inspected, lugging it everywhere you go, some of the shiny wears off. An M-16 loses its penis-enhancing abilities at 2 am, after a week in the field, stinking and just wanting a bed and a shower and you have to clean the damn thing perfect before you can go…and you have to be at formation at 5 am. Or maybe I’ve just been exposed to a singular group of vets. /shrug/

    *I used “gun extremist” not “gun owner” advisedly. There is a difference and I recognize that.

    *Every single ex-military gun extremist I have met is a man. I have met women gun extremists but they fall in one of 3 categories: 1. women who spend lots of time home alone, eg. trucker’s wives, 2. avid hunters who are afraid they’ll have learn to shoot a bow to kill Bambi next year***, and 3. military spouses who have gone full dependa.

    **FTR, Bambi is delicious.

    • Informer

      When I was in the military in 1974-77, I was a military police officer. We were issued our weapons, after our tour of duty (8 hour patrol), it had to be cleaned and turned into the weapons room. You were not allowed to have your weapon 24/7 unless you were out in the field or on assignment overseas. It may be different now, I don’t know, but you’re right, the last damn thing I wanted to do was carry that thing around 24/7 and be responsible for it if it got lost or stolen. Do I have a weapon now, yes I do and I’m all for more extensive background checks, no sales via the internet or gun shows without a proper background check and waiting period.

      • jdubhub68

        In 1987, the Navy took over security of most bases from the Marines. I was one who got sucked into the billet vacuum and did three years. We were not armed while on base and our duty weapon was checked out from the armory at the beginning of our shift and cleared/turned back in at the end of the shift.

    • James Jake Carmack

      So true, I was in the Army for nine years, I am not impressed with firearms, been there done that! With all my weapons training as well as my comrades in arms none of us carried weapons around all day long unless we were deployed in the field. Even in the field no one was issued ammunition. Why did they do this? To prevent all the accidental deaths that would have occurred. So how do you feel about all those gun owners out there with no training.

      • robingee

        But if everyone had guns (aka “the GOOD guys”) then when a mass shooting happened, the armed civilians (Who are CRACK SHOTS I am sure!) would deftly take out the shooter without causing any other injuries. In Fantasyland.

      • gemma liar

        chuck “rightwing Christian” Norris would simply spit bullets accurately at the bad bad bad guys

  • Michael A Hutsell

    As a conservative I don’t blame Clinton I’m taking the liberal approach It’s G W Bush’s fault

    • Loubies

      Close. It’s G.H.W. Bush’s fault. Guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…

    • jdubhub68

      Nice straw man. The consequences of economic and foreign policies under the Bush43 Administration don’t just go away because he is no longer president, particularly when there is ample evidence to prove correlation. I will also add that you conservatives were too happy to give Bush43 full credit for the taking out of Osama bin Laden, citing Bush’s policies, but you right-wing ideologues run for the hills if anyone even considers that Bush should also get credit for his economic policies.

      • gemma liar

        totally correct! sadly; FOX “news degenerate watchers will agree with you the day my pet TEGU learns to speak english

  • Matthew Reece

    “’Radical’ ideas like:

    Expanded background checks
    Magazine capacity limits
    Banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”

    This would be fine if agents of the state would be subject to the same restrictions. But that will never be the case because the state has a monopoly on the law and regularly grants exemptions and immunities to its agents.

  • DrPhrogg

    Expanding background checks is useless. According to an FBI report in 2010, Only 42 states report any felonies to the NICS database, and of the 42, 19 reported less than 100 felons for the entire state for the entire year. It is not a requirement, but just a suggestion. Really? Worse, for reasons of privacy, only 23 states report involuntary commitments, and of them, 10 reported only a single mental health commitment. Until state reporting is made mandatory, expanding the background check system will still miss 85% of those who should not have guns, according tot he FBI report to Congress. . I find it strange that there is no outcry over this deficiency in the system. It is not broken, it was designed this way. It will not work until we mandate state reporting.

    • rainey13

      So… the fact that we don’t have a solution that will eliminate ALL senseless gun deaths means we shouldn’t even try? Even accepting your numbers for sake of argument, keeping 15% of those who shouldn’t have guns from actually getting one (or more) seems like a reasonable start.

      • DrPhrogg

        Didn’t say that. Most of the solutions proposed are going to generate debate, and with a split Congress, may not happen. It would be simple, and may not even require a new law to fix the NICS system so it becomes more effective. Many states were given Federal money to digitize their court system to easily report to NICS, and the law already says who cannot have guns. Just make the existing system work and we get a significant improvement, without the hype or arguments.

    • Joshua Sager

      Easy solution: Piggyback the gun background check on top of the CORY check.

  • Robert ‘Bubba’ Hennessy

    I love how Democrats love to say “no one is coming for your guns” and then say that sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”. So you are looking to take away people’s guns, more specifically all guns, and I make that claim based on these observations but first I must lay out some facts for you…

    In 20 years there have been a little over 60 mass/spree killings that have involved guns of some form or fashion, that’s around an average of about 3 a year (not a pleasant thought I acknowledge that), ranging from the common semiautomatic pistol to your more hefty shotguns rifles and would you even believe revolvers too. So, I just named almost every type of typical weapon used by law abiding citizens (save for black powder weapons) and what a coincidence that they seem to be specific weapons used by criminals too.

    So… if these same weapons are used by both law abiding and law breaking sorts but are “specific guns that are often used in mass shootings” then what sort of guns does that leave us with? Considering that most mass shootings are carried out with handguns then I say those are the first on your list. But y’all seem to be pretty scared of those big scary “assault rifles” as you call them (which they aren’t unless they are full auto capable and getting those kind of guns as a civilian are hard as hell to get but who am I to assume y’all know this already) so lets talk about those. Rifles kill people too as we all know thanks to Sandy Hook and other shootings, you cant conceal carry a rifle and I know how most y’all feel about people open carrying so those are out the door too.

    Also the whole thing on “high-capacity magazines is one bloody nightmarish joke that I wont even touch on past having y’all tell the cops they don’t need more than 10 bullets the next time they riddle someone with 60+ rounds of ammo who’s either hopped up on drugs or simply a deaf man with a pocket knife. So I ask, in your world of sensible gun reform, what sort of firearms are law abiding citizens to be allowed with?

    • 65snake

      Perhaps if we could get past the “omg they’re coming to take our guns and turn us into socialists” screaming rhetoric, we might be able to have actual conversations on these topics. As it is, we can’t.

      Even in your non-inflammatory post (thank you for that, BTW), you say “…sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”. So you are looking to take away people’s guns, more specifically all guns” No, these two do not equate. Specific guns used in mass shootings is not equivalent to all guns. Statements like this one are not helping any conversation.

      I also notice that you don’t comment on the other two points, so only one out of three you have an issue with.

      You also bring up a good point about the use of force within the police. I’m also very disturbed with the direction in which our police are going, in regard to use of force. This is a related topic, and should be included in any discussion about gun control/rights/accessibility.

      Now, some of the rhetoric on the pro-restriction side is a bit ridiculous, but the stuff coming from the anti-control people is, in large part, far off the scale of rationality or sense. There really has to be a way to find a reasonable compromise that works better than what we have going now.

      • Robert ‘Bubba’ Hennessy

        @ 65snake – You are correct in some parts about the rhetoric but if you are going to quote then quote me accurately. I didn’t say “…sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”. So you are looking to take away people’s guns, more specifically all guns” … I said “I love how Democrats love to say “no one is coming for your guns” and
        then say that sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”. So you are looking to take away people’s guns, more specifically all guns”. The fact is that the same sort of guns used in mass shootings that people want to see banned are the same
        guns law abiding citizens have, you cant say ‘let’s just ban these guns’ and think that only criminals will be affected by this.

        I didn’t want to touch on the whole “high-capacity magazines” subject, which is a total crock because there is no such thing as a “high-capacity magazine” unless you are talking about an ammo drum. Trying to limit clip sizes will do nothing to curb violence, if you think it will you are a special kind of stupid. Plain and simple.

        Also people think that law enforcement should be the only ones allowed to carry guns; these are the same cops that stomp all over our rights for whatever reason they want, rape women at gun point and who like to shoot first (upwards of 50 bullets in cases) instead of going non-lethal when dealing with mentally unstable people or dogs. If you want to trust the police then go ahead, I’ll trust myself over a thug with a badge any day.

        As far background checks go, I’m all for it.

      • 65snake

        Actually, I copied and pasted directly from your post.

        You posted a statement attributed to Democrats (“…sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”.) followed by a comment on said statement (So you are looking to take away people’s guns, more specifically all guns,)

        I said that those do not equate. The Dem statement does is not equivalent to taking away all guns.

      • Robert ‘Bubba’ Hennessy

        No, you copied a snip of my post and quoted only that part to bolster your position, much like the biased media likes to do. Are you on the think side of things? Let me explain my statement attributed to Democrats as it’s obviously lost on you.

        My statement was trying to point out that many a democrat have said “no one is coming for your guns” in an attempt to cool the jets of 2nd Amendment supporters who didn’t like further legislation being made on a kneejerk reaction to tragedy. Dems then say “sensible gun reform includes “banning of specific guns that are often used in mass shootings”. Using these two statements (from Dems) and then looking at the types of weapons that have been used in said mass shootings over the last 20 years I have adequately proven that in fact Dems do want to take guns away from law abiding citizens and (by extension of types of guns used) that it includes all guns. I was hoping you could see my point as you seem like a somewhat intelligent person but Obama must have you programmed too good because you couldnt put 1+1 together.

        Is that a better explanation or should I draw it in crayon so it’s clearer?

    • gemma liar

      hey idiot,,,,,,,,,,,,,PRODUCE a visual of ANY/ALL legislation OBAMA has attempted to pass or sign which removes all buns. U can keep your HUMAN killing handguns,,,,you can keep ur huge shotguns,,,,your scoped rifles– just NO semi automatic guns or big clips. now- I want U to pray at the shrine of FOX ”news” and then go tithe at your tax free church

      • Robert ‘Bubba’ Hennessy

        Um, Gemma, of 80% of the legal guns (that includes handguns, shotguns and rifles) owned by law abiding citizens are semi-automatic. Do you even know the difference between semi and fully automatic or are you just regurgitating more libtard fearmongering misinformation? Btw, I dont watch FOX news or go to a tax free church. Have any more misconceptions about me?

      • gemma liar

        Hmmmmmm,,,, please excuse my stupidity here: but when I asked U 2 produce and/all legislation OBAMA attempted to pass or sign removing all of your guns U asked me the diff between GUNS??? how delightfully rightwing regressive! changing/eschewing the topic ALA FOX” news”!!

      • Robert ‘Bubba’ Hennessy

        You are correct, I didn’t produce what you asked for because you were showing your stupidity and ignorance about guns that I wanted to make sure you could tell the difference before acquiescing to your request. I still however wont dig up material for you as you are completely able-bodied to do such on your own unless you are a moron and dont know how to use a search engine.

      • gemma liar

        hey spongehead: as in any “courtroom” et hoc genus omne— the burden of proof lies upon the ‘accuser’ which means you simply cannot. As joe pesci says in “my cousin vinny”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,THE DEFENSE RESTS

  • Edward Krebbs

    What good are background checks if anyone can just waltz into the local gun show and purchase without limitation (including someone with a felony history, history of extreme violence, someone displaying paranoid and psychotic behavior…….) ?

  • Chappad Ganjoo

    “Guns don’t kill People by themselves…. Its Morons who keep them and who hold their sanity above all others and are more often than not Republicans, that love recreation and relieving their stresses by hunting….

  • robingee

    Not wanting mentally ill people to have firearms = Obama’s gonna take away all my guns and then something something COMMUNISM!

    • Aaron Childers

      That is easily the scariest damn picture I have ever seen.

    • gemma liar

      is he gonna take away all the ar-15 BONGs that many people use for “hits”??? :))

  • Mika

    They don’t even try to research their “facts”. You wouldn’t believe the amount of “you dun goofed” faces Republicans pull when informed that their “facts” are wrong, and then proved wrong with actual facts.

  • ditomagik

    Right! I like you more everyday, Allen Clifton!

  • Mike Williams

    There is only one course of action that will prevent ALL gun crime.
    Step 1. Close the boarders.
    Step 2. Seize ALL the guns even from police and military.
    Step 3. Stop making guns.
    Step 4. Seize all equipment that could be used to make a gun.
    That includes pipe, plastic, paper, and leather just as an example.

    Step 5. Probably the easiest and will certainly be the most effective and you really don’t need the first four steps if this is done first.

    Remove the human from the equation.

    This method has zero loop holes.

    • gemma liar

      and ban alcohol,,,,,,,,,,,,, makes too many think they are bad asses

  • Clinton George Kueker

    For those of you knowing criminal history: Imagine back in the 1930’s when Dillinger, (No.1 most wanted criminal) Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd. would say before going to plan a robbery and perhaps a homicide “Hey I gotta go out and get my gun permit and register everything. Then we’ll go out and pull this bank job!”