Rampage in D.C.: Dianne's demagoguery
It didn't take long for the pecans of gun control to crawl from their grove in the aftermath of Monday's mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that left 13 people dead, including the gunman.
“When will enough be enough?” asked Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., long one of the Senate's shortest shrifters regarding gun matters. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life,” she added, citing the assailant's firepower and hinting at the need for even more laws.
But given the circumstances of this case, Ms. Feinstein's pleading rings hollow.
Alleged shooter Aaron Alexis, 34, was a Navy reservist of Fort Worth, Texas. He's thought to have entered the Washington, D.C., facility with an access card of the private contractor for which he worked.
Mr. Alexis was involved in two prior gun-related incidents. In 2010, he shot a gun through the ceiling of his apartment there but was not prosecuted. In 2004, in Seattle, he was charged with shooting out the tires of a car.
Alexis also had a history of psychiatric care. How did he obtain security clearance?
A shotgun, one of three weapons used in the rampage (two of them were taken inside the complex, investigators theorize), was purchased legally last week in Virginia. Given his past, how?
The nation mourns this tragedy. But demagoguery from the likes of Dianne Feinstein only dishonors its victims.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s amnesty: Abuse of power
- Saturday essay: Prelude to thanks
- Ford City’s police: A taxing question
- Thanksgiving 2014: A season for giving
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone