Primary tabs

Should the tragic killings at the Navy Yard lead to comprehensive reform of DoD security clearances?


View more polls


  1. As anyone who has gone through the process of getting a Security Clearance knows, they are VERY indepth. They cover EVERYTHING going back 10 years. If you are married, they will go through your spouses family. The problem is that nothing this guy ever did was DOCUMENTED!!!! He was never convicted. We ALL show mental illness to some degree and at times in our life. You get upset driving to work? Rage and anger are depression. Science has proven, and MANY court cases have affirmed, women are mentally unstable at least once a month. You drink alcohol at the end of the day? You are self medicating.
    The problem is that there is not enough mental health awareness programs, both Civilian AND Military. We need to stop threatening people with losing jobs, freedoms and families just because of mental illness. IF a person is afraid of losing everything, they will do everything they can to avoid that.

  2. I have been a police officer for over 30 years, yet when I go to the Clinic I have to leave my weapon at home. If I have an incident where I wasn't carrying my firearm I can be disciplined or even fired for not having it.
    The problem with our bases is they live in a world of order. We can order someone to leave their weapons at home and not to bring them on to a base. The base has armed personnel at all entry points. Of course they don't check every single vehicle and every single person so they aren't doing any good if an individual wants to bring a weapon in. Just like Ft Hood Washington is experiencing the same event but, you'll never hear it being mentioned this way.
    The attack at Ft Hood was at a location where the shooter knew. He knew the terrain, he knew the personnel, he knew everyone would be unarmed. He knew it because everyone in the armed forces knows we can't take our weapons into a medical facility. So their is no one there to stop an armed person intent on killing victims.
    The Washington shooter had the same advantages too. He was hearing voices but those voices didn't have him attack a unit at the firing range ready to qualify, he did those voices didn't have him attack the Provost Marshal's (or Shore Patrol),office he went after a command office that may have an armed person sitting at an open desk with a target on their back.
    We train our personnel to defend themselves then tell them not to carry a weapon and Lord have mercy on the troopie, if they have ammo on them too.
    Back to my first point, Yes Police officers are allowed on bases by federal law with a weapon. However it is how the base commander looks at the law. In the performance of their duties, or while on official business. If it's in the performance of duties police officers aren't off duty so they can have a weapon. If it's while on official business they can't. Official business means you have an arrest warrant for someone on the base and some commander do require you get a federal warrant too if you only have a state warrant.
    Yes it's their call and with a white house that is so anti-gun and I honestly believe anti-military what were you expecting. I'm surprised there aren't more shootings by both those with mental issues and the others that actually just want to kill us because we are Americans.

  3. There are still many unanswered questions. I understand how he got on the base with weapons since vehicle searches are not practical unless there is an existing situation. However he entered a building and managed to get to I believe the third floor carrying a shotgun. That should raise some serious questions.

    The mental health issue is difficult since much of the identification of an actual mental illness is somewhat subjective. In Florida you cannot posses a weapon if you are treated for mental illness yet you can be brought in for an evaluation and held for up to 72 hours due to unusal actions yet this would not prevent you from owning a gun since it is not considered treatment but rather evaluation. I think the mental health challenge needs serious discussion and politics should not be part of the conservation.

  4. This is an unfortunate isolated incident where a person willfully took the lives of others, which is simply murder, regardless of religious affiliation, political interests, or etc. Fortunately, he was taken out before he could do more destruction.

    Do we pre-emptively prevent veterans from entering government workforce, because they may have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? Or someone considered otherwise "normal" is "unpopular" because they have excentric behaviour, deemed to be abnormal to some? (There is a saying, people are normal until you get to know them.)

    I think that rather than taking an off the cuff approach, to step back, examine the situation with proper perspective and then, where there are weaknesses in the system to make sound decisions to correct those weaknesses.

    We already have a system that is considering the average citizen to not be a law abiding citizen, but rather a potential threat to society, even our returning war zone veterans for their ability to use firearms, which is as ludicrous as the situation may seem, especially when there has been no probable cause assigned to an individual.

    Let's keep a level head and encourage the decision makers to make rational decisions in the best interest of all.

  5. Any person carrying a gun who is not law enforcement should be shot on sight. If he is not killed then he should be locked up with Manson and the other nut cases. It's time America ends this scourge of killers and wannabe killers who carry guns. Just because the killers interpretation of the Second Amendment is misguided is not a rational reason for the use of firearms. The over dependence on being politically correct trying to protect the crazies who want to coddle their guns has resulted in over 11,500 gun deaths each year. Enough is enough!

  6. This tragic event had nothing to do with a security clearance. The government issues and holds all clearances and is able to suspend or revolk any clearance at any time. This event also should not be looked at as a contractor, government civilian, reserve or active duty issue but a human issue and treated as such.
    We have active duty, reserve, government civilian, contractor, and others who have issues that need to be addressed and our nation and its citizens are still putting a stigma on those that have asked for help, those that don't ask for help are more apt than ever to hurt themselves or those around them.
    Why? In my opinion look at Hollywood and what they have shown us? Shoot it or blow it up... Think about where you are placing the blame...

  7. Personnel on a military installation should be able to carry a side arm. There is also the question of how this individual got the weapon on to the installation, much less the facility he was in.

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.