The dude was breaking rules that didn't allow non-security personnel to be armed on base, and then breaking the law that says, you know, don't murder people. Which pretty much makes that point that signs and laws don't stop bad people with bad intentions. So yeah, gun nuts are right.

#3...who cares? You're in the wrong country.

So what the hell is your point?

I still don't know what you're trying to say. An unarmed lunatic disarms a petty officer on watch and kills him with his own duty weapon and is subsequently killed by naval security.

And?

Are you saying that petty officers shouldn't have guns on their security watch because they can be disarmed? What the hell does any of this have to do with the second amendment or so-called gun nuts? This is the SLOG's idea of logic?

@2
Whether criminals will follow the law or not is immaterial. What matters is that "Chicago Fan" gets to troll with phrases like "gun nuts".
Banning guns did not work in Chicago.
So instead of proposing changes, he'll just troll.
Seattle has more liberal gun laws and less gun violence than Chicago.

@5, what incident are you describing? "The civilian had been carrying a firearm on the base . . . ." What's all this talk of an unarmed civilian disarming and killing a petty officer?

@3: Yes, if we had a law that outlawed the sale of guns to the US military and restricted ownership by humans, enforced that with moral suasion, and then persuaded everyone on earth to melt the existing ones into plowshares and never create another one, it would prevent this kind of tragedy.

A well-armed society is a polite society. Or some-such sociopathic, fallacious bullshit.

You know you are in a thread full of nuts when Ken Mehlman is making the common sense points.

@11: The original post blamed the Second Amendment for a guy walking onto a base and stealing a gun from an armed guard and shooting a sailor. Now you're talking about a missing law. What law beyond the ones that were already broken fixes this?

@13, wait. Now you're talking about a guy stealing a gun from a guard, too. I don't see where you guys are getting this information. The linked article says the civilian was carrying a weapon and makes no mention of any guard being disarmed. Is your understanding due to the ambiguity of the word "their" in Chicago Fan's post? Is there another source reporting this?

@14
"Is there another source reporting this?"

There are several. Here is one.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio…

In the future, when you read a post by someone that contains inflammatory rhetoric you should take the time to verify that the events they are referencing actually happened they way they describe them.

@15, thanks for the link. No thanks for the condescension.

all I know is that you're all wrong.

@8

I got my information from the Washington Post this morning.