Charlotte Clymer was front and center exploiting the Pensacola Naval Air Station shooting for her gun-grabbing agenda. Bodies hadn’t even cooled and they were out in full force this morning blaming the NRA and demanding we add MORE gun laws … blah blah blah.

Friendly reminder that there are folks who would have us give firearms to untrained teachers in schools as a solution to gun violence when military bases like NAS Pensacola can't seem to prevent this from happening. The problem is bad people having access to guns. Fix that. — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

Limiting accessibility to guns for legal gun owners does nothing to stop ‘bad people from having access to guns,’ sweetie.

Dana Loesch was good enough to correct Clymer:

NAS Pensacola disallows carry by DOD directive. No untrained teacher is allowed to carry under any existing proposal or laws to arm teachers (FL teachers receive better training than PD per MSD Conmission outline, for example). https://t.co/dMBJfp15m8 — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

So there’s already a directive limiting guns … and apparently it didn’t stop the shooting.

Crazy.

No, NAS Pensacola disallows carry without authorization from the base commander, meaning that even under guidelines, someone can get on base with a firearm and even without authorization, not every car is searched. Furthermore, that is a blatant lie about training teachers. — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

Maybe Clymer should Google this, just sayin’.

Wrong. Feel free to check my podcast archives where LEOs and state lawmakers joined me to discuss it. Also bases have been gun free since Bill Clinton https://t.co/2l28gPdDMe pic.twitter.com/Itw4TRJHNp — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Thanks for that, Bubba. That’s really workin’.

If only @DLoesch would put as much effort into understanding our military as she did selling beets. — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

And here come the petty insults because ‘Charlotte’ can’t defend her argument.

Typical.

You're an idiot Charlotte — John Davis (@JohnDavis_65) December 6, 2019

Sweetie, I would definitely rather be a military veteran who advocates against gun violence than a washed up Bills player who couldn't close the deal in three Super Bowls. ? https://t.co/23s6UkSXGL — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

Sweetie.

Wow. Really?

ROFL.

So tough.

Nothing changes minds like calling people ‘sweetie’.

More good taste than advocacy, Dana. <3 https://t.co/S8wCWg1m5H — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

Good taste? Huh?

Since you ran from the conversation once I presented facts, let me know if you want me to send you my book wherein I compared homicide rates of locales with strict gun control to areas without. ?? https://t.co/Vf4vrydKpF — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Awww, see? Dana is a giver.

Sweetie, I have no desire to read whatever illegible nonsense you've scrawled in crayola. If you need to understand how gun reform works, look at our allies across the world who have common sense gun reform and don't see children murdered with firearms on a weekly basis. https://t.co/UgmYF2IZjl — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

Sweetie again.

Somebody’s maaaaaad.

My mistake, I forgot you run from fact-based conversation as you favor the attention your juvenile ad hominem and hateful behavior brings. When you want to actually learn and resolve the issue, the offer is there. Also — stop with your sexist “Sweetie.” https://t.co/r3ISWs5tNp — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

But we thought Charlotte couldn’t be sexist now …

Sweetie, when you care more about protecting children and having actual law and order in this country than making a quick buck with your NRA pals, we can talk. Until then, stick to the beets infomercials. I think we've all run out of good faith patience with your nonsense. https://t.co/JWoQ5bABbG — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

She’s clearly lost the argument.

Now the left is going after my radio sponsors because they’re mad at me for correcting their false talking point about guns on bases. https://t.co/sr3roBKCRT — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Yet, somehow, people are still able to buy firearms in private sales without a background check, registration, licensing, or any questions asked. ? https://t.co/7u9eZrcGsl — Charlotte Clymer?️‍? (@cmclymer) December 6, 2019

HOOboy. Charles, dude, Google it.

Wait, our bad.

Charlotte, Google it.

Private legal sales from non prohibited persons are still federally regulated per 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1). https://t.co/GjslearBU1 — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

If only these gun-grabbers knew anything at all about the laws already on the books …

And enter Andy Richter for some reason:

Does your book talk about easy access to guns and surrounding areas? Does it talk about toothless law enforcement Because of the inability to maintain records of gun purchases beyond hardcopies stored at gun dealers?… — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

You gotta wonder if Conan sees these tweets and just shakes his head.

LEO I’ve spoken with say it’s the recidivism rate and repeat offenders driving crime (DOJ stats support, which are cited in book); also covers how prohibited persons barred from possession are still federally barred from going to another state to purchase. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

LEO’s Are the only people you can talk to about it, since medical researchers and social scientists can’t get any funding to study the issue — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

That’s not true, the Dickey Amendment didn’t block funding at all, it simply says tax dollars can’t be used to fund advocacy for or against gun ownership. I assume you wouldn’t want your tax $ used to fund advocacy of gun ownership. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Again, Google is your friend, folks.

But how would anyone have any record of those people? That sort of date it is only hardcopies in gun shops. — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

Do you mean data of gun purchases? Federal law blocks national registries but some states have them. There is a database of prohibited persons, though, via NCIC. Problem is not all records are submitted. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Why aren’t they submitted? How would someone prohibited in one state not be free to buy a gun in another state, as You state, if there’s no way of knowing their prohibited in that first state. Why isn’t there a national database, Dana? — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

You would have to ask those operating state agencies that question. Ex: Sutherland Springs resulted in unsubmitted records. Charleston was due to paperwork error only discovered after massacre. NCIC database is accessed by all states. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Geez, if only there were federal laws about this. I wonder why there aren’t? If there were, lives might be saved — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

There are literally thousands and thousands of laws, Andy.

What federal laws are you talking about? What laws would have prevented Pensacola, Pearl Harbor, Parkland, Borderline, Charleston, etc? — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

The answer is none.

Because criminals don’t care about the damn law.

Your original point was ineffectiveness of municipalities with strong gun laws and their inability to deal with illegal guns. My point is the disingenuousness of dismissing gun laws based on registries and ownership data if none of that data is available. Answer that first. — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

Notice, Andy has ZERO answer.

Yes, more restrictive laws has not contributed to decreased criminal activity with illegally possessed guns, especially as the prohibited persons are statistically repeat offenders. I dismiss proposals that seek to increase penalties to law-abiding for actions they didn’t commit — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 6, 2019

Well then, there you go. Enjoy your gun deaths. Small price to pay for convenience, I guess. — Andy Richter (@AndyRichter) December 6, 2019

Annnd he learned nothing.

Color us shocked.

Suppose we should just be glad he wasn’t being a petty sexist like ol’ Charlotte up there.

Although if Dana had called Andy ‘sweetie’ that would’ve been pretty damn funny.

Related:

Dems facing BIG impeachment problems: Byron York points out some very telling signs Americans just AIN’T buyin’ it

OMG, they’re so mad! David Axelrod seriously ENRAGES the Left with his impeachment prediction and LOL

Sensitive MUCH?! CNN REALLY didn’t like this ‘supercut’ of their impeachment coverage (had it YANKED from YouTube!)