sooooo....you think its all just far fetched conspiracy's eh??
- Thread starter chrisjp
- Start date
I dont think anything I've read so far really means a fug of alot. When some psycho decides he's going to the local elementary school to shoot the place up he doesn't have to go to the gun store or the gun show.Why? He's been sitting in his back yard watching his neighbour clean his collection of assault rifles.He knows when the guy leaves for work and when he'll be back. He kicks the door in and is now the proud owner of some fine killing tools.Now if said gun owner is a good gun owner he has the weapons locked up.He has trigger locks.He has the ammo locked somewhere else. But if you ask said gun owner what he needs all that fire power for,he'd probably say "home defence",but the crack head who just kicked in the door isnt going to stand there while you take 10 minutes to load up.
Legally stored guns are useless.
Now if you just leave them lying around and your son decides one day to "go Columbine"....oops.
That pimp in yer hood has just decided to sell his unlicenced,serial numbers filed,Uzi 9mm to his cousin for a liquor store hit....guns laws are use-less.
That guy in the cubicle next to you....you know the one,he's told you he's on anti-depressants.Gub-ment finds out,takes his legally registered Glock away.Problem is,he still has access to the Sig in his wifes nightstand drawer. Oops.
Some folks have suggested limiting the amount of ammo that yer AR-15 can hold. This will stop 20 kids from being mercilessly gunned down.Too bad for the first ten kids. Gun laws will never work!
There's a dude,he's ex LEO/security/military or average joe,he has all the paper work,tests,and integrity in order.Comes home one day to find his wife boinking the UPS guy. Good thing he has that concealed carry permit...he wont have to go downstairs to the gun cabinet.
Little Johnny comes home. He has been bullied for years.Decides he's had enough.Blows his brains out with Daddy's shot gun.The only thing that gun ever killed was ducks.But Daddy guessed he was old enough and stable enough to be taught how to hunt.....oops.
I agree that some rights should never be taken away,but at the same time we need to progress as a society.Perhaps following some other countries attitudes towards firearms may be the answer...or we could make up our own. Gun used in the commision of a crime,death penalty.The money saved on housing said inmate goes towards gun education. Possesion of unlawful gun.Years and years in the gray bar hotel,not watching tv,not playing video games,hard labour.Use that labour to pick the fields and clean the sewer drains,stopping the amount of cheap labour available to illegal immigrants.
Want to protect yourself and yer family from violence.Great.Do you need an AK-47 to do it?Get rid of all the assault rifles,sell them to third world countries that will go on killing each other forever no matter what.Reduces an' already over populated earth and helps reduce aids,disease,death by starvation and the cash sent for humanitarian need.We can use that cash here,to help our starving people. I mean is a 9 shell 9mm hand gun not enough for home defence.
Legislation,paper work,IQ tests,background checks,drug tests,character references,gun safety courses,polygraphs...blah blah blah. If you want a gun in the U.S. I'll bet (depending on your geographical location) it's only minutes and fifty bucks away.Legal or not. It's going to be that way untill the lopsided equation has been flipped. More guns in the U.S. than people. I don't know if thats true,or just the bunk being sold by some.
Anyway,just Rubb's:2cents: Flame away.
(sweet dreams)
RSD.
Legally stored guns are useless.
Now if you just leave them lying around and your son decides one day to "go Columbine"....oops.
That pimp in yer hood has just decided to sell his unlicenced,serial numbers filed,Uzi 9mm to his cousin for a liquor store hit....guns laws are use-less.
That guy in the cubicle next to you....you know the one,he's told you he's on anti-depressants.Gub-ment finds out,takes his legally registered Glock away.Problem is,he still has access to the Sig in his wifes nightstand drawer. Oops.
Some folks have suggested limiting the amount of ammo that yer AR-15 can hold. This will stop 20 kids from being mercilessly gunned down.Too bad for the first ten kids. Gun laws will never work!
There's a dude,he's ex LEO/security/military or average joe,he has all the paper work,tests,and integrity in order.Comes home one day to find his wife boinking the UPS guy. Good thing he has that concealed carry permit...he wont have to go downstairs to the gun cabinet.
Little Johnny comes home. He has been bullied for years.Decides he's had enough.Blows his brains out with Daddy's shot gun.The only thing that gun ever killed was ducks.But Daddy guessed he was old enough and stable enough to be taught how to hunt.....oops.
I agree that some rights should never be taken away,but at the same time we need to progress as a society.Perhaps following some other countries attitudes towards firearms may be the answer...or we could make up our own. Gun used in the commision of a crime,death penalty.The money saved on housing said inmate goes towards gun education. Possesion of unlawful gun.Years and years in the gray bar hotel,not watching tv,not playing video games,hard labour.Use that labour to pick the fields and clean the sewer drains,stopping the amount of cheap labour available to illegal immigrants.
Want to protect yourself and yer family from violence.Great.Do you need an AK-47 to do it?Get rid of all the assault rifles,sell them to third world countries that will go on killing each other forever no matter what.Reduces an' already over populated earth and helps reduce aids,disease,death by starvation and the cash sent for humanitarian need.We can use that cash here,to help our starving people. I mean is a 9 shell 9mm hand gun not enough for home defence.
Legislation,paper work,IQ tests,background checks,drug tests,character references,gun safety courses,polygraphs...blah blah blah. If you want a gun in the U.S. I'll bet (depending on your geographical location) it's only minutes and fifty bucks away.Legal or not. It's going to be that way untill the lopsided equation has been flipped. More guns in the U.S. than people. I don't know if thats true,or just the bunk being sold by some.
Anyway,just Rubb's:2cents: Flame away.
(sweet dreams)
RSD.
of course they do! criminals always tell the truth.
you think when some criminal or cop wanna be or military wash out that thinks he's Rambo will give his real ID when wanting to precure a firearm at some back woods gun show? he will get his ID here. mr-i-d.com Fake ID - Novelty card ids and free fake template license
ur not even close in ur thinking. I will have to qualify with my gun every year with a criminal, restraining order and protective order check being conducted to verify if I am still eligible to carry a firearm.
will you have to do that to carry on your pistol permit each year? no you wont so dont make assumptions that retired police officers get some kinda special treatment.
I see the retards on a regular basis that have pistol permits who have no earthly right owning a gun. many are known criminals who simply havnt been caught for felony or DV conviction. that may not rub you the wrong way in ur little utopia you live in but it doesnt sit well with me where I am
what makes you think that is so unreasonable? the badge doesnt make retired police officers any better then anyone else. where do u get this stuff from? ur way off in thinkn that I think im better then anyone else or shud get special treatment.
im saying getting a gun and keeping a gun shud be a little harder then the effort it would take to join the WMCA would be....people get all hung up and righeous in their "Right to bear arms" ammendment vs. focusing on the real issue which is guns are made for killing. they have little other purpose then death.
you shud take owning a firearm with great honor and responsibility cause with it you have the ability to end someones life instantly. I dont have a pistol permit. I carry on my badge like many other police do. but to carry that weapon I had to go thru quite a bit training and a much more exhaustive background check then the average citizen does to carry his or her firearm in public.
forget the whole 2nd ammendment crap. we all know what it says. just cause u pass a back ground check doesnt imo mean you should now be walking around with a gun. u shot for a couple hrs. at paper targets that dont shoot back...
do you honestly think you could tell a fake ID and documents from a real one?
Brett, to renew my permit (every 5 years) I have to resubmit for a check. If I don't pass it, then my permit is not renewed. Carrying a gun is an awesome responsibility. Do I have to requalifiy, nope - and wouldn't have any problem with doing that because I applied for a CCW. Would I have a problem with the state violating HPPA to see if I EVER saw a shrink or was prescribed meds? Hell yes. But we aren't talking about CARRYING; we are talking about OWNING, in our OWN HOMES. Not the same thing. A person presenting a fake ID is ALREADY committing a felony buy using them to purchase a handgun - so he's already broken the law.
The point is there are already a plethora of laws already on the books, but criminals don't give a rat's ass about the laws - so the only people you are restricting the rights of are those of legal citizens, without the benefit of any due process. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
"Forget the 2nd Amendment crap?" just like we should forget the First, Third, Fourth, etc.? That's a dangerous statement with serious consequences. Funny (not) that I should hear that come out of a LEO's mouth. I guess it depends on the oath of office you took; mine said "Support and Defend the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES against all enemies, foreign AND domestic"....
Look, I don't like guns in the hands of bad guys any more than you do, because you don't usually get involved until AFTER they've done something to the citizenry. However, I'm not willing to leave defenseless the citizenry so you can come save them, or recognize the danger in the government having so much power without means to resist. That BS pulled in NOLA during Katrina when they came in peoples houses and confiscated their guns was illegal, unconstitutional, and an example of what happens when ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.
The Totalitarianism of Universal Background Checks
By Anthony Gregory | Thursday April 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM PDT
Finally, some sanity, and from a somewhat unexpected source. The ACLU is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the new Harry Reid Senate bill to establish so-called “universal background checks†for firearms purchases. The organization has tended toward silence on gun rights, but at least now it recognizes aspects of the problem with this terrible proposal.
Ever since Sandy Hook, the Obama administration and its progressive choir have demanded a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Now it looks like that plan is toast. California Senator Dianne Feinstein blames gun owners and the NRA, and in a sense we should have expected all along that this proposal would get nowhere. Such a ban would mostly target “semi-automatic†rifles—which, despite all the hysterics, simply refers to any standard rifle that fires one round each time the trigger is pulled—that happen to have esthetic elements like the pistol grip that do not in fact add to the weapons’ lethality. This is the nonsensical standard used to ban some classes of weapons instrumentally identical to the ones banned in 1994.
The first AWB devastated the Democrats politically, and probably contributed as much as anything to the Republicans’ crushing victory in the 1994 congressional elections after forty years in the legislative minority. It also hurt Al Gore in his run against George W. Bush in 2000. The ban generally prohibited ordinary but scary looking rifles, which are used in about two percent of violent crimes committed with firearms. The law did not apply to, say, most of the weapons used at the Columbine school massacre in 1999. But it did interfere with Americans’ basic right to own what we can fairly call the modern version of the musket. Millions of Americans own such weapons like the AR-15, the most popular rifle and one targeted by the Democrats’ proposal for a new, robust AWB. These weapons are used for hunting, sport, and self-defense. They are not, despite all the misinformation to the contrary, repeating, military-style rifles.
In any event, the unpopularity of an AWB always doomed this proposal, especially under a Democratic president as distrusted on the right as Obama. The Republicans have the House and too many Democrats in the Senate are loyal to their gun-owning constituents.
So this whole time, the real threat to our firearms freedom has been these less debated, peripheral proposals—proposals that strip people the state deems “mentally ill†of the right to bear arms, proposals that violate the civil rights of released convicts, proposals to increase penalties for violations of current law, and, as disturbing as anything, proposals to institute “universal background checks.â€
The gun restrictionists have pointed to polls showing more than 90% approval of such background checks, including among a vast majority of conservatives, Republicans, and gunowners. Liberty is always attacked on the margins, and most Americans don’t go to gun shows and so don’t see the big deal. Surely the state should know who is armed. Surely we don’t want people buying and selling guns freely.
But, in fact, universal background checks are arguably even more tyrannical than banning whole classes of weapons. Why should the government know who is armed? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to freely buy and sell private property without government permission? Half of Americans see background checks as the first step toward full registration then confiscation. Many fear that the new law would create records of these deals that would not immediately be destroyed, which could form databases or enable government in further nefarious purposes. The progressives have tended to regard any of these worries as paranoia, but it looks like the ACLU is now among the paranoid.
There is no need to discuss pure hypotheticals. There have been gun confiscations in the United States. After the Civil War, officials conducted confiscations to disarm American Indians and blacks became the target in the Jim Crow South. Confiscations followed Hurricane Katrina, along with the rest of the government’s martial law response. Since many gun controllers openly say they want a total ban of certain kinds of firearms, or all firearms, why wouldn’t gunowners fear that registration will lead to confiscation? The U.S. president promised that he would not take away Americans’ rifles, then went ahead and proceeded to propose to do just that. Add all of this to the database growth, the warrantless wiretapping, the domestic surveillance drones, the frightening executive power grabs concerning detention, interrogation, and executions, and the overall militarization of policing that has unfolded thanks to the wars on drugs and terror, and it seems fairly appropriate that in the age of Bush and Obama, civil libertarians of all stripes would resist the drive toward universal background checks or anything with such an Orwellian name as that.
This whole matter should also remind us of the interlocking nature of personal liberties. Abolishing the Second Amendment necessarily means abolishing the Fourth as well. Just ask the millions of black and Hispanic young men stopped and frisked in New York City in the name of gun control and with the purpose, as the police commissioner reportedly put it, to “instill fear†of police in these demographic groups. It is the violations of privacy that concern the ACLU, but anyone jealous of her security in her papers, persons, and effects should recoil at the thought of the state collecting these records.
Of course, it should go without saying that when it comes to criminal enterprise, universal background checks are unenforceable. In a country with as many guns as there are people, criminals and the state will always get the weapons they want. Firearms are easier to manufacture than many illegal drugs, and we see how well the state has stamped those out. The rapid developments in 3-D printing makes it even crazier that we’d still be talking about gun control as anything but a threat to the liberty of the law abiding.
The AWB looks defeated for now, but perhaps that was always known to be inevitable by our cynical civilian disarmament fetishists in Washington, DC. Perhaps the real goal was to get what could be gotten now—the beginnings of a national database of every lawful gun owner. The so-called gun show loophole—the freedom of owners to sell firearms to one another with few encumbrances—is a pocket of liberty. Closing this loophole would be a tragedy. We can only hope that civil libertarians across the spectrum ban together to challenge this march to erode these core freedoms.
By Anthony Gregory | Thursday April 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM PDT
Finally, some sanity, and from a somewhat unexpected source. The ACLU is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the new Harry Reid Senate bill to establish so-called “universal background checks†for firearms purchases. The organization has tended toward silence on gun rights, but at least now it recognizes aspects of the problem with this terrible proposal.
Ever since Sandy Hook, the Obama administration and its progressive choir have demanded a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Now it looks like that plan is toast. California Senator Dianne Feinstein blames gun owners and the NRA, and in a sense we should have expected all along that this proposal would get nowhere. Such a ban would mostly target “semi-automatic†rifles—which, despite all the hysterics, simply refers to any standard rifle that fires one round each time the trigger is pulled—that happen to have esthetic elements like the pistol grip that do not in fact add to the weapons’ lethality. This is the nonsensical standard used to ban some classes of weapons instrumentally identical to the ones banned in 1994.
The first AWB devastated the Democrats politically, and probably contributed as much as anything to the Republicans’ crushing victory in the 1994 congressional elections after forty years in the legislative minority. It also hurt Al Gore in his run against George W. Bush in 2000. The ban generally prohibited ordinary but scary looking rifles, which are used in about two percent of violent crimes committed with firearms. The law did not apply to, say, most of the weapons used at the Columbine school massacre in 1999. But it did interfere with Americans’ basic right to own what we can fairly call the modern version of the musket. Millions of Americans own such weapons like the AR-15, the most popular rifle and one targeted by the Democrats’ proposal for a new, robust AWB. These weapons are used for hunting, sport, and self-defense. They are not, despite all the misinformation to the contrary, repeating, military-style rifles.
In any event, the unpopularity of an AWB always doomed this proposal, especially under a Democratic president as distrusted on the right as Obama. The Republicans have the House and too many Democrats in the Senate are loyal to their gun-owning constituents.
So this whole time, the real threat to our firearms freedom has been these less debated, peripheral proposals—proposals that strip people the state deems “mentally ill†of the right to bear arms, proposals that violate the civil rights of released convicts, proposals to increase penalties for violations of current law, and, as disturbing as anything, proposals to institute “universal background checks.â€
The gun restrictionists have pointed to polls showing more than 90% approval of such background checks, including among a vast majority of conservatives, Republicans, and gunowners. Liberty is always attacked on the margins, and most Americans don’t go to gun shows and so don’t see the big deal. Surely the state should know who is armed. Surely we don’t want people buying and selling guns freely.
But, in fact, universal background checks are arguably even more tyrannical than banning whole classes of weapons. Why should the government know who is armed? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to freely buy and sell private property without government permission? Half of Americans see background checks as the first step toward full registration then confiscation. Many fear that the new law would create records of these deals that would not immediately be destroyed, which could form databases or enable government in further nefarious purposes. The progressives have tended to regard any of these worries as paranoia, but it looks like the ACLU is now among the paranoid.
There is no need to discuss pure hypotheticals. There have been gun confiscations in the United States. After the Civil War, officials conducted confiscations to disarm American Indians and blacks became the target in the Jim Crow South. Confiscations followed Hurricane Katrina, along with the rest of the government’s martial law response. Since many gun controllers openly say they want a total ban of certain kinds of firearms, or all firearms, why wouldn’t gunowners fear that registration will lead to confiscation? The U.S. president promised that he would not take away Americans’ rifles, then went ahead and proceeded to propose to do just that. Add all of this to the database growth, the warrantless wiretapping, the domestic surveillance drones, the frightening executive power grabs concerning detention, interrogation, and executions, and the overall militarization of policing that has unfolded thanks to the wars on drugs and terror, and it seems fairly appropriate that in the age of Bush and Obama, civil libertarians of all stripes would resist the drive toward universal background checks or anything with such an Orwellian name as that.
This whole matter should also remind us of the interlocking nature of personal liberties. Abolishing the Second Amendment necessarily means abolishing the Fourth as well. Just ask the millions of black and Hispanic young men stopped and frisked in New York City in the name of gun control and with the purpose, as the police commissioner reportedly put it, to “instill fear†of police in these demographic groups. It is the violations of privacy that concern the ACLU, but anyone jealous of her security in her papers, persons, and effects should recoil at the thought of the state collecting these records.
Of course, it should go without saying that when it comes to criminal enterprise, universal background checks are unenforceable. In a country with as many guns as there are people, criminals and the state will always get the weapons they want. Firearms are easier to manufacture than many illegal drugs, and we see how well the state has stamped those out. The rapid developments in 3-D printing makes it even crazier that we’d still be talking about gun control as anything but a threat to the liberty of the law abiding.
The AWB looks defeated for now, but perhaps that was always known to be inevitable by our cynical civilian disarmament fetishists in Washington, DC. Perhaps the real goal was to get what could be gotten now—the beginnings of a national database of every lawful gun owner. The so-called gun show loophole—the freedom of owners to sell firearms to one another with few encumbrances—is a pocket of liberty. Closing this loophole would be a tragedy. We can only hope that civil libertarians across the spectrum ban together to challenge this march to erode these core freedoms.
GNBRETT
Registered
one of the main issues with the 2nd ammendment is the fact that it is one of the worst written ammendents. its vague and subjective. arms could mean anything.
but yes the system works really well.... a pedifile that wants to kidnap little girls and do it with a gun just has to walk into one of these backyard gun shows and walk out with untraceable guns. you think it doesnt happen? watch for urself. the only absolute power here is the that of the criminals who want to buy guns and use them or sell them on the street.
so cut the righteous BS and come to terms with the fact that we have no control over who gets a gun these days and therefore crimianls run a muck as a result....
CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
yet the enforcement of existing laws really doesnt happen. Biden said as much on national TV. Fixing the loop holes in verification that you aren't a raving loon or felon is fine and likely a needed change but never for a second suggest that as a lawful citizen I should not or could not own weapons. Do not try to establish a list of what I own or do not own. There really are few viable reasons for any organization to know what weapons I own. They can issue me a permit to buy them perhaps but tracking it all, no way. The facts are that *anyone* on this forum from anywhere in the world could show up in literally thousands of places in this country today and buy a gun. Those guns were stolen perhaps or worse, provided to a foreign interest (mexico anyone?) and then sold back via the drug rings. Limiting a legal citizen's ability to purchase weapons does absolutely nothing to stave the flow of guns in the black market. They are not buying them from gun shows or dealers because they don't want anything that can be traced to them.
To use your video as an example, there are currently laws in effect that were not being enforced. Clear violations that any LEO present could have observed from a distance and taken action to correct. Do you think adding more laws will change it? If folks will not play by the rules that are pretty easy to follow, are you really suggesting that they will "buckle down" and do more work just because there's some new laws? Hell no. At least those gun shows were open to the public and easy to find. Private party sales. This will not stop, people will simply go underground with it and continue to do it more and more. For me, I'd rather see more LEO presence enforcing what is on the books. Make examples of current law breakers. Clean up what we have, because you cannot tell me it doesnt work if no one is following the process from either side.
The argument of lack of staff to enforce doesn't hold water either. We are hemorrhaging money at the federal level. We are giving hundreds of millions of dollars away every week to countries that openly hate us. State officials could construct ways to get federal money and increase the staff meant to address the illegal gun issue.
A buddy of mine, his dad has been teaching leo's for along time. Has his FFL, with full auto certs, etc. He has a small armory in his basement. When Clinton said he was going door to door to get the guns, his one statement was "if they come knocking they had best have a lot of body bags. I have millions of rounds and they WILL pry my guns from my cold dead hands." This is a man that is a top leader in his community. Works daily with the area LEOs, trains them, helps them get their arms, etc. Imagine what we will have when those that have no respect for your profession greeting those that would go and ask them for their guns because they are on some list and some asshat in DC says "nope, can't have this anymore, go get them".
Every argument I hear from someone that is willing to take away my 2A rights is the same. The crime committed with them is the problem, yet in almost every case of daily violence (Chicago for example) those guns are illegally obtained. In cases like the CT school killing, those guns were also illegally obtained, though admittedly with a shorter window from time of theft to time of use in violent act. Taking guns from lawful legal citizens will never ever stop gun violence by criminals who's moral compass is so f'd up they couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag. They value the laws about as much as they do the save the owl crap foundation so explain to me how exactly enacting MORE laws they will not give a rip about helps stop criminals from doing bad things with stolen guns. Help me understand exactly how the ATF and others can say existing gun control measures do not work when they are openly stating that they do not have the man power to enforce what is already on the books.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee your safety, it guarantee's your FREEDOM.
Righteous BS my ass. This is the gateway to tyranny, don't you freakin get it? You think it stops here? Has ANY Anti-gun leader said "We'll fix the registraion loophole and stop there?" Nope...they all see this as the first step in a path to removing ALL guns. Do you back THAT legislation (nobody has guns but the State)?....
So Brett, when they pass a law to confiscate "Assault Rifles" (I hate to use the term because it's been so bastardized), are you going to come knocking on my door? Or are you going to finally realize that the wool has been pulled over your eyes, that this WAS the original intent to begin with? Because by then, it will be pretty much too late without a full-scale revolution being the result. Not all these people who just bought guns are going to give them back so willingly.
I feel bad for the LEO in those states that are enacting this legislation...especially those that don't believe in it. Eventually, they are going to knock on the wrong door and pick on someone better armed than them...
Righteous BS my ass. This is the gateway to tyranny, don't you freakin get it? You think it stops here? Has ANY Anti-gun leader said "We'll fix the registraion loophole and stop there?" Nope...they all see this as the first step in a path to removing ALL guns. Do you back THAT legislation (nobody has guns but the State)?....
So Brett, when they pass a law to confiscate "Assault Rifles" (I hate to use the term because it's been so bastardized), are you going to come knocking on my door? Or are you going to finally realize that the wool has been pulled over your eyes, that this WAS the original intent to begin with? Because by then, it will be pretty much too late without a full-scale revolution being the result. Not all these people who just bought guns are going to give them back so willingly.
I feel bad for the LEO in those states that are enacting this legislation...especially those that don't believe in it. Eventually, they are going to knock on the wrong door and pick on someone better armed than them...
Projekt
Registered
I'd be interested to read more on this subject as I recognize how dangerous they can be when over prescribed and under supervised. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors are nothing more than a medium to facilitate enslavement of people by giving them false peace of mind. If the person needs an SSRI it would be better to make serious life changes to include a different job, time off or maybe even a divorce instead of taking a little pill to make it all seem better when the root cause is still there.
In my opinion, the pharmaceutical industry has a lot to answer for in the prosecution of deeds undertaken by those affected/altered by SSRIs or other psychoactive or anti psychotic medicines in this class.
here is another daily dose of "here you go" .... millitary guys.....does this offend you??? LEO's are you ok with this phillosophy??... chime in yall
Police, Anti-Gun Prosecutor Clash with Soldiers in Area around Fort Hood (VIDEO) - Guns.com
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms"
Police, Anti-Gun Prosecutor Clash with Soldiers in Area around Fort Hood (VIDEO) - Guns.com
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms"
Similar threads
