Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Yes, but "let's not let facts get in the way...."
Whether she said the original thing about vets or not, what experience or expert insight gives her license to even stick her nose into vets or their rights to own firearms in the first place?
Once in a while you actually nail it Richard. This woman is indeed a piece of work. Even if that forwarded email I posted is inaccurate, what the LA times writer published in response to what she DID say would seem to be 100% accurate. I see no one is commenting about that though.
|
it's not inaccurate, you are reading something that is spun.
so because she didn't say the exact words: 'all vets are mentally ill'
what she did say with the prevalence of a "new" phenomena known as "PTSD", vets suffering from this disorder (basically all of them) shouldn't own assualt weapons:
Quote:
|
If I understand this, this [amendment] adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose [sic] in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it?s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to ? if you?re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don?t have access to this kind of weapon.
|
political..
