New Anti-Gun Veterans Group

Started by Mark Kelly:

“We’re for gun rights,” said James Barnett, a retired rear admiral.

Instead, Veterans for Responsible Solutions wants commonsense actions like universal background checks, Kelly said.

These are background checks an overwhelming majority of Americans have said they support, polls show.

And what happens when we pass these background checks, and the needle on crime rates doesn’t move any? We have “universal background checks” in Pennsylvania for handguns, and that doesn’t exactly stop them from pushing gun control here. Their next big push is going to be to extend that to long guns, despite the fact they are positively rare in crimes. Beyond that, they want to ration how often you can exercise you right, and make it possible for local towns and cities to infringe on it at will.

31 thoughts on “New Anti-Gun Veterans Group”

  1. It’s almost as if their game is, “How much astroturf can we lay?”

    1. California has also had it even longer than that, I believe since 1992 or so. And of course the only thing it has done is drive up the paperwork and costs of transferring such high crime weapons as WWI era bolt action rifles.

      It functions as nothing more than petty harassment of the gun-culture, just one more middle-finger from the ruling elites to the proles.

  2. I wish I didn’t have to say it on Veterans Day, but it really galls me when my fellow veterans lay claim to any sort of extra credibility, for anything at all, by virtue of their veteran status. Who cares what “Veterans for. . .” anything at all think, except possibly regarding military or veterans affairs?

    1. It’s never about safety or crime, it’s about killing off the pro gun culture. That’s why no mention of ineffectiveness thereof in that regard ever interests them. Can we STOP indulging the lie that they actually care about safety and reducing crime? Don’t acknowledge it as valid. Don’t repeat it. We only lose when we accept their premise, because those who haven’t picked a side then automatically side with “Oh well, I’m not losing anything, might as well side with safety just to be on the safe side.”

  3. What happens when it doesn’t affect crime rates?
    Then just pass another more onerous law that infringes on the law abiding and criminals disregard.

    “We’re for gun rights”
    Sure you are! You’re also pro OSHA for criminals.

    1. Forgot to add, “comments are closed” on the CNN site.
      I wonder why that is if it’s such a popular issue?

  4. Hmm. Sounds like the NRA should do a survey to see how many members are Active Duty/Military Veterans? I’ll start: ME!

    Someone tell Fairfax that it might be good idea to set one up, either through a Mailing, or a Website link.

    Then we’ll post a poll of OUR Veteran Membership vs. Kelly’s Veteran Membership.

    Hey, I’m tired of letting these Jerks define the Narrative.

  5. It will be interesting to track down how many of these veterans saw combat, and how many were REMFs.

  6. I see a retired Navy Captain, retired Rear Admiral, and a retired Major General quoted. What I don’t see are retired First Sgts, Sgt Majors, and Master Sgts being quoted along with men and women who served one tour of duty and left as an E-4 or E-5 (or an O-3).

    Yes, Kelly, Barnett, and Coleman are vets but they lived in the rarefied air of flag rank or near flag rank. In other words, they are not “ordinary” veterans and shouldn’t presume to speak for the rank and file of veterans.

  7. “We’re for gun rights,” said James Barnett, a retired rear admiral. Veterans for Responsible Solutions wants commonsense actions like universal background checks, Kelly said.

    Admiral, you don’t demonstrate support for gun rights by saying what gun control laws you support — you demonstrate support for gun rights by saying what gun control laws you oppose.

    Okay, we know that you support “commonsense actions like universal background checks” — but which state or federal proposals for gun control laws do oppose? And we are talking about proposed laws that are actually likely to be voted on — “I am against banning all guns” does not qualify, sir.

    1. That is the Joe Biden/Democratic Party/UK version of the 2nd Amendment. You are allowed to have a double-barreled shotgun, and everything else can be prohibited by the government.

      I believe that was the basic way by which the Colorado Supreme court nullified the Colorado State Constitution RKBA, in upholding the Denver ban on so-called “assault weapons”. According to that court as long as the anti-gun law stops short of banning ALL guns, it is constitutional!

  8. That group will have nothing but poges and officers looking for book deals. Sounds like another nonsense astroturf organization.

  9. What is it that all astro-turf gun-groups have in common, aside from being astro-turf and being puppets of the anti-gun crusade? They never object to any anti-gun law that is currently in power, that is proposed for passage, or that has been struck down by the courts.

  10. It is nothing less than amazing when a person says “we are for gun rights” while the group for whom they speak works actively to restrict those rights. The disconnect seems so clear to me. It is amazing what twisted logic can justify.

  11. “Dozens of retired senior military veterans…”

    In other words…politicians.

    “Vance Coleman, a retired Army major general, said on the call that he also owns guns. But not everyone should, Coleman continued, namely criminals and the mentally ill.

    “They should not own guns and the Congress needs to do something about that,” Coleman said.”

    Um…General…….. ITS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

    “while others will be pursuing a greater measure of activism, perhaps by writing newspaper editorials.”

    THAT is the greater activism? And Newspapers? Really? HAHAHAHAHAHA!


  12. When one buys an out of state gun, say from gunbroker, and has it shipped to a local FFL and pays the fee – is that all to the FFL dealer, or does the NICS charge some kind of access fee?

    In places like PA, where you want to transfer guns with a range buddy, do you pay the same FFL transfer fee as my internet purchase example?

    Basically I want to follow the money and see if this is some weird tax in disguise.

  13. Chicago and New York already have the strictest gun laws in the country! Have these laws stopped any of the killings going on in either city? I doubt if a killer gets their guns in a way that a background check can even be done. And yes, I am a veteran. We don’t need the background checks, they do zip!

  14. In Illinois where we have had draconian gun laws on the books for decades, the cesspool north of Interstate 80 still leads the nation in crime and gun related deaths. In a state where even some air rifles come under regulation I am seeing little value in submitting to a background check when I am forced to obtain a FOID card and them submit to an additional background check every time I purchase a firearm. As for this bunch I am afraid they are just another case of the Misguided who have fallen in with the wrong sort and have chosen to defend only parts of the Constitution.

Comments are closed.