Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion (MEGA-BARF ALERT)
WJLA News ^ | 7/7/2008

Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley

Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.

According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; ibtz; trroll; usmilitary; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last
Three lib/dem general officers conducting a study for a gay advocacy group. Yup...a real legitimate study there folks.

Unfortunately, that's NOT the way it's going to be spun.

(The funny part about it is that the logistics of housing homosexual and heterosexual enlisted personnel would be unmanageable and un-affordable...no matter what your opinion of gays is...all I can say is that I sure am glad that I'm retired and won't have to deal with this mess)

1 posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:53 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The problem here is generals are far removed from the possible AIDS tainted blood that flys on the battlefield and infects straight patriots.


2 posted on 07/07/2008 8:20:59 PM PDT by Shamrock-DW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

My dissertation advisor, generally a man of the left, nonetheless liked to discomfit folks advocating allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military by asking “would you want to serve on a submarine with one?”

The awkward silence that usually followed adequately made the point of why allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military would be a problem for morale and unit cohesion.


3 posted on 07/07/2008 8:22:40 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

4 posted on 07/07/2008 8:23:47 PM PDT by dfwgator ( This tag blank until football season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Let them say whatever they will. Anyone with any common sense knows, whther it's heterosexual or gay, that you cannot have the Sergeant lvoing one of the squad members romantically. Or an officer doing the same or vice-versa.

Such relationships will impact decision making as emotions come into play with command decisions.

Such activity will not be lost on other members of the team, squad, platoon, company, etc. and will effect unit cohesion.

5 posted on 07/07/2008 8:24:39 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shamrock-DW

20 retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.

They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!

NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.

the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:

TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!


6 posted on 07/07/2008 8:25:19 PM PDT by JohnD9207 (Lead...follow...or get the HELL out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“Rule One...”


7 posted on 07/07/2008 8:25:37 PM PDT by RichInOC ("...NO POOFTERS!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shamrock-DW

20 YEAR retired Army SGT here that call this so called study bs.

They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!

NO STRAIGHT SOLDIER wants a GAY roommate its as simple as that.

the military is not a social club...it has one purpose:

TO GO PLACES AND BLOW THINGS UP AND KILL THE ENEMY...PERIOD!


8 posted on 07/07/2008 8:26:21 PM PDT by JohnD9207 (Lead...follow...or get the HELL out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

Well then, perhaps they should just let active service members have a vote and then be done with it?

9 posted on 07/07/2008 8:29:37 PM PDT by MarineBrat (My wife and I took an AIDS vaccination that the Church offers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It may not be a legit study, but I work with college students — so people of military age — and they are exceedingly unfazed by people’s sexual orientation, so I would tend to agree with the results of the study.


10 posted on 07/07/2008 8:30:21 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

But as you said, that’s a heterosexual issue as well - having a romantic assignation within the squad will effect moral whether it’s guy-girl or guy-guy. So where does that put us? No women in the military either?


11 posted on 07/07/2008 8:32:35 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
“Michael D. Palm was a gifted educator, musician, athlete, business person, and dear friend to all who knew him. Michael, a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community, died of complications from AIDS in Telluride in August 1998. Michael's values reflect those of the Center named in his honor - intellectual curiosity and service.”
12 posted on 07/07/2008 8:32:35 PM PDT by Ratblaster ( Obama's house, Rezko's yard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shamrock-DW
The problem here is generals are far removed from the possible AIDS tainted blood that flys on the battlefield and infects straight patriots. Right, 'cause it's impossible there are heterosexual soldiers out there with HIV infection...
13 posted on 07/07/2008 8:34:24 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Its going to be a different camaraderie than the one I knew.


14 posted on 07/07/2008 8:35:18 PM PDT by Jay Howard Smith (Retired(25yrNCO)Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Gays in the military brings up a new meaning for “rear guard”


15 posted on 07/07/2008 8:37:41 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Free the Refineries! - H.R. 2279 Must Become Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cammie

I have no problem with that

I think women in combat positions in the military is a bad idea.


16 posted on 07/07/2008 8:38:25 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Study: Military Gays Don't Undermine Unit Cohesion

I suppose it depends on how you define "cohesion"...

17 posted on 07/07/2008 8:39:56 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Seriously, is freedom so complicated?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cammie
Right, 'cause it's impossible there are heterosexual soldiers out there with HIV infection...

Impossible? No. Possibilities are not the issue. The issue is the odds...

18 posted on 07/07/2008 8:41:44 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Seriously, is freedom so complicated?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cammie

I do not believe they should be in combat, either in the field, or on board ships that sail into harms way.


19 posted on 07/07/2008 8:44:21 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is just the thin edge of the wedge. These so-called studies want to convince everyone things won’t change day one - but no one considers what will happen when they start having gay baracks, gay Army marriages, gay pride celebrations, gay days, etc... as part of the “new” Army.


20 posted on 07/07/2008 8:44:38 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units

I couldn’t agree more!


21 posted on 07/07/2008 8:47:11 PM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cammie
I would tend to agree with the results of the study.

Then it would follow that if homos and lesbos can live, shower and bunk with the objects of their sexual desires it is only fair that normal men and women be allowed to live together in co-ed hetero barracks.

Right?

Or should heteros, homos and lesbos all live together in one commingled mass?

Or should they be separated according to which sex they lust after?

Homos would bunk with the normal chicks where they can all sit around giggling and chatting about make up, panties, falsies and studly dudes.

Lesbos would bunk with normal males and they can all sit around scratching themselves, breaking wind, and talking about guns, big V-8's, engine oil and hot chicks.

22 posted on 07/07/2008 8:48:01 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Oh wow,that solves it for sure.What the hell would some college kid know about unit cohesion?In college you can choose who your room mates are.In the service it is not the case.


23 posted on 07/07/2008 8:52:53 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cammie
The military is more regularly tested for HIV than any other similar sized segment of American society. The 'flying blood' concern isn't what 'Don't ask don't tell' is about. Anyone that works in law enforcement or the medical industry spends more time in contact with HIV risk than the military.

The biggest problem with the military and gays is that once the military starts to socially engineer something, it goes 100% overboard. In some cases, like with racial integration, it was probably necessary. In other cases, like trying to convince people that a girl who does 30 push ups in two minutes is as fit (and as valuable in combat) as a guy who does 55, the military goes deep into make believe.

But you have to believe the party line and repeat the party line, or you'll never get promoted, and you'll never be a good Soldier.

Living in Baghdad, I get to watch a lot of AFN. Every other AFN commerical is mushy feel-good liberal talking point. I'm a live and let live guy, but I'm not really down with having to be brainwashed into the pro-gay agenda every time I go to the chow hall. The troops would get it worse, as they'd have mandatory meetings every quarter to explore gay issues, the same way the do with gender and race now.

The racial integration attempts have done a vast amount of good. The gender integration has done some good, insofar as the parts of it that are grounded in reality. Homosexual integration would probably turn off (so to speak) a lot of people who don't care if others are gay, but aren't looking to spend a career in a vocally pro-gay organization.

That last sentence is the key. If homosexuality is allowed in the military, it will have the media and legal authority of military behind it in full force. It will affect everything from promotions to punishment to what words troops are allowed to use.

24 posted on 07/07/2008 8:53:11 PM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Just in case you didn't know who the "center" was named for. I don't think anyone had an agenda with this so-called "study."

Michael D. Palm was a gifted educator, musician, athlete, business person, and dear friend to all who knew him. Michael, a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community, died of complications from AIDS in Telluride in August 1998. Michael's values reflect those of the Center named in his honor - intellectual curiosity and service.

25 posted on 07/07/2008 8:59:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Enviromentalists, including Algore's "scientists," should be forced to find jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cammie
“Right, ‘cause it's impossible there are heterosexual soldiers out there with HIV infection...”

Pretty close. All military members are periodically tested for HIV. If they test positive...goodbye.

A few points...

The increased probability of blood-borne diseases on the battlefield is a real bad idea. US military members are legendary for risking their own lives to pull a buddy out of the line of fire and literally bathe in the injured member's blood. Do we really want to increase the hazard even more? Do we want soldiers/marines/etc to think twice...thrice...when others are bleeding to death?

Death among gays from HIV is disproportionately higher than for non-gays. Since most die at a relatively early age, it is also a high probability that many will contract HIV while on active duty, then spend the rest of their days in VA hospital suffering a long and very expensive death. Call me cold, but I would much rather see the scarce resources of the VA and what is left of military medical facilities reserved for the combat injured.

As someone said earlier, the military is not a social club. It is deadly serious business. If you want to join the military, then don't be gay. End of story.

I was serving when Clinton attempted to lift the ban on gays. The hostility among military members that I had contact with...was impressive to say the least.

26 posted on 07/07/2008 9:00:24 PM PDT by mesoman7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

We have worldwide terrorism, $4 and going higher gas, and a very shaky economy, but somehow don’t ask, don’t tell is a major priority.


27 posted on 07/07/2008 9:01:33 PM PDT by Dahoser (America's great untapped alternative energy source: The Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
My dissertation advisor, generally a man of the left, nonetheless liked to discomfit folks advocating allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military by asking “would you want to serve on a submarine with one?”

That would bring a whole new meaning to the joke that submarines are "long, hard, and full of seamen." And I'm not talking about a particularly nice meaning.

28 posted on 07/07/2008 9:01:49 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("Facts are stubborn things." –Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shamrock-DW

Guess what. You can be straight and be HIV positive too.


29 posted on 07/07/2008 9:08:04 PM PDT by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Sexy Conservative!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

I say keep the don’t ask, don’t tell. Uphold the fraternization rules and gays should be able to serve.


30 posted on 07/07/2008 9:12:03 PM PDT by brwnsuga (Proud, Black, Sexy Conservative!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Being in college and being unfazed by homosexuality is worlds apart from being in the military and having to deal with it in a totally real world manner.

“Make your buddy smile” is a completely different atmosphere than “Dude, you’re invading my space”.


31 posted on 07/07/2008 9:12:11 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Barack Hussein Obama=Jimmy Carter Part Deux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
There's a much higher probability of a homosexual man catching Aids than a heterosexual man. Due to rectal bleeding, the virus is more likely to enter the blood stream. Lesbians are extremely unlikely to infect each other.

The average life span among homosexual men is about 20 years shorter then heterosexual men. This is because homosexual men are prone to other diseases including “Gay-Bowel Syndrome.”

32 posted on 07/07/2008 9:13:53 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Michael D. Palm’s values reflect those of the Center named in his honor - he supported queers in everything they desire.


33 posted on 07/07/2008 9:17:05 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Having custody of a loaded weapon does not arm you. The skill to use the weapon is what arms a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JohnD9207
They never bother to ask the troops who have to live with each other, shower together...ect!!!

Exactly.

-24 year Navy man stationed on seven different ships.

34 posted on 07/07/2008 9:18:32 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY (Your parents will all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

End “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and watch the “sexual discrimination” and all kinds of other lawsuits start rolling in against the military. The four buffoons on this panel are obviously braindead and have no idea what would lie ahead for the military if their wishes, yes their wishes came true.


35 posted on 07/07/2008 9:19:14 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Enviromentalists, including Algore's "scientists," should be forced to find jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
Guess what. You can be straight and be HIV positive too.

The military's not worried about exploding blood flying across the battlefield. They test often for HIV, and have a very good handle on who has what. Anyone deploying that pops positive for HIV during their SRP (medical testing) isn't going into combat. That testing is what reduces the risk, not whether or not gay troops are open or hidden. That whole line of reasoning shows a dim understanding of HIV is transmitted and how the military operates.

(A far, far greater medial concern is contact with bleeding foreign nationals than bleeding American troops.)

If the generals cared about this, you'd hear it. They care about unit cohesion, enlistment/reenlistment rates, and turning the Army into a pro-gay megaphone.

36 posted on 07/07/2008 9:22:06 PM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate" Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Those brave men... of the Pink Beret.


37 posted on 07/07/2008 9:25:10 PM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.

Barry Goldwater

38 posted on 07/07/2008 9:29:32 PM PDT by trumandogz ("He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and it worries me." Sen Cochran on McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser

“We have worldwide terrorism, $4 and going higher gas, and a very shaky economy, but somehow don’t ask, don’t tell is a major priority.”

“don’t ask don’t tell” is working because the gays still can’t flaunt it. Serving openly is something completely different. I remember when don’t ask don’t tell was made policy and I said then that it won’t be enough for the gay activists. That it was only a matter of time before they’d want to be completely out in the open and accepted in the military. They won’t be happy until they are living in base housing units with their adopted children and going to squadron functions holding hands. In which case the traditional, heterosexuals will leave the military en masse and not join in the first place.


39 posted on 07/07/2008 9:30:04 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Haven’t homosexuals been in the military forever?


40 posted on 07/07/2008 9:34:43 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

If evidence showed that allowing gays and lesbians to serve is likely to pose significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion, would they tell us?

41 posted on 07/07/2008 9:38:29 PM PDT by Libloather (July is Liberal Awareness Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine

“Haven’t homosexuals been in the military forever?”

Being free to flaunt it is quite different. And like my husband says “if they can’t tell, I can pretend none of the dudes I have to shower with while deployed are gay”. “As soon as I know they are, I’m not getting in the same shower or sleeping quarters”.


42 posted on 07/07/2008 9:39:26 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

So your husband has to lie to serve with homosexuals, but if he has to admit the truth he can’t serve? Interesting.


43 posted on 07/07/2008 9:42:01 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“If evidence showed that allowing gays and lesbians to serve is likely to pose significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion, would they tell us?”

And I doubt the “evidence” gathered that says it hasn’t posed a risk to morale and cohesion in Britain and Israel is coming from anonymous polling of the troops. Somehow I suspect it is coming from a few generals at the top who haven’t bothered to take a survey of all the troops and how it really affects them.


44 posted on 07/07/2008 9:47:12 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: brwnsuga
“Guess what. You can be straight and be HIV positive too.”

Not very likely, unless you're a junkie.

45 posted on 07/07/2008 9:49:19 PM PDT by Ratblaster ( Obama's house, Rezko's yard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
There is no way a study that showed the opposite would ever have seen the light of day.

Common sense says that having a guy who gets a stiffy when he's in the shower with your will affect unit cohesion.
46 posted on 07/07/2008 9:52:30 PM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: purpleraine

“So your husband has to lie to serve with homosexuals, but if he has to admit the truth he can’t serve? Interesting.”

What the hell are you going on about? Knowing that there might be a gay guy in your unit but there also might not be, at-least prevents the extreme uncomfortableness that would be there if you knew someone was. I was in the AF and had to shower with a bunch of women in Basic. Since I didn’t know that any of them were lesbos, I could just get in there and get out and not have to worry about it. If I had known one was, I would not have felt comfortable at all showering with her.


47 posted on 07/07/2008 9:54:11 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I know several ex-sailors who said life got very complicated when they put women on ships. We don’t know how it’s affected combat readiness because we haven’t been tested. Some famous general said “Everything is theoretical until the shooting starts.” Okay, maybe I said it, but the point is training and maneuvers aren’t the real thing. Social experimentation with our military right now would be suicidal.


48 posted on 07/07/2008 10:10:08 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cammie

Yep.

No women in the military, either.

Otherwise you are introducing sexual politics at every level, promotion, demotion, morale. . .

That’s how I see it.


49 posted on 07/07/2008 10:10:48 PM PDT by Marie2 (It's time for a ban on handgun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser

We need the best military we can possibly achieve. It is a critical issue, more important than the price of gas.


50 posted on 07/07/2008 10:12:10 PM PDT by Marie2 (It's time for a ban on handgun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson