What a NUT!! Man with gun in plain sight at town hall intervied by Chris Matthews. Right to bear arms Gone Wild.

"either shoot 'em on the spot or string 'em up." -- SG

Oh my!!! That's horrible!!! Are they okay? Were they rushed to the nearest medical center for treatment? Did they survive?

Oh, nobody was injured? You mean what happened in St Louis resulted in one more injury than what occurred at this townhall meeting attended by an armed right-winger? Nevermind.

RonBlack66

That's right, no one was hurt, assaulted, shot, or killed. Yet they will still use this to make an issue out of it.

You mean what happened in St Louis resulted in one more injury

Let's be clear here. The incident in St. Louis resulted in one fake injury, zero actual injuries, one potential frivolous lawsuit, and a possible Joe the Plumber replacement.

Let's all be glad that the dropped gun did not go off and hurt somebody. Just because it luckily did not happen does not mean the possibility was not there. Imagine if you were attending a meeting of your Congressman with your family and someone drops their gun next to you and it goes off and hits your kid.

There is nothing lighthearted about these incidents. This is the same incendiary, paranoid crap that these fanatical jackasses stirred up in the 90's and it led to the OK bombing. And in the immortal words of Condi Rice, after that happened, they all said "nobody could have seen it coming."

"Let's all be glad that the dropped gun did not go off and hurt somebody." -- jawill

The odds of a gun that is holstered suddenly falling to the ground, then miraculously discharging without the trigger ever being pulled is far less likely than an all-out scuffle taking place when SEIU thugs show up and start putting their hands on others.

Maybe, for the safety of all involved, the communist, George Soros-backed organization SEIU should be banned from these town halls rather than armed right-wingers. But until they are, I suggest that a group of nightstick wielding right-wingers stand patrol outside these town halls as a measure of defense for their people against the physically aggressive SEIU punks. That way, when these SEIU punks start trying to push their weight around and assaulting those that oppose them, they can have their teeth knocked down the back of their throats.

Surely if the NBPP can carry nightsticks and patrol the entrances to polling stations, then right-wingers can carry nightsticks to a town hall. And for those that disagree, understand something. It was your guy (Eric Holder) that made the rules. Right-wingers would just be following the precedence that he set.

Ron, I'll restate what I said, if you saw the video of the Kenneth Gladney incident and actually believe he was assaulted, you are working from a very slanted view of reality. He was pulled down or fell down and immediately got back up. He them magically winds up "medicated" in a wheelchair the next day talking about a civil lawsuit (tort reform, anyone?).

And, do you have numbers on how much the eevviill George Soros has given the SEIU? I can't find any evidence that he has given any significant amount to them. I did find a bunch of nutcase paranoid right wind websites complaining about how evil he is and how much he gives everyone, but surprisingle no actual facts or figures. Par for the course.

"Let's all be glad that the dropped gun did not go off and hurt somebody." -- jawill

I throw my glocks at a wall, run em over with a truck and beat em with a hammer and they will not go off until I pull the trigger. Contrary to popular belief, guns don't magicly "go off" when dropped. Only those with highly modified triggers or manufacturers defect really suffer that problem.

I'm familiar with guns. I'll agree that probably the Glock would be the least likely to malfunction. That does not mean the possibility does not exist, especially on a cheap gun like you mention. I also know if I was there with my one year old, he would have picked the gun up off the floor in no time flat if he was anywhere within range of a fun new shiny object hitting the floor.

The point is that the irrisponsibility of bringing the gun in and actually losing it is staggering. I want to have the freedom to go to an event with my family, especially one that furthers the democratic process, and not worry about some idiot having a gun there, much less loosing it.

I'd agree that dropping/ loosing a gun in a public place is highly irresponsible. I'd even make it a misdemeanor crime if I could. As I said earlier in a previous post, a poperly holstered gun doesn't just fall out and get lost. By the same token, modern firearms, Glocks or otherwise, don't go off unless you pull the trigger. Period. Ruger recalled a bunch of guns voluntarily for this problem which was never confirmed nor duplicated but inhouse or independant testing.

You do not however have a right to go anywhere without some "idiot" having a gun there. Even where they're banned, some "idiot" still might bring a gun. You have no right to go anywhere and be guaranteed to not get hurt by any means. All you have a right to is civil and/ or criminal recourse depending on the situation.

You have no right to go anywhere and be guaranteed to not get hurt by any means. All you have a right to is civil and/ or criminal recourse depending on the situation.

Now we're just playing semantics, but I do have that right. If someone harms me, then they violated that right. Their criminal or civil punishment is for the violation of my rights.

"And, do you have numbers on how much the eevviill George Soros has given the SEIU? I can't find any evidence that he has given any significant amount to them."

The question is not "how much". The fact that George Soros' Open Society Institute gives to them at all means that he supports them.

Shadow Party

No that's not to say that it couldn't be taken off your side by anyone. One can take reasonable measures to prevent it like concealment or locking holsters but in reality, even the police can, and has had guns taken from them in a struggle.

You talking of two VERY different legal arguments here though. In one scenario where a guy drops or loses his gun, he could be found negligent whereas if a guy has it taken by force, he's a victim, not the criminal.

That is the reason though I advocate conceal carry though I would not support a ban on open carry for other reasons.

Second, the Secret Service would never allow an individual to carry a firearm near the President. Everybody in the townhall probably went through a metal detector first.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. But on the off chance that something does happen...well, I don't even want to think about that. Can you say L.A. Riots times about ten thousand?

Average_Guy

Liberal fear-mongering??? Oh no, you dont think that they would do anything like that do you?

"First, there is no article linked to this thread so we can't see what the actual story is, just some offhand comment by a contributor." - it's called an article - have you been on newsvine long? How does this confuse you?

No one is saying it's a crime to carry a gun, I'm just say be responsible where you go with it. Look before you leap.

you cant type, ya bum

Taxinum2wice - innocent people kill innocent people? Or killing people for the greater good (you must mean abortion).

Your position (via your statement) that the law-abiding citizen's legal rights are, and I quote, "more important than everyone's safety at the rally" is completely indefensible. Who was hurt during the rally as a result? Simple question. Stop projecting your fears onto others, please.

Taxinum2wice - your value judgment speaks volumes. You get an "A" for effort, but unfortunately a "F" for content - you missed me by a mile. I am nothing like that.

That's the problem with broad generalizations - they are typically wrong; and if you are who you described yourself to be above, I'd think you'd be the first to recognize that.

Seriously, pay attention and quit slinging falsehoods. Honesty is a virtue, and intentionally warping the truth is actually as dishonest as outright lying.

There were no weapons brandished, otherwise the guy would be going to jail. There also wasn't any screaming, take a look at the video.

Without screaming, brandishing a weapon, or even getting in anyone's face, it's hard to see how someone could be called a bully or a thug. Oh that's right, he's one of those wackos that thinks he has Constitutional rights. THAT makes him an ignorant thug apparently.

For the record, the guy is also a Libertarian, so you can't even make his actions a part of the Republican "They" that you're trying to portray as trouble makers.

Oh My God! You mean people can just drive cars around and kill other people? Wow, really, 40,000 dead a year! Guns only kill half that and half of those are suicides. I now feel threatened by SUVs.

Ummmm...why wasn't he arrested? More strange lies with no backing. Eric Holder said it was okay to carry weapons at the polling places( billy clubs carriedby black panthers)...More of "don't do as I do.....do as I say do" geeeeeeez!!!!

Don't be silly, because it is in a holster does not make it any safer to carry. It threatened everyone elses right to be there and listen without the added problem of watching this guy constantlyl. It was a distraction and no more.

You were the one being silly. It didnt threaten anyone's 'right' to be there and listen. Some may have felt uncomfortable because it is not the norm in todays society. Cops carry their guns the same way and someone can come up and take it from them, are you equally as worried when there are cops around?

Yes it may have been a distraction, again because people are not used to that, but it is legal there to walk around like that and used to be legal all throughout this country to walk around like that. But nothing did happen and your fears were shown to be overblown. And as someone else stated on this thread, you have no idea how many others actually had concealed weapons at this or any other similar type of event. If nothing happens or no one knows, it doesnt get reported.

When I asked if he was undercover it was when you first posted this. At that time there were no pictures or real information about what was going on other than your original description of:

a person appears with his gun strapped to his leg.

And it was not even strapped to his leg.

So please dont try to take things out of context and timeframe.

Then I guess you were in a cave. Again, when I posted those original comments there was no picture available and YOU were the one who originally posted it was strapped to his leg. Its still the first line of your article, and I quote:

On the day the President of the United States plans to speak at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire a person appears with his gun strapped to his leg.

My mistake on the strapped to his leg part. It was strapped to his leg. See how easy it is to say when you make a mistake?

I can see where they might want to restrict access at an event like this to a person carrying a sidearm.

I was up north a several years bcak and a guy walked into a diner with a gun strapped to his leg. Its somewhat odd to see when you are not used to it. Compare the violent crime rate in an area where you may see this sort of thing as opposed to Washington D.C. though. I felt much safer dining with the dude drinking coffee with his six shooter.

I attended an event at which Dick Cheney, unfortunately, was the keynote speaker. It was a US Naval Academy commencement in 2006. By the way, he was booed and hissed at.

I walked through a metal detector and my purse was searched.

So tell me how the President can be at an event where an attendee has a loaded gun?

Who said it was loaded, I must have missed that part.

I'm pretty sure he said something along the lines of bringing one unloaded would be a waste of time... kinda implies it was.

Which state issues a concealed carry license but doesn't allow the carry weapon to be carried loaded?

I think you may be mistaken. Not having the ability to have it loaded defeats the whole purpose of concealed carry:

From the Revised Code of Ohio (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf):

Transporting in Motor Vehicles

· The transportation of loaded, concealed handguns in motor vehicles is permitted, but strict obligations are imposed by the law to protect you and law enforcement. These obligations apply to drivers and occupants. These obligations do not apply if you are storing a firearm for any lawful purpose and it is not on your person or you are lawfully storing or possessing a firearm in your home.

You may not have a loaded handgun in the vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

If you have a concealed carry permit, you may not transport a loaded, concealed handgun in a vehicle unless it is carried in one of the following ways:

· The loaded handgun is in a holster secured on the person. Ohio law previously required carrying firearms in a holster in plain sight. The "plain sight" provision has been removed from the law.

· The loaded handgun is in a closed case, bag, box, or other container that is in plain sight and that has a lid, a cover, or a closing mechanism with a zipper, snap, or buckle, which lid, cover or closing mechanism must be opened for a person to gain access to the handgun, or

· The loaded handgun is securely encased by being stored in a closed, glove compartment or console,

· or in a case that is locked.

(2) Division (A)(2) of this section does not apply to any person who, at the time of the alleged carrying or possession of a handgun, is carrying a valid license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun issued to the person under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun that was issued by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code, unless the person knowingly is in a place described in division (B) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code.

So what, They were so focused on him, they would have missed the real threat.

So what? Is that an argument? Or a rubber/glue defense? They could have all been sitting around and drinking beer and playing poker too. You are way too dismissive to hold an earnest dialog. Thanks for "listening".

The Secret Service is a world class organization. It would take a full on assault for them to take their eye off the ball that badly. You should understand presidential security, before making such a childish statement. These people are willing to take a bullet for the president and they are very good at what they do.

Exactly how was I being dismissive again, there bubba? But, I guess you only read what you wanted to read.

If dismissive is expecting the Secret Service to do thier jobs and remove all threats to the president, yup that's me dismissive. Since, they did not do so, one can reasonably conclude, he was no threat. BTW-they were probably focused on many people that day and we will never know if there was an even bigger threat. I hope they can multitask. *sarcasm*

If I was being dismissive when I posted that this act, "..seems to be sensationalist "news making", yup that's me Mr. Dismissive. When both the media and this guy were both clearly overreacting. They both got the attention they were seeking and now you have too.

I think dismissive is a post(s) which judges a situation without facts. You dismissed his rights, even though you have no idea where he was in relation to the meeting or the president and you have the same rights, as it were. You dismissed the Secret Services ability to do their jobs, even though its reasonable to conclude they did. And you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Class dismissed, unless you want to take a "shot" at the Jefferson question in #11.

I disagree, some of the shooting lately may not of happened if citizens had the ability to protect themselves. You might think twice about shooting Innocent people if you knew some might be armed.

mybrainworks

I am sure I will be called some sort of a name for this, but you do not want to be the one who COLLECTS the ak47's, and uzi's. at least not mine. there are things I will die for, and keeping any gun I have is one of them. and I bet there are more people like me that think the same way. So please dont be the brave one to try and take what I have.

nothing personal here!!!

7cents

I'll bring mine and be proud to stand beside you.

The Great Thing about America is we have 50 Different and Diverse States. I know the Libs want One Big State run by DC (what a screwed up town) and want to believe we are one plastic culture singing the same song, but we aren't. We are all individuals residing in The State with the kind of laws we prefer. If someone from DC or Ohio can't deal with New Hampshire's culture then they should mind their own business while the rest of us celebrate true DIVERSITY.

Diversity is only a Code word to them, it means something totally different to us..

Taxinum,

Because you're curious, I'll repeat exactly what I've said multiple times in this thread. If you want there to be no weapons, you have controlled access points. Cordon off an area and check people entering the few city blocks you have locked down. Indoors, post signs that no one is allowed to carry any weapon of any kind. Job done and no one's rights are violated.

I have done exactly what I just said above, with the general public, on military installations. It's easy to do, and although someone can sneak in a weapon if they try hard enough, once they slip past a controlled point that advertises no weapons beyond that mark, they violate the law.

I told you, this guy acted ignorantly, because he's going to have federal "friends" for at least as long as Obama is in office, but he did not violate the law. Any of you that actually stand for individual's rights should stand up for this poor guy's right to do what he did, even if you feel it's dumb, which I do.

The reason that the city has to pay for it is that first, the secret service budget and increased local enforcement is baked in. Even if it weren't, not being able to afford to pay for a constitutionally promised right isn't a reason to disallow it. If my state couldn't afford voting booths or the people to count my vote, that's not my issue. If they deny me that right because of cost, that is my issue, but once I and the ACLU are done, I think they'll think it's cheaper to allow me to vote. Purely conjecture, but a decent comparison.

I agree with your second paragraph. He's an idiot, and in my opinion he did it for attention, but he violated no laws in doing so. There's nothing scary about it. Nothing that casts dispersions on anyone that supports gun laws. It's purely a bad idea. I don't like Klan rallies and I don't like Black Panther demonstrations, but in spite of my beliefs, I just wince and shake my head. I don't blame large segments of the populace for what I see, and I defend the demonstrators rights by saying to myself, "You go you short-bus riding idiot you!"

He should be more afraid of the Dems that cause 70% of gun deaths in America (FBI Stats).

And if the nut jobs ( see 12.1) did not have guns then no innocent people need to worry about getting shot or carrying a gun for protection.

Do you honestly believe most gun crimes are committed by people who legally own guns (for whatever reason - protection, hunting, target shooting), who have taken the time to apply for carry permits, submit to a background check and take safety classes?

I'm more concerned about his sign and message combined with the fact he was carrying a loaded weapon than the weapon alone.

I agree, I do not like it, but he was not breaking any laws. I do think it was a dumb ass move to garner attention and had absolutely nothing to do with the 2 amendment. You can be damn sure that the Secret Service was watching this guy like a hawk. If that gun had come out of the holster for even a nanosecond the SS would have been all over him, at the very least.

Ona side note: It is also legal for Fred Phelps and his little clan to protest at the funerals of American soldiers that died serving our country. Doesn't that piss you off? Just because something is not against the law does make it right.

he did not break laws but he did break the rules.

Which rules? Yours?

They were not intended for this purpose

What purpose? To make a statement? It was a statement he made legally, whether you like it or not. No different than waving (or burning) a flag. He did not remove it from his holster, did not threaten anyone, and was behaving in a civilized manner.

When they are, peole usually die because they think they are not speaking loudly enough.

Really? Could you provide us some links of people legally carrying weapons, killing people to make a point?

Taxinum2wice,

The laws, specifically basic constitutional law, is not flawed. It's part of the bedrock of this country. We should strive to understand the laws of our country, attempt to make peace with them, and if we find irreconcilable differences with our own values, move to a country that better suits our values.

As Americans, we are are great because of the laws that were set in place at our founding, not in spite of them. We live in times that are so tame so as to be unable to understand real strife, real sacrifice, and real greatness. Of course I mean holistically, not in the shape of one random individual.

Think back to the days after 9/11. All of us knew what it meant to be an American, knew what it meant to love our neighbor in spite of our differences, and were truly of one mind. That is the environment our country was founded in. Not from a forge that operated for a day as in 9/11, but instead from almost 30 years of war, where failure meant extinction.

Tread lightly when you seek to minimize the founding documents of this nation, born of the thoughts and deeds of great men and women, under times that compelled them to draft those very laws to guarantee us freedoms not just for the times we live in now, but what we may suffer in the future.

WRONG - absolutely 100% incorrect. Taxinum2wice - I expected better from you than that. No one's rights EVER supersede anyone else's rights. Simple as that.

You're getting there now, we just have a little further to go in this teachable moment.

I would put it to you that there is no disconnect. Not one single person's rights were violated at this event, which has been my contention the whole time. They have the right to peacably assemble - they did. They were there, they assembled, they exercised free speech. No problem at all.

Your comments are based on a false assumption; that the posession of a firearm encroached on other's rights (specifically their safety). There is no Constitutional right to safety - in fact the courts have ruled time and again that only WE are ultimately responsible for OUR safety. That's why you can't sue the police for not preventing a crime.

The rights of everyone superceed his right to carry open.

No, that's why we have open carry laws (or concealed, depending on the state). He has the legal right to do so. As does anyone else in that crowd, if they choose.

I don't smoke, don't like being around smoke, it's dangerous to those around the smoker (trust me, I have asthma). However, at this point in time, it is legal. There are legal limitations (age, not inside many buildings, etc.) but having a lit cigarette in most public places is not a crime.

Now: how many people die from smoking-related deaths every year? How many from shootings involving a legal weapon? Trust me, I'm much more afraid of being around cigarette smoke and having an asthma attack than I am of being shot by someone who has taken the time and hassle to obtain a carry permit.

If it had been Bush, he would only have been allowed to protest 8 blocks away and there would have been no press.

Here we go again...if you're a white Republican, you're a racist. If you're a white Republican who owns a gun, you automatically want to kill the president.

Funny, but the only racist crap I hear these days is coming from the far (and not so far) left.

Ridiculous. Grow up.

ULF - one of two choices:

1. Either you are pulling our leg by some attempt at sarcastic humor? Which fails utterly and completely.
2. You are serious? In which case your post is both pathetic and grotesque.

Regardless, please do better next time.

The Rascist Lefties always want to make everything about Race. Everytime they get beat by the facts and the truth, they decide to insult the Minority community by telling the world that because Blacks have different skin color, they must be hated, but not by them, of course. I think not.

Most Conservatives don't even CONSIDER race, it doesn't enter our minds, let alone our converstaions. But the Left, they're like Coke Freaks, that's all they talk about. We know you love to keep them feeling like they need you to protect them from the evil Conservatives. They're all grown up now and are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Excellent, yes. We are much too divided. We on the Right want people to be responsible for themselves, govern themselves with as few Administrators as possible, as effieciently as possible. We expect people to mind their own business and not try to push their idea of how people should live down everyone's throat, to include around the world.

The Left wants Laws for Everything, control of everyone and a government to feed, cloth, house, protect, and think for them. They want to live off everyone elses work and nickel. They're like nosey gabbing ol' ladies, dying to insult anyone that doesn't agree with them. They can haveall that, just move to Canada, I hear it's got just want they want.

I guess you anti-gun guys are wrong since nothing is being said about it except the Left. Nothing will be done to the guy. You probably believe what you've been told by Lefty Congressman about the Mexican Drug Cartels getting their Automatic weapons from America, even though the ATF, The Border Patrol and ICE agree that those come from China and Israel because it's almost impossible to get them here. Saw that on CSPAN, TIVO'd it, too, Excellent Senate Hearing..

What ?!?

No I think that you are missing the point. This isn't like yelling "fire" in a movie theater and then claiming free speech, what he did was not past the laws and statues that are in his state so why are we chastising him for following the law and exercising his rights? I don't want to do a "in your face" but if the argument that you are trying to make is along the lines of "what if one of the other right wing nuts around could have pulled his gun out of his holster and then attacked someone" I ask you to please list with supporting facts an assassination that has taking place in the past, that the assassin would be classified as a right winger - all in memory have been tied to the left and far left...

Unashamed, I totally agree with you, I am in shock that so many people attack this man for exercising his rights. It just goes to show how many people on the far left don't believe in the Constitution.

Did he do anything unlawful? No! So what is the problem? Other then you not liking it. Your right that this doesn't have anything to do with sides, it has to do with Constitutional rights, which apparently you don't believe in.

What did he expect to shoot a grizzly bear at the town hall? What a moron.

Taxinum;

Apparently it does matter, since you and the main stream media seem pent on making sure that those who protest big government are labeled "Right Wing", (or if you really want to bring in the readers "Right Wing Extremist"). Take a look at any article on the health care reform and try to find one that doesn't call those who oppose it, (or how it is being rammed through) the above mentioned. If you don't classify those that were at the protest as dangerous right wingers, then why do you attack someone exercising their constitutional protected right? I don't want to put words in your mouth but either you have little regard for the constitution or you find it useful as long as you can mold it as a living document by adding and subtracting rights as you like..... which by the way fits nicely with where this country is going under Obama's rule-

"I do not ever see anything wrong with wanting to care for all Americans not matter the cost or who pays"

This my friend is where the debate stems from... many will agree with you on both parts of your statement. But the major difference lies in the second part of your statement. I like many, do care what it will cost and who will pay for it. Like you I earn everything I have; and I do care about my country, family, friends and well... just my fellow man... but I give my hard earned money to where I think it will best benefit others with MY CHOICE. The government shouldn't be giving out hand outs to all the illegals, and any other American that just wants to sit home and do nothing. Why do I have to pay for that? why do you have to pay for that? I want to keep my choice of where my money goes I don't want the government to take even more of my money and do what ever they please with it. Heath care needs reform but in the hands of the private sector. When is the last time you seen the government do something more efficient that the private sector? Can we say road construction?? City workers?? This has become the American motto "something for nothing" - let the government take care of you, you shouldn't have to work extra hard to afford that car, "Cash for Clunkers!" save the environment stimulate the economy...and it will only cost you the hope, dreams, money, and hard work of generations to come, (because your kids,kids,kids will be digging us out of our debt)... When and were will it end? I'll tell you were it can/has started; take away people's freedoms and give them a comfortable cage...they won't complain...

I refuse to work all of my life only to give all that I earned to an insurance company or paying for medicine.

Well I don't want to work all my life, just to pay for those who haven't. We need to create more ants, not more grasshoppers.

To those of you who think this is good idea, just remember that there are at least 2 expert military marksmen with cross-hairs on your heart and one on our head, If I was in charge of the detail I would have another one on your spine and another prepared to take your arm off.

From the time you enter the area until the time you leave, your background will have been completely examined, so they will know every single keyboard stroke you have ever made. They will know what color socks you are wearing and what temperature they are as you stand in them.

If you make the slightest threatening move, you will be taking you life in your hands...

As long as you don't mind all of that...

Could you please give us your qualification,

I'm a Marine expert marksman...what are your credentials?

You are either an expert the highest level of proficency or a marksmen-you can hit a barn. Two snipers for every person-that is amazing.

Actually, this is wrong

The Marine Corps has 3 levels of qualifications Marksman, Sharpshooter and Rifle Expert, I qualified expert 3 times. Qualification is from 200, 300 and 500 meters with fixed sights only (no scope).

There are also scout snipers that are assigned throughout the Regiment and then our Special Forces (Recon and Force Recon Platoons) also have snipers assigned to their platoons also.

The Barrett M82 uses a .50 cal. round and will take you arm off (rumored to have cut people in half in IAO and AAO.

Of all those units, I haven't met any super humans, but if I do I will write any article about it.

Rodney,

So if you'd have been running the detail, you'd have a Barrett waiting to take the guys arm off? In the middle of a crowd of innocents? The collateral damage would be.... stunning. Qualified or not, do you think there's a reason you're not running that detail?

I was under the impression that that M82 was an anti-vehicular/material weapon. Used to take out lightly armored vehicles and equipment. Not generally used to take out people. They have other rifles for that purpose, such as the M24.

Of not that was in reference to another part of his post.

mountianman2009

I was back with the 24th MAU again in '87, were you in FMFLANT? If I rememer right FAST was just getting put together, right? Didn't that start with Force Recon?