I have no special faith in the sources reporting this. I expect that the bare facts may be fairly accurate, as in that there are communications between agencies. But interpreting that into being a plot to take rights away from innocent veterans, is a politicized twisted exaggeration.

Need more direct and complete information. preferably not from a website with an established political point of view. The sources listed here don't qualify.

I got the same info in my VFW news letter. That's why I looked it up

Sorry it's not from a site you trust but you might try your own google search

Treatment of vets,
WILL not improve,

Until,

There's another massive march
on d.c. staged by veterans.
Complete with sit ins, picket signs,
demonstrations, and campsights
to sustain it into a lengthy enough
protest. .

World war 1 vets, had to march in
protest to get the gov to keep at least
some of its promises.

Ask FactCheck
Twisting Feinstein'��s Words on Military Vets
Posted on April 17, 2013

Q: Did Sen. Dianne Feinstein say all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns?

A: No. She said veterans should not be exempt from her proposed assault weapons ban, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a concern. She did not say all veterans suffer from PTSD or that all veterans should not own guns.

FULL QUESTION

Did Dianne Feinstein really say all veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns? The quote was supposed to have occurred in a Senate committee meeting.

FULL ANSWER

This claim -�� which has gone viral - grossly distorts what Feinstein actually said at a March 7 Senate hearing on her legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

At the hearing, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas offered an amendment that would have exempted military veterans from the assault weapons ban. The bill provides very few exceptions for individuals. As we'��ve written before, the bill exempts active military members and law enforcement. It also provides an exemption, in some cases, for retired law enforcement officials. The legislation says that if a law enforcement agency sells or transfers a semiautomatic weapon on the prohibited list to an officer upon retirement or if that officer had such a weapon for '��official use before such retirement'�� then the retired officer can keep the weapon if that person is '��retired in good standing'�� and is '��not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic weapon.'��

Cornyn argued that if retired police officers can keep their weapons, then military veterans should be able, too. He spoke as if all retired police officers are exempt, but they are not. (The committee's discussion of Cornyn'��s amendment can be found at the 1-hour, 32-minute mark of the C-Span video tape of the bill’s markup.)

Feinstein, a California Democrat, noted that there was no exemption for military veterans in the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That ban expired in 2004. She then went on to discuss her concerns for providing an exemption for military veterans.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/twisting-feinsteins-words-on-military-vets/

The Wire
Gun Rights Group'��s Aim Is Way Off
Posted on April 5, 2013
A conservative gun rights group is going after three congressmen with 'A' ratings from the National Rifle Association by falsely claiming they support President Obama’s gun control agenda.
'TV ads attacking Virginia Republicans Eric Cantor and Scott Rigell and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin falsely accuse the three congressmen of supporting a federal gun registry. They have expressed varying degrees of support for enhanced background checks, but none has supported a federal gun registry. Nor is such a registry even being proposed.
'A claim that Rigell and Manchin support Obama'��s gun agenda is false. Neither has backed the most controversial part of Obama'��s plan: banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

The National Association for Gun Rights, which takes a more conservative line on gun rights than the NRA, has spent $50,000 on TV and radio ads attacking the gun rights bona fides of three legislators who have enjoyed the backing of the NRA. At the end of each ad, the politicians' faces morph into Obama'��s to drive home the bogus claim that they are pushing the president'��s gun control agenda.

Obama'��s gun control plan would require criminal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales, and would ban certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines. Although political momentum for an assault weapons ban appears to be waning, Obama has not wavered from that goal. In a speech in Denver on April 3, Obama reiterated his pledge to '��keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate mass killings off our streets.'�� He also repeated his call for universal and beefed-up background checks.

That is far different from the public positions adopted by the three legislators targeted by the NAGR ads.

The NAGR'��s ad campaign has garnered news attention recently because Rigell questioned the group'��s association with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has lent his name to the group’s fundraising efforts. Paul, a Republican, denied he has any role in setting the group’s agenda, but he refused to repudiate the group.

No '��Federal Database Registration System'��

All three ads accuse the congressmen of supporting a plan to create a federal database registration system. That’s not true. As we have written before, current law bars the FBI from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the president'��s plan -�� nor those proposed by the congressmen -�� would change that.

Rigell took to the radio airwaves to contest the NAGR ad, and told Politico the claim that he is supporting the creation of a national database of firearm owners is '��an egregious lie, and completely unfounded.��'

Some gun rights groups make a '��slippery slope'�� argument that background checks could lead to a federal gun registry, but that’s simply not part of any of the plans being considered in Congress.

The FBI is required to destroy any records generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System — which was created as a result of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. The law strictly prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check. Since 2004, Congress has inserted language in annual spending bills requiring the FBI to destroy firearm transfer records within 24 hours of approval. Although Obama has proposed a universal background check system, nothing in his plan would result in the establishment of a federal firearm registry.
-------
The bill -�� H.R. 452, which Rigell proposed along with Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Elijah Cummings, and Republican Rep. Pat Meehan -�� is known as the '��Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013.-�� McCarthy, who was mentioned in the ad, was one of 102 cosponsors. The law seeks to crack down on gun trafficking and on '��straw'�� buyers who purchase guns on behalf of others they know to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. The legislation is not opposed by the NRA, according to the Virginian-Pilot.

Obama'��s gun plan also calls for tougher enforcement against '��straw purchasers.'�� But to call the bill an effort to pass '��Obama'��s gun control” ignores the much more controversial parts of Obama'��s plan — banning assault weapons and requiring universal background checks, for example -�� which aren'��t part of the bill Rigell cosponsored.

The ad'��s claim that Rigell'��s legislation “could make you a criminal if you sell a gun without federal approval and it falls into the wrong hands' is also highly misleading. In order to run afoul of the proposed law, the purchaser has to '��know'�� or have '��reasonable cause to believe'�� the person they are buying the gun for is prohibited by federal or state law from possessing a firearm.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/gun-rights-groups-aim-is-way-off/

wasnt it similar after WW2 also as far as vets being denied what they were promised?

RockGnome stated >>>
Vets have been lied to, before, during, and after every war. Gov. is equal opportunity about it.
They lie to vets during peacetime too.