People do not need assault weapons: d...

People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

There are 4995 comments on the Reuters story from Jan 17, 2013, titled People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary. In it, Reuters reports that:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2552 Feb 12, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Dearie, you gun(*)uggers have spent too long with your deaf ears being blasted by guns.. President Obama and others will NOT - repeat NOT - be taking all the millions of guns rampant and running around this country.
I appreciate the paranoid propaganda is good for the NRA and the gun business.
Pay attention ....
Just keep your head in the sand little ostrich. We got this.

By the way. You know where your ass is pointed when your head is in the sand, don'tcha?? From the govt straight to you.....BOHICA!!!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2553 Feb 12, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again dummy
"A presidential executive order (EO) is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers.
In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors.
Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders take effect. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.
President George Washington issued the first executive order in 1789. Since then, all U.S. presidents have issued executive orders, ranging from Presidents Adams, Madison and Monroe, who issued only one each, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 3,522 executive orders."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentand...
Please link a site showing proof that the office of the president may use his powers to usurp the 2nd Amendment via executive orders. I have yet to find one.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#2554 Feb 12, 2013
LOL, the North Koreans just tested another nuke, Iran is rounding the bend and building a space program. I don't need some punk leftist suffering from mental defect or disease telling what I should and shouldn't own, keep, bear, conceal, shoot, in my gun collection.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2555 Feb 12, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text>Even Reagan was screwed with by the Repub system as Gerald Ford became the candidate in 1976 and he was forced to do right by the party. And when he ran and won in 1980, his handlers and underlings and vice president among others, were NEO CONS. Reagan was not that if he was accused of other things by the other side and anyone else. We are not a Republic and have not been for many decades. We are a Democracy that is really a soft tyranny state on its way to a hard one.
Gerald Ford ...John Anderson...Lincoln Chafee...
Scoop Jackson...Patrick Monihan
Before we took this hard right turn we had two parties with viable centerist alternatives
We are a lot of things. We have made some wrong turns both right and left.
If you want to hear defeatism... someone talking down our great nation and its traditions re-read your last two sentences.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2556 Feb 12, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>BIDEN: We're counting on 'legitimate media' for gun control effort...Code: MSM Prints What We Tell Them To.
legitimate could mean those outlets that ignore all of the hot head NRA rhetoric and report facts?

What facts would you like to see aired

the number of innocents shot each day?
The answer far too many...
The % of guns that are sold under the GOV'T radar?
The answer far too many...
The $$$ NRA will spent to defeat reason?
The answer far too many...

What gun facts do you, Au Contraire, believe that the media should report

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2557 Feb 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you can't rebut, can't refute, can't defend. Can't offer proof, can't think, can't be a man.
Just a silly little boy saying silly little things. Go away, little boy, adults are talking here.
Shoo! Shoo!!
No you are right, I can't defend your lunacy. You are too far down the liberal throat.
Besara

Omaha, NE

#2558 Feb 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
F--k the NRA and you.
Said the local NAMBLA Chapter President. Coward!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2560 Feb 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Please link a site showing proof that the office of the president may use his powers to usurp the 2nd Amendment via executive orders. I have yet to find one.
There are none sir - and the president has yet to issue any orders of this type.

Your RIGHT to own weapons are not being infringed upon - nor ever has been.

Cite any example showing the president in fact has done so.
downhill246

West Palm Beach, FL

#2562 Feb 12, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
legitimate could mean those outlets that ignore all of the hot head NRA rhetoric and report facts?
What facts would you like to see aired
the number of innocents shot each day?
The answer far too many...
The % of guns that are sold under the GOV'T radar?
The answer far too many...
The $$$ NRA will spent to defeat reason?
The answer far too many...
What gun facts do you, Au Contraire, believe that the media should report
The problem is simply violent cities whose citizens vote consistently and overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party.

The 2010 Violent crime rate per 100,000 residents

Detroit, MI-1887
St Louis,MO -1747-
Oakland,CA -1529-
Baltimore,MD-1456-
Stockton,CA-1381-
Buffalo,NY -1357-
Cleveland,OH-1295-
Washington,D.C.-1241
Philadelphia,PA-1189-
Kansas City,MO-1140-


All ten cities have a violent crime rate over TWICE the national average (404 per 100,000)
Eight cities had a violent crime rate over THREE times the national average.
Two had a violent crime rate over FOUR times the national average.
What did they all have in common?
The majority of voters in all twelve cities vote for Barack Obama in 2008.

Solution -Ban violent Democrats.
downhill246

West Palm Beach, FL

#2563 Feb 12, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are none sir - and the president has yet to issue any orders of this type.
Your RIGHT to own weapons are not being infringed upon - nor ever has been.
Cite any example showing the president in fact has done so.


Perhaps, but where you can carry one has been infringed.

At Columbine High School, two students killed 12 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn't need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload.

At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide.

In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape.

And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.

There was no one to stop him.

School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

Three hundred and sixty seven victims have died in "gun free" zones since the passage of the 1996 Gun Free School Zones Act.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2564 Feb 12, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but where you can carry one has been infringed.
At Columbine High School, two students killed 12 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn't need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload.
At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide.
In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape.
And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.
There was no one to stop him.
School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Three dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.
Three hundred and sixty seven victims have died in "gun free" zones since the passage of the 1996 Gun Free School Zones Act.
Where an individual can carry a weapon does not infringe upon the right to own said weapon. Two different things.

You would have more credibility if you gave links to your stories. Could you provide these?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2565 Feb 12, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where an individual can carry a weapon does not infringe upon the right to own said weapon. Two different things.
You would have more credibility if you gave links to your stories. Could you provide these?
Oh yeah, that makes sense......you can protect your self only 20% of the time.........when you locked in your home.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2566 Feb 12, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people were murdered in, oh, say, the south side of Chicago over the weekend? Or, in the urban blight zones in any big city across the country?
Why don't you tell us about those mass murders? Yeah. Let's see those faces, and the faces of the murderers.
Then, tell us why you would expect anyone other than an idiot to believe the Democrats plan to enforce any gun control edict in their own districts.
We know you'll be coming to see us. You know you'll be coming to see us.
See you then.
Semes odd that you're citing gun violence across the nation as a way of defending...gun ownership in America and opposition to regulation.

ANY gun owner is potentially guilty of homicide.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2568 Feb 12, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>No you are right, I can't defend your lunacy. You are too far down the liberal throat.
More of the usual closeted homosexual response, I see.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2569 Feb 12, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
legitimate could mean those outlets that ignore all of the hot head NRA rhetoric and report facts?
What facts would you like to see aired
the number of innocents shot each day?
The answer far too many...
The % of guns that are sold under the GOV'T radar?
The answer far too many...
The $$$ NRA will spent to defeat reason?
The answer far too many...
What gun facts do you, Au Contraire, believe that the media should report
I'd like to hear the media tell us about the mass murders every weekend in every major city in the United States, and do some honest reporting on the stolen guns bein gused to commit these mass murders.
It has always been known crminals will have guns. And, it is a logical supposition that making the legitimate citizens weaker will only make the number of criminals increase for one simple to understand reason: Being a criminal is easier when the victims are less able to defend themselves, and humans are genetically programmed (with varying degrees) to seek the easiest path.
Criminals will always steal guns and those guns will be used to commit crimes. Making the victims defenseless will only increase the number of criminals stealing guns and arming a growing criminal element.

Report on gun violence objectively. Focus on the locations where gun violence is the worst.
Tell us about the mass murders that occur in every major city in the country every weekend.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2570 Feb 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Semes odd that you're citing gun violence across the nation as a way of defending...gun ownership in America and opposition to regulation.
ANY gun owner is potentially guilty of homicide.
I'd like to hear the media tell us about the mass murders every weekend in every major city in the United States, and do some honest reporting on the stolen guns bein gused to commit these mass murders.
It has always been known crminals will have guns. And, it is a logical supposition that making the legitimate citizens weaker will only make the number of criminals increase for one simple to understand reason: Being a criminal is easier when the victims are less able to defend themselves, and humans are genetically programmed (with varying degrees) to seek the easiest path.
Criminals will always steal guns and those guns will be used to commit crimes. Making the victims defenseless will only increase the number of criminals stealing guns and arming a growing criminal element.

Report on gun violence objectively. Focus on the locations where gun violence is the worst.
Tell us about the mass murders that occur in every major city in the country every weekend.

Then, tell us what's being done to minimize the theft of weapons from law-abiding citizens.
So far, nothing to say concerning that issue.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2571 Feb 12, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to hear the media tell us about the mass murders every weekend in every major city in the United States, and do some honest reporting on the stolen guns bein gused to commit these mass murders.
It has always been known crminals will have guns. And, it is a logical supposition that making the legitimate citizens weaker will only make the number of criminals increase for one simple to understand reason: Being a criminal is easier when the victims are less able to defend themselves, and humans are genetically programmed (with varying degrees) to seek the easiest path.
Criminals will always steal guns and those guns will be used to commit crimes. Making the victims defenseless will only increase the number of criminals stealing guns and arming a growing criminal element.
Report on gun violence objectively. Focus on the locations where gun violence is the worst.
Tell us about the mass murders that occur in every major city in the country every weekend.
Then, tell us what's being done to minimize the theft of weapons from law-abiding citizens.
So far, nothing to say concerning that issue.
Idiotic, repetitive propaganda is what I'd have expected from you.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2572 Feb 12, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where an individual can carry a weapon does not infringe upon the right to own said weapon. Two different things.
You would have more credibility if you gave links to your stories. Could you provide these?
The ban on semi-auto "military-style" rifles IS an infringement.

Banning any firearm simply because it has a pistol grip, or flash suppressor, or bayonet lug (when was the last time a boyonet was used in a crime?), or LOOKS like its military counterpart IS an infringement.

Putting further restrictions on WHERE I can carry is an infringement.

I could go on, but you get the point.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2573 Feb 12, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where an individual can carry a weapon does not infringe upon the right to own said weapon. Two different things.
No, it infringes on the "and bear" part of the 2nd Amendment.

"To bear"...as in "to carry" (bearing a load).

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2574 Feb 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The ban on semi-auto "military-style" rifles IS an infringement.
Banning any firearm simply because it has a pistol grip, or flash suppressor, or bayonet lug (when was the last time a boyonet was used in a crime?), or LOOKS like its military counterpart IS an infringement.
Putting further restrictions on WHERE I can carry is an infringement.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Merely your opinions...yes, I get the point. You DO realize that the only IMPORTANT opinions here are those of the legislative and judicial branches, I hope?:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... 2 hr justice 3
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 3 hr WasteWater 1,515
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Tue JohnInLa 234
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
More from around the web