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.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2635 Feb 13, 2013
Injudgement wrote:
<quoted text>If the Constitution is as perfect as you say then why are there 27 Amendments to it?
You invent what was not in my post, idiot.

Written in the Constitution is the method of changing the Constitution if the nation so desires.
What this means, dufus, is that the Constitution was written knowingly imperfect, idiot, and never giving finality to any subsequent change to the Constitution, you ignoramous.

Now, please post text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2636 Feb 13, 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 ....
Right, just the ones that look "scary."
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2637 Feb 13, 2013
Injudgement wrote:
<quoted text>If the Constitution is as perfect as you say then why are there 27 Amendments to it?
Welcome, new sock puppet!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2638 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You invent what was not in my post, idiot.
Written in the Constitution is the method of changing the Constitution if the nation so desires.
What this means, dufus, is that the Constitution was written knowingly imperfect, idiot, and never giving finality to any subsequent change to the Constitution, you ignoramous.
Now, please post text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.
Corect.

The Constitution is written to protect individual citizens from the government, not to "permit" certain things.

The 9th Amendment acknowledges that there are other RIGHTS not enumerated in the BoR.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2639 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
"Intersting how much you sound like au Jimbo, are you another of his many aliases?:)"

Interesting how much you sound like Stinkfoot0000, right down to the regular implication that every one of your opponents is a sodomist.

You protest too much.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2640 Feb 13, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Corect.
The Constitution is written to protect individual citizens from the government, not to "permit" certain things.
The 9th Amendment acknowledges that there are other RIGHTS not enumerated in the BoR.
I like to look at it like this:

Amendment 1 You can speak your mind
Amendment 2 The government can't make you shut up
Amendment 3 The government can't move into your home to govern you
Wally1

Wenatchee, WA

#2641 Feb 13, 2013
Wow! Trying to explain the second amendment to a anti-gunner is impossible, You would have a easier time explaining the internal function of an automatic transmission to a cow. It must be great to just go through life in an ignorant cloud of bliss. I don't need a AR15, but it's a right and has nothing to do with what I need or want. I can have it, just like you can express your opinion here, It's garranteed by the constitution. I give this communist utopia that America is becoming, three years, then it's going to unravel. When it does, you will wish you had a AR15 and you will be praying to that God you think doesn't exist.. Remember, there are no athiests in a foxhole.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2642 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
We are in agreement on many points.
however....
I just recently purchased a firearm. A call giving my personal information to the federal government was necessary for the establishment to sell the weapon to me.
So, the government has already been informed exactly who I am and that I purchased a firearm.
What else should be necessary? Please say "nothing"

Very little. Just notifying Gov't of sale or transfer. No more burdensome than the transfer of the title of my '98 econoline 250 over to you. Thus if a suspect is found with you gun and a cop should have a check as easy as checking the plates on my old Ford.
----------
"The Chicago police force would have to dedicate all of is man power in order to enforce the gun law. An impossibility."
Perhaps the city of Chicago should shift its expenditure from something else to the police to.......

I find Buffalo politics grizzly enough. it is not germain.
----------
I've got a cheaper solution:
Train dogs to react to the presence of a firearm.
Patrol the streets where the most murders occur with these dogs.
Verify the legality of every firearm detected.
Arrest every person in possession of a firearm illegally.
Send every person in possession of a stolen firearm to prison.
Problem solved, and very cheaply.
What's wrong with that solution?
I have hunted enjoyed going out to the woods when it was so cold your snot froze
Also in no way am i an extremist. Thus history of moderation.

In order to enforce any gun law a reliable data base is required we seem to be on the same page.
Thus if you broke the President bill in two and Where able to vote only on enhanced data base you would agree with that proposition .

a tactic i recommend the President use ....half a loaf....

.One quick observation sir. you are far beyond a linear political construct. You seem to me to be a Libertarian extremist A thought taken beyond reason doesn't resemble either right wing Nazism or Left wing Communism. because of the near anarchist lack of Gov't lies at your extreme flank
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2643 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to look at it like this:
Amendment 1 You can speak your mind
Amendment 2 The government can't make you shut up
Amendment 3 The government can't move into your home to govern you
Good summary.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2644 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You invent what was not in my post, idiot.
Written in the Constitution is the method of changing the Constitution if the nation so desires.
What this means, dufus, is that the Constitution was written knowingly imperfect, idiot, and never giving finality to any subsequent change to the Constitution, you ignoramous.
Now, please post text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.
Imperfect, maybe but one theme follows all through it. Keeping the power with the people and the government subservient to the people not the other way around. In fact it is the entire essence of the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. Having an armed government and disarmed citizens is in complete opposition to all of them, not just the Second Amendment.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2645 Feb 13, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Dodge duck dodge. Avoid the question.
Nothing to avoid so far.:)
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2646 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I have hunted enjoyed going out to the woods when it was so cold your snot froze
Also in no way am i an extremist. Thus history of moderation.
In order to enforce any gun law a reliable data base is required we seem to be on the same page.
Thus if you broke the President bill in two and Where able to vote only on enhanced data base you would agree with that proposition .
a tactic i recommend the President use ....half a loaf....
.One quick observation sir. you are far beyond a linear political construct. You seem to me to be a Libertarian extremist A thought taken beyond reason doesn't resemble either right wing Nazism or Left wing Communism. because of the near anarchist lack of Gov't lies at your extreme flank
Why is the half a loaf always from the gun owners side? Why should we negotiate our rights in half? With over 20,000 gun laws already in place I would think the citizens have already given over half. Now you want more? Just when do you propose to stop asking for another half? Every gun law on the books was promised to be the last yet here we are again. The assault weapons ban was promised to stop crime and a sunset clause was inserted in the event it was a lie and failed. It failed and was proven to be a lie so it was allowed to expire. You can try to resale it again all you want but a worthless lie is still just a worthless lie and no one buys it anymore.(Except you).

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2647 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I have hunted enjoyed going out to the woods when it was so cold your snot froze
Also in no way am i an extremist. Thus history of moderation.
In order to enforce any gun law a reliable data base is required we seem to be on the same page.
Thus if you broke the President bill in two and Where able to vote only on enhanced data base you would agree with that proposition .
a tactic i recommend the President use ....half a loaf....
.One quick observation sir. you are far beyond a linear political construct. You seem to me to be a Libertarian extremist A thought taken beyond reason doesn't resemble either right wing Nazism or Left wing Communism. because of the near anarchist lack of Gov't lies at your extreme flank
Actually, I am dead-center. I am a Constitutionalist.
"... shall not be infringed" is the exact working in the Constitution.
I don't think that is too difficult to understand when read.
The government is authorized to conduct "due process" for any individual. And, they have the right to compare purchasers with their list of individuals whom have been subject to "due process".
But, as stated in the Constitution, "the people" shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
"Infringed" is an interesting word they chose. The could have said "obstructed" or "denied". But, they chose to say "infringed". The government cannot, in any way, inhibit "the people" from having and bearing arms.

So, no, I am not in favor of any infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This includes the infringement caused by the govenment collecting data.
The government can collect all the data it wants, within the law. However, the collection of data cannot infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2648 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing to avoid so far.:)
That would be 61 by my count now.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2649 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to look at it like this:
Amendment 1 You can speak your mind
Amendment 2 The government can't make you shut up
Amendment 3 The government can't move into your home to govern you
Simplistic.

The 1st Amendment also guarantees the government can't force a religion on you or keep you from being religious...and says you can assemble and petition it.

The Second also suggests that you should be able to form a militia at need.

The Third also says the government has to follow the rules if it DOES put soldiers in your house in wartime.

Other Amendments are important, too.

The Fourth says you can't have stuff searched or taken without a warrant.

The Fifth has a list of stuff the government can't do, like make you tell on yourself in court, take your stuff without compensation, or be tried for something serious twice or without a grand jury indicting you.

ALL good stuff. And there's more!:)

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2650 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I have hunted enjoyed going out to the woods when it was so cold your snot froze
Also in no way am i an extremist. Thus history of moderation.
In order to enforce any gun law a reliable data base is required we seem to be on the same page.
Thus if you broke the President bill in two and Where able to vote only on enhanced data base you would agree with that proposition .
a tactic i recommend the President use ....half a loaf....
.One quick observation sir. you are far beyond a linear political construct. You seem to me to be a Libertarian extremist A thought taken beyond reason doesn't resemble either right wing Nazism or Left wing Communism. because of the near anarchist lack of Gov't lies at your extreme flank
Actually, I am a federalist. As long as we have a government in accordance with, and that abides by the Constitution, I will be a federalist.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2651 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing to avoid so far.:)
Want to explain the lie I just posted about "assault rifles"? Drum roll please. P.S. When your done with that one I have many more you can explain.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2652 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I have hunted enjoyed going out to the woods when it was so cold your snot froze
Also in no way am i an extremist. Thus history of moderation.
In order to enforce any gun law a reliable data base is required we seem to be on the same page.
Thus if you broke the President bill in two and Where able to vote only on enhanced data base you would agree with that proposition .
a tactic i recommend the President use ....half a loaf....
.One quick observation sir. you are far beyond a linear political construct. You seem to me to be a Libertarian extremist A thought taken beyond reason doesn't resemble either right wing Nazism or Left wing Communism. because of the near anarchist lack of Gov't lies at your extreme flank
I view Hitler and National Socialism as far left.
A dictatorship absent of socialist principles would be far right.
I'm curious. How do you come to the conclusion that national socialism is "rightwing"? That seems like indoctrinated party line propaganda to me.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2653 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I am dead-center. I am a Constitutionalist.
"... shall not be infringed" is the exact working in the Constitution.
I don't think that is too difficult to understand when read.
The government is authorized to conduct "due process" for any individual. And, they have the right to compare purchasers with their list of individuals whom have been subject to "due process".
But, as stated in the Constitution, "the people" shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
"Infringed" is an interesting word they chose. The could have said "obstructed" or "denied". But, they chose to say "infringed". The government cannot, in any way, inhibit "the people" from having and bearing arms.
So, no, I am not in favor of any infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This includes the infringement caused by the govenment collecting data.
The government can collect all the data it wants, within the law. However, the collection of data cannot infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
The TYPE of arms are not specified, however, and the courts are hopefully never going to interpret the 2nd so as to let you build a nuclear device, construct a nerve-gas factory, or defend your home with a bazooka.

And I doubt very much the Founders intended for you to have your own frigate in the local river or surround your yard with heavy cannon.

Personal arms should be regulated so that they are registered to an owner, that owner is licensed, the weapon(s) is insured, and a background check should be run before any arms or ammo is sold you.

None of that "infringes" anything except on the rights of criminals or psychos.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2654 Feb 13, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Want to explain the lie I just posted about "assault rifles"? Drum roll please. P.S. When your done with that one I have many more you can explain.
Why should I keep track of your lies, or explain them to you?

LOL

Believe me, chump, I have better things to do.:)

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 Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 2 hr Patriot 1,974
News News Trump on unarmed Clinton guards: 'Let's se... 6 hr payme 732
News Ray LaMontagne cancels Texas show over campus c... Fri justice 6
News Report On "Unprecedented" Criminal Firearm Misu... Sep 22 Show no mercy 5
'K'i't'c'h'e'n's' For Sale North Midlands Area UK Sep 22 Anonymous 1
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... Sep 13 Get Out 5
News Background Checks Initiative is complicated, un... Sep 13 Get Out 3
More from around the web