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

#4669 Mar 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You problems is you don't want to do sh!t to stop any gun deaths.
And you aren't afraid to lie your azz off in demanding special rights.
Actually, it is the exact opposite. What you and your ilk fail to realize, and it has been proven time and time again by these mass shootings, is that disarming people for their own safety does the exact opposite of what is intended. And failing to see that only speaks to your willful ignorance.

Try again, ball-peen.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4670 Mar 22, 2013
Vet , one intelligent post after another !

Now ,about your audience ..........

Well , you did try.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4671 Mar 22, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
Vet , one intelligent post after another !
Now ,about your audience ..........
Well , you did try.
{hat-tip}

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4672 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And ignorant, pathetic POS's like your self think that disarming the general public or limiting access to certain forearms will do something to curb the actions of those 87. It never has and never will.
And you never did specify what those "special rights" were. Why is that, ball-peen???
Make that "firearms"....LOL
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4673 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the "big picture" for you genius, and it has been proven throughout the world for the last century. Criminals and politicians HATE and armed society. Criminals hate it because it makes their job harder, and politicians hate it because and armed society is harder to rule/control. MILLIONS of people worldwide have died as a result of being disarmed by their own govt leaving them unable to defend themselves. People are murdered every day in this country in high crime cities which also happen to have the tightest gun control laws in the nation. These are not opinions...these are facts.
Let's say the libtards in DC are successful at banning AR's and other assorted "assault weapons" because they deem them to be too dangerous for the average citizen to own (even though they are responsible for the LEAST number of homicides by firearms every year). Do you honestly believe they are gong to stop at just banning AW's??? What do you think the criminals are going to do when they are reassured by the actions of their own government that they won't be met with any type of violent reponse from those they try to victimize?? Gun control laws do exactly that....they EMBOLDEN criminals. They only thing you will succeed at by banning arms from the law-abiding is leaving them as lambs to the slaughter by those who make their living victimizing the public.
You find a way to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals & govt, AND take away their ability to make more, THEN I will consider giving mine up. Until then.......KMA.
You seem to have the intellect of a salted slug – how come I’m not surprised? According to your twisted logic, any individual has the same influence influencing elections as the NRA? Between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts. During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level on messages advocating for or against political candidates. In the 2012 election, the NRA spent $3.4 million to oppose Democrats who won six key Senate races. The NRA's PAC and its Institute for Legislative Action also spent $11.7 million supporting defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and opposing President Obama, according to campaign finance data for the 2012 election cycle. In all, the NRA spent more than $50 million on the 2012 presidential and congressional contests,$11.9 million opposing Democrats and $5.4 million in support of Republicans.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4674 Mar 22, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have the intellect of a salted slug – how come I’m not surprised? According to your twisted logic, any individual has the same influence influencing elections as the NRA? Between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts. During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level on messages advocating for or against political candidates. In the 2012 election, the NRA spent $3.4 million to oppose Democrats who won six key Senate races. The NRA's PAC and its Institute for Legislative Action also spent $11.7 million supporting defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and opposing President Obama, according to campaign finance data for the 2012 election cycle. In all, the NRA spent more than $50 million on the 2012 presidential and congressional contests,$11.9 million opposing Democrats and $5.4 million in support of Republicans.
And what does anything in the above post have to do with anything I posted? I don't give a damn about the NRA. They can spend their members' money however they see fit. I am NOT a member. Never have been and never will be.

And on that note.....care to reveal how much money George Soros has pumped into the Democratic Party in the last ten years??
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4676 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Until their rights have been due processed away (per the BOR), unfortunately, yes they can. That's why it is our right to stay armed, also. To protect ourselves from those assholes.
If you wish to live in a free country, you have to take the good with the bad, and do your damnedest to remove the bad from society through due process. That's why laws should only be in place to punish bad behavior (speeding, robbery, burglary, murder, etc. etc.). Not to punish or restrict the right of the law-abiding who have done nothing wrong (gun control laws, magazine capacity limits, soft drink size limits, carry permits, etc. etc.)
Then you should be fighting for the rights of "bad" people as well to own guns and by extension other weapons as well.

I don't believe the law punishes those who are law-abiding, so much as it restricts options you wish to posses or what you want to do.

While I agree something like soft drink size is rather ridiculous, I also think cons attempt to restrict voting and not leaving options for people to register in a legitimate and timely fashion is also ridiculous and is an impediment on even MORE people's rights.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4677 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is the exact opposite. What you and your ilk fail to realize, and it has been proven time and time again by these mass shootings, is that disarming people for their own safety does the exact opposite of what is intended. And failing to see that only speaks to your willful ignorance.
Try again, ball-peen.
When Gabby Giffords was shot, there was at least one armed individual there who did not draw his weapon.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4678 Mar 22, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
I said MURDERS. Pinhead liberal responds with "gun deaths".
Yeah, it is as if people don't pay much attention to your attempts to steer the conversations and insist the argument should stay in parameters you set.

Probably because you have already been proved to be full of sh!t.

It is as if we were talking about vehicle fatalities and you insist we should only count deaths from convertibles.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4679 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And on that note.....care to reveal how much money George Soros has pumped into the Democratic Party in the last ten years??
How much money did the KOCH Brothers pump into the GOP in the last ONE year?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4680 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
What you and your ilk fail to realize, and it has been proven time and time again by these mass shootings, is that disarming people
What you and your lying whiny special rights ilk lack is the ability to utter statements truthfully.

I.E.: you are a m/f c/s liar.

-You insist that *I* have called for disarmament and I point out every time you open your m/f c/s mouth that you are a liar.

And you can't find that quote because I never uttered it.

You lack the intelligence to think for yourself and regurgitate only from the right wing cracker NRA script.
SIR CHARLES

Chicago, IL

#4681 Mar 22, 2013
yes the people DO NOT NEED ARMALITE-15S WE NEED TO BE SLAVES TO YOUR BIDDING! LONG LIVE KING GEORGE LONG LIVE KING OBAMA

"no free man shall be debarred the use of arms"
Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of the united states of America
SIR CHARLES

Chicago, IL

#4682 Mar 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much money did the KOCH Brothers pump into the GOP in the last ONE year?
how much taxation did obama tax your life? I make 800 dollars every paycheck, and they take 200 every time, and give me back 600 at the years end tax refund! what a joke,and your a bigger joke cause your ignorant and a chump so go back to england

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4683 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I have to have a background cheeck done if I wish to give a firearm to my son or brother
'Univeral' background checks (that I have seen, e.g., Colorado state bill) allow exceptions (so far) for immediate family members.

I am for that- and if it turns out that your son or brother and he would otherwise fail the background check- e.g., that they also beats their wives or are felons- you go to prison, you are a felon, you lose forever your right to possess firearms.

Of course, it should be said that firearms are by far used in fatal incidents within the family or immediate friends.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4684 Mar 22, 2013
SIR CHARLES wrote:
"no free man shall be debarred the use of arms"
Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of the united states of America
Thomas Jefferson owned some 600 human beings over his lifetime.

Notice the word "free"...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4685 Mar 22, 2013
SIR CHARLES wrote:
<quoted text>
how much taxation did obama tax your life? I make 800 dollars every paycheck, and they take 200 every time
A) I don't believe anything you say
B) People who make money should pay taxes
C) If I were to wave a stick and make everyone contribute (taxes) to run the government, 25 percent would be a reasonable rate.

D) Off topic.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4686 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is the exact opposite. What you and your ilk fail to realize, and it has been proven time and time again by these mass shootings, is
Mass shootings occur more than two dozen times a year.

The common thread is: perpetrators have access to 'forearms'...

The Sandy Hook gun gnut had acess to an AR-15 that the NRA insisted he had a right to have access to... and then of course flooded the internet for weeks insisting that the killer didn't even use an AR-15.

Does this sound familiar?

When motor fatalities reached 50,000 a year, the US finally took actions to reduce deaths, e.g., seat belts and air bags.

It is estimated that the number of people killed by firearms will exceed vehicles in two years.

Americans are TIRED of you gun gnutter crybabies insisting we cannot and should not take steps to reduce deaths in the US.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4687 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Do you honestly think that all criminals are going to rush down to register their firearms?
Hey, dipstick: two million people have been denied access to firearms with the current system and the current system has a loophole that allows 40 percent of gun sales with no background check at all.

Do you want to pretend keeping two million gun sales to felons had no impact on crime?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4688 Mar 22, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>When Gabby Giffords was shot, there was at least one armed individual there who did not draw his weapon.
You're correct. He didn't draw his weapon because the perp had already been detained. Showed good restraint on his part, didn't it?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4689 Mar 22, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Then you should be fighting for the rights of "bad" people as well to own guns and by extension other weapons as well.
Wrong. I am fighting for our right to protect ourselves from the bad guys with whatever weapon one may deem necessary for the task. If a large capacity magazine may be necessary, sucj as in the event of a riot, no restrictions should be placed on them. Because as the LA riots showed us....you will NOT be able to count on the police to do anything to protect you or your business (if you have one).
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe the law punishes those who are law-abiding, so much as it restricts options you wish to posses or what you want to do.
Any restriction on a law-abiding citizen based on the premiss of protecting them from themselves IS a punishment without due process.
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>While I agree something like soft drink size is rather ridiculous, I also think cons attempt to restrict voting and not leaving options for people to register in a legitimate and timely fashion is also ridiculous and is an impediment on even MORE people's rights.

In a legitimate and timely fashion????? There are a couple YEARS between elections. How much time do you need? Ludicrous argument. And a lot of states DON'T require a photo ID to vote. VA doesn't. Your voter registration card doesn't have a photo. The VA CHP does either. And both are prerfectly acceptable as forms of ID to vote. Some states even let you use your utility bill as proof of ID.

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 Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 4 hr WasteWater 1,269
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... Wed payme 25
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a "paraly... Jun 28 Jagermann 1
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... Jun 26 OK Barry 61
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Jun 23 boyocuy 1
News The Latest: House GOP says electronic devices s... Jun 23 payme 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 22 Uncle Bens AWOLdaddy 68
More from around the web