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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5144 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Liar...What are these "special rights"
LIAR! 90 percent of Americans want universal background checks- 90 percent.

You tiny-dicked ball lickers want special rights- wah! wah! wah! but it's a GUN! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! No one get's to make me put my gun away! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

NINETY PERCENT of Americans want universal background checks.

Nine percent of Americans are felons.

Funny how that is: ten percent crying for special rights!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5145 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
He can't refute the facts or the truth...
NINETY PERCENT OF AMEICANS want BACKGROUND CHECKS to stop tiny-dicked crybabies from selling to felons and other mental defectives like you, MOOCH.

The NRA was fighting to allow people to carry guns into public schools ON THE VERY DAY your fellow gun gnutter was turning children into hamburger using the NRA's favorite weapon.

Funny how you like to pick your "facts".

Americans are tired of a minority of the TINY-DICKED demanding special rights for their toys.

Tick tock, mooch!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5146 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"And you insist this gun gnutter had the right to carry that assault weapon into the school?"
You're a liar.
You tiny-dicked HUMP: NRA continues to demand the 'right' to carry concealed weapons into public schools.

As it did the day your NRA friend went into turned twenty children into mush, when it was lobbying for concealed carry in Michigan schools.

The bill was vetoed by the governor.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5147 Apr 1, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
All you had to do was say you didn't know from the jump,chooch.
But cars kill people too!? A outrageously moronic and self-serving argument! Cars did not exist when the constitution was written - and neither did automatic and semi-automatic weapons (nor was there any conception that they ever would be). Cars are a huge part of our economy, driving is a privilege not a right – as guns ought to be! Considering that we have as many as 250 million cars on the road every single day (not counting trucks) with an average of fatal accidents of 150 per day is remarkable. The very reason this is possible, besides seat belts and air bags, is licensing and strict rules and regulations supported by strict enforcement. Clearly, the very same concept can be applied to safe and responsible private gun ownership. Not to mention that these are “accidents” not deliberate and intentional kills as is the case with guns!
If we were serious, for even a second, to truly consider the intentions of James Madison when he wrote the Second Amendment, one must reconstruct the environment in which he conceived it and recognize that it was a very, very different time, with very different circumstances, and very different weapons – the Musket! To put it in simple terms, all that is needed is restricting privately owned guns to ‘single shot’ and the entire controversy will disappear over night.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican and strict judicial constructionist, said that the concept of a constitutionally-protected individual right to bear arms was, quote:“one of the biggest pieces of fraud perpetrated on the American public by a special interest group that I have seen in my lifetime.”
When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution ‘the right to bear arms’ when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5148 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Prove it.
Did the assault weapon fall from the sky?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5149 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<
No, you're an ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak". NO ONE supports a "right to carry" with intent to commit a crime.
You ignorant balless yellow mooching hump: the NRA did, and does still support carrying weapons into public school.

Happy to see you *PROVE* otherwise.

I have already proved they do, you spooge-breathed fruit.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5150 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignorant balless yellow mooching hump: the NRA did, and does still support carrying weapons into public school.
Happy to see you *PROVE* otherwise.
I have already proved they do, you spooge-breathed fruit.
BS Barefootin'It. You do foam at the mouth when provoked, doncha?? So much for English class in the ghetto of Fort Lauderdale....
Brown Girl in the Ring

UK

#5151 Apr 1, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would contend that the OPPOSITE is the actual FACT. That guns PREVENT more harm than they cause.
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace"--Jesus, Luke 11:21
Oh here we go, the god squad! Should have known really.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5152 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR! 90 percent of Americans want universal background checks- 90 percent.
You tiny-dicked ball lickers want special rights- wah! wah! wah! but it's a GUN! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! No one get's to make me put my gun away! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
NINETY PERCENT of Americans want universal background checks.
Nine percent of Americans are felons.
Funny how that is: ten percent crying for special rights!
"Americans are tired of paying for your special rights."

So I see YOU still can't explain what these "special rights" are that only gun owners seem to have...why is that...?

Maybe because they don't exist except in your ignorant little head.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5153 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
NINETY PERCENT OF AMEICANS want BACKGROUND CHECKS to stop tiny-dicked crybabies from selling to felons and other mental defectives like you, MOOCH.
The NRA was fighting to allow people to carry guns into public schools ON THE VERY DAY your fellow gun gnutter was turning children into hamburger using the NRA's favorite weapon.
Funny how you like to pick your "facts".
Americans are tired of a minority of the TINY-DICKED demanding special rights for their toys.
Tick tock, mooch!
Too bad.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5154 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You tiny-dicked HUMP: NRA continues to demand the 'right' to carry concealed weapons into public schools.
As it did the day your NRA friend went into turned twenty children into mush, when it was lobbying for concealed carry in Michigan schools.
The bill was vetoed by the governor.
You ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak"...that's all you have is your continued lies.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5155 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the assault weapon fall from the sky?
ROTFLMAO...I knew you couldn't prove it because you're an ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5156 Apr 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignorant balless yellow mooching hump: the NRA did, and does still support carrying weapons into public school.
Happy to see you *PROVE* otherwise.
I have already proved they do, you spooge-breathed fruit.
Really...?...YOU proved it...?

So you're saying that the NRA does support a "right to carry" with intent to commit a crime"...and that YOU proved it..?

Where did you prove it...? I'm sure a lot of people would be very interested in seeing that proof, including me...in fact, I'll make you a bet right here and now that if you do prove it...I will leave TOPIX forums forever...but if YOU can't, YOU leave TOPIX forever.

I'm sure that if you have this proof then you would not hesitate in showing it in order to get me to leave.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5157 Apr 1, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>BS Barefootin'It. You do foam at the mouth when provoked
You foam at the mouth all the time, Afterbirth, but I think it's from the Johnson polishing the back of your throat.

Wipe your chin, Afterbirth.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5158 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
So you're saying that the NRA does support a "right to carry" with intent to commit a crime".
Lying c*t.

Show us.

Quote me.

You can't find it: you stop post.

Find it: I stop posting.

Go back to polishing your boyfriend's knob, you freeloading mooch.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5159 Apr 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO...I knew you couldn't prove it because you're an ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".
I don't have to make thing up, you scrotum- licking, yellow, food stamp mooch.

The NRA made the assault weapons available to the Lanzas.

I know it's difficult for you to see the forest for the trees of pubes your boyfriend is erasing your peach fuzz with.

No NRA, no assault weapon in the Lanza house.

Wipe your chin, boy, you are a frightful mess.
Brad

Manchester, CT

#5160 Apr 1, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
But cars kill people too!? A outrageously moronic and self-serving argument! Cars did not exist when the constitution was written - and neither did automatic and semi-automatic weapons (nor was there any conception that they ever would be). Cars are a huge part of our economy, driving is a privilege not a right – as guns ought to be! Considering that we have as many as 250 million cars on the road every single day (not counting trucks) with an average of fatal accidents of 150 per day is remarkable. The very reason this is possible, besides seat belts and air bags, is licensing and strict rules and regulations supported by strict enforcement. Clearly, the very same concept can be applied to safe and responsible private gun ownership. Not to mention that these are “accidents” not deliberate and intentional kills as is the case with guns!
If we were serious, for even a second, to truly consider the intentions of James Madison when he wrote the Second Amendment, one must reconstruct the environment in which he conceived it and recognize that it was a very, very different time, with very different circumstances, and very different weapons – the Musket! To put it in simple terms, all that is needed is restricting privately owned guns to ‘single shot’ and the entire controversy will disappear over night.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican and strict judicial constructionist, said that the concept of a constitutionally-protected individual right to bear arms was, quote:“one of the biggest pieces of fraud perpetrated on the American public by a special interest group that I have seen in my lifetime.”
When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution ‘the right to bear arms’ when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No need for interpretation,just take it literally.

E-Z-P-Z

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5161 Apr 1, 2013
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No need for interpretation,just take it literally.
Yet you continue fall on your face and get it wrong and stick in what is not there, funny how the Supreme Court continues to find constitutional gun control regulations.

Funny how that is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5162 Apr 1, 2013
[QUOTE who="Brad"
No need for interpretation,just take it literally.
E-Z-P-Z[/QUOTE]

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Rebel Against Tyranny

Portage, MI

#5163 Apr 1, 2013
Below are facts that cannot be >honestly< argued against.

Those that wish to implement gun control wish to make everyone slaves with government (and those politically-connected) as your master.

There are already background checks. That's not what they want. They want a national database of gun owners. The only reason to have such a database is to enable future confiscation. There has never been an instance where a national (any nation) database of gun owners was created that was NOT followed by either a partial or total gun ban enacted within a generation.

A little history lesson goes a long way. Watch "Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control":


At this point, it's much safer to buy your guns and ammunition from the black market with cash than a dealer that participates in registration and/or keeps sales records. If you don't think they'll (legally or not) be using credit/debit card and other banking info to identify any possible gun/ammo owners, you've got another think coming.

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 Watch Julianne Moore and Emma Stone implore cit... 1 hr youll shoot your ... 4
News Aren't American lives worth saving? Thu payme 33
News Bump Stock Ban: Just the Tip of the Iceberg Thu payme 3
How To Handle A Firearm With Your Opposite Hand Oct 17 SummerBB8 1
New Tactical Gear at LAX Ammo OC Store! Oct 16 SummerBB8 1
News Why are there always shootings in the US? Oct 15 youll shoot your ... 1
News Rep. Steve Russell Seeking Solutions To Prevent... Oct 15 Thomas 4
More from around the web