People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

Jan 17, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments
4,821 - 4,840 of 4,995 Comments Last updated Apr 13, 2013

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5164
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Marauder wrote:
...EDITED for STUPIDITY...don’t forget to click your heels together 3 times when you’re ready to go home you ignorant, violent, lying, POS,“frustrated control freak”.
I've already dismissed you. Are you still making noise?

Suffice to say that your claims have already been proven to be lies and distortions. The rest is simple, ranting trollish hatred.

GFY, loser.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5165
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Molester wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe...isn't that cute..? I'm an ignorant, violent, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak" who hasn't learned not to lie about the words of other posters when he responds.
I can't refute the facts and don't like the truth...I keep getting caught and proven a liar...so all I can do is revert to the tactics of a 2 year old and lay on the floor and kick my tiny little legs up and down while I scream. That's what I've always done when I didn't get my way. About time someone told me to "GFY"...I probably have some BS dribbling out your mouth, in fact. You just remember I'm an ignorant, violent, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".
Will do. You make it hard to forget it, in fact...:)

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5166
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rebel Against Tyranny wrote:
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.

>>Obviously, blatantly false and with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Not a good start for your irrefutable arguments, bonehead.

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 aren't background checks everywhere, certainly gun shows and private sales are notorious exceptions to your claim. A national database would be good, but the obvious use would be to track down guns used in crimes. In fact it would benefit gun owners who had guns stolen. "Confiscation" would be impossible under the 2nd Amendment, of course.

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.

>>Show me even ONE example of it happening, liar.

A little history lesson goes a long way. Watch "Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control": http://www.youtube.com/watch...

>>No. I don't waste my time on gunner propaganda from YouTube.

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.

>>Thanks for admitting that you support criminal endeavors such as the black market in guns. You're contributing to gun crimes in the U.S. AND Mexico by doing so.

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.

>>Some, like you, NEED watching.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5168
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My Post #5142
No, you're an ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak". NO ONE supports a "right to carry" with intent to commit a crime. YOU just like to pretend that's what people are fighting for, but that's just your "Brady Bunch" BS lie...as normal.

In reply to my comment Post #5149, you said;

“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.”

YOU said you proved that the NRA supports carrying guns in school to commit a crime...I asked you to prove it...so now show it or stop posting.

Waiting....

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5169
Apr 2, 2013
 
Doctor My Eyes wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect example for the need for background checks and limited clips. Somebody who thinks this way with a gun in their possession is definitely a loosing situation. Sick and dumb and totally unaware of it.
Leftist women aborting their leftist babies is exactly why crime rates are lower since the Row v. Wade decision. 3,200 abortions a day means 3,200 less criminals roaming the streets.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5170
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Progression of idiocy;

YOU stated;

"Your NRA gave LANZA the gun he used to kill these children,..."

Asked to prove it, YOU come back with;

"Did the assault weapon fall from the sky?"

Getting laughed at as YOU couldn’t prove what you stated; YOU change your statement to;

“The NRA made the assault weapons available to the Lanzas.”

So with that mentality of yours, the AAA auto club is just as culpable for DUI’s, and those killed by drunk drivers. You’re still an ignorant, lying, POS,“frustrated control freak”.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5171
Apr 2, 2013
 
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>Leftist women aborting their leftist babies is exactly why crime rates are lower since the Row v. Wade decision. 3,200 abortions a day means 3,200 less criminals roaming the streets.
So what about you - you are a felon, clearly!!!!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5172
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Yet you continue fall on your face and get it wrong and stick in what is not there,..."

Funny how you think you can lie about the 2nd Amendment, saying they got "it wrong and stick in what is not there..."...BUT you don't say how it's "wrong" or what was "stuck in".

So please explain...what was "wrong" or "stuck in" that wasn't really there...I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU...lol

You ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5173
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Here's the parts you left out;

Held;
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti federal¬ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre¬tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru¬tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi¬trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5174
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already dismissed you. Are you still making noise?
Suffice to say that your claims have already been proven to be lies and distortions. The rest is simple, ranting trollish hatred.
GFY, loser.
So apparently YOU just proved yourself a liar again...congratulations.

Where have my prior claims "been proven to be lies and distortions.". YOU have yet to show that anywhere...gee...I wonder why that is...?

It's because you are still an ignorant, violent, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5175
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Will do. You make it hard to forget it, in fact...:)
ROTFLMAO...I love that...thank you for showing us how low ignorant, violent, lying, POS, "frustrated control freaks" will stoop when they can't fight the truth...keep getting caught in lies...and have no way to refute the posts of others.

So much for this "Professor"...down for the count.
Brad

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5176
Apr 2, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"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
"Shall not be infringed." E-Z-P-Z

Like those simple words,the business of addressing current gun violence is as easy as enforcing existing laws.
Redefining what we already have for the umteenth time won't magically result in a solution.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5177
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>Leftist women aborting their leftist babies is exactly why crime rates are lower since the Row v. Wade decision. 3,200 abortions a day means 3,200 less criminals roaming the streets.
Right-wing filth like you are why America's educational standards are in decline, our politics are corrupt, and our TVs are full of fake "reality" shows. You're a lying, vicious, hateful idiot.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5178
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

No reason to further post to the notorious troll and flamer who calls himself "Marauder." He is incapable of debate, lives only to abuse "liberals" whom he hates, and constantly thumps his sunken chest proclaiming "victory" when in fact he's never yet proven anyone wrong about anything.

And like all good liars, he projects that fault onto anyone who argues with him.

He's a turd who's best ignored, IOW.

Now come on, Marauder, call me a "frustrated control freak." I DEMAND it! LOL

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5179
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Rebel Against Tyranny wrote:
Below are facts that cannot be >honestly< argued against.
Those that wish to implement gun control wish to make everyone slaves with government
I like the way you prove you are full of cr@p in less than one sentence.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5180
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

[QUOTE who="Rebel Against Tyranny"
Those that wish to implement gun control[/QUOTE]

That would be the ninety percent of Americans posted above.

And since nine percent of Americans are felons, and since background checks would prohibit felons access to firearms, it is not hard to conclude just who opposes universal background checks.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5181
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTE who="Rebel Against Tyranny"
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.[/QUOTE]

Ah- so you have read Firearm for Felons for Idiots- a NRA publication.

SSSSSSSSHHHH! here comes those black UN helli-copters!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5182
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
"Shall not be infringed." E-Z-P-Z
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Antonin Scalia!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Gosh... who knows more about the US Constitution?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5183
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
"Shall not be infringed." E-Z-P-Z
"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."

Wipe you chin, Tiny Nail.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5184
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like the way you prove you are full of cr@p in less than one sentence.
He should have left out the word "against." :)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••