People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

There are 20 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.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2758 Feb 14, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point.
what is then
Name a Gov't that has ever existed that was good enough and pure enough.
Ain't a dam one is there

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2759 Feb 14, 2013
andsoitgoes wrote:
Interesting comment DB... But I disagree... here is an example of why....
In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice william o. douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution.
Only briefly discussed in Douglas's majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice arthur goldberg's concurring opinion. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers' original understanding that "other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed" in the Constitution.
Specifically, the 9th amendment was placed in the constitution to protect anything not covered elsewhere. It's pure genius.
The right to life is expressly defined in the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution does not define when life begins. Given this fact, the 10th Amendment has authority.
The 9th Amendment can be used, but it cannot contradict the right to life.
When it is defined when life begins, then the right to life has precedence. When it is not defined, the 10th Amendment specifically states that issue is the perogative of the state or "the people".
That was another case where the Supreme Court ignored part of the Constitution to suit a political whim.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2760 Feb 14, 2013
Here’s a typical leftwing article about gun violence that talks a lot, but doesn’t say a goddam thing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2...

“My Crime Lab colleagues are exploring opportunities to disrupt underground gun markets. We believe that there are some real opportunities to deter straw purchasers, identify corrupt gun sellers, and more, Obviously, more work needs to be done there.”

Obviously, this liberal dupe has a lot more information that he is giving us. He has enough information to identify “straw purchasers”,“corrupt gun sellers”, and something he calls “more”.
Since he has that information, why doesn’t he tell us about it? Probably because the statistics lead to the fact that most of the guns being used are stolen.
He talks as if the audience is interested in assisting the effort to enforce existing gun laws. Then, he treats the audience as if they just don’t need to know any of the facts. This is the very definition of indoctrination.
How many of the murders were committed with a stolen gun?
How many of the murders were committed with a straw-purchase gun?
How many of the murders were committed with a gun from a corrupt gun seller?

I’m guessing because they want to indoctrinate the audience with the erroneous logic that it is the gun’s fault for existing, they will avoid any indication that the killers are also criminals in other regards, like also being a burglar and stealing the gun they kill with.

How about making public the history of the gun along with the picture of the goddam killer?
That would make some sense.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#2761 Feb 14, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you're not the military, dumbass.
And ideally, no, the government would not have them either but we live in a dangerous world, unfortunately.
So just who do all the nukes in the U.S. belong to? So the government keeps weapons that not only kill the enemy but innocent citizens as well because it is a dangerous world? Hmm, so me keeping weapons because it is a dangerous world would be justified? Thanks for joining our side.
EASY MONEY

Bangkok, Thailand

#2763 Feb 14, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people's lives were taken or ruined by that "mistake"?
Hey sonny, this is not a perfect world and we as Americans do not want to live in your sterile enviorment. America has turn into a vanilla ice cream cone nation that has lost their balls. OH YEah! Those innocents, as you call them, all replacable, nothing more than collateral damage!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2764 Feb 14, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> LIAR! I didn't put a gun in his hand..
In his hands.

How hard the NRA fights background checks.

But seriously: you should be able to sell your toys to anyone who comes up with the cash.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2765 Feb 15, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>One gun taken from a law abiding citizen is one to many.
I do not believe you have your hand on the pulse of the Tea Bag movement.
It began as a call for lower taxes and smaller government and for my money that does not sound radical.
So.........I "should" be able to keep my C-4, hand grenades, RPG, flame thrower and machine gun with a drum magazine?

"I do not believe you have your hand on the pulse of the Tea Bag movement".

Incorrect, it's the same crap republicans have been advocating since Reagan but haven't achieved once in over 30 years and only whine about the situation when they're NOT in power.

The current "movement" is simply round three.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2766 Feb 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
In his hands.
How hard the NRA fights background checks.
But seriously: you should be able to sell your toys to anyone who comes up with the cash.
Just how does the NRA "fight" to defend the rights of it's members who are law abiding citizens of the U.S.? Can you sell your car to anyone (including drunks who drive )? Can you sell an axe to anyone (including axe murderers)? Can you sell matches to arsonist? Can you sell rope to rapist? To even think background checks work is a PROVEN lie. They have had no effect on crime or criminal behavior. A background check is like a crystal ball, it in no way can predict the future actions of a citizen. Logic says if you are too dangerous to own a gun then you are too dangerous to be free on the streets. If you have a violent enough past to be refused sells of ordinary legal items then you need to be behind bars. Why don't you start by removing plea bargains, parole, and any other form of early release from prisons? Remove the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense, in fact expand the ability to keep especially those behind bars. Would you feel safe having Charles Manson released and living next to you even if he had no way to get a gun? Being as you believe only guns make a killer dangerous then let's put you in a prison general population for one day with men who can't get guns (but most will be released someday) and see how safe you feel. Admit you are an idiot and your constant repeat of what the media has fed you is a lie. NONE of your constant rantings is a single thought of your own, just a repeat of propaganda fed to you through the idiot box (TV).
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2767 Feb 15, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
So.........I "should" be able to keep my C-4, hand grenades, RPG, flame thrower and machine gun with a drum magazine?
"I do not believe you have your hand on the pulse of the Tea Bag movement".
Incorrect, it's the same crap republicans have been advocating since Reagan but haven't achieved once in over 30 years and only whine about the situation when they're NOT in power.
The current "movement" is simply round three.
Why not? I can buy 50 gallons of gas and a box of matches. I can buy a 5,000 lb car that exceeds 100 mph (great for mowing down crowds). I can buy a plane and crash it into tall buildings. I can buy vast amounts of rat poison and place it in city water supplies. When have you ever saw an armed guard near a city water tank? I can place Anthrax (or other suitable item) in envelopes and mail them to victims. Let's try the same test with you as Oidiot. Put you in a prison population where criminals can't get weapons for one day and see if you feel safe knowing they are unarmed. Then place you on a military base full of hundreds of men armed with the exact weapons you are scared of for one day then tell me your logic of "it's the weapon and not the person" holds true.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2768 Feb 15, 2013
Where did all these crickets come from?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2769 Feb 15, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Citizens can open fire on an officer without breaking the law if that officer is in violation of the citizens rights. A badge does not place an officer above the law as many of them believe. Show me one law the NRA passed liar. The NRA simply conveys the will of it's members to politicians nothing more nothing less. Yes those republicans who passed those laws were fired too. A political party does not exempt them from the will of the people. Your still a lose.
" Citizens can open fire on an officer without breaking the law if that officer is in violation of the citizens rights".

Where do teabaggers come up with this crap?

So you can kill a cop because he violated your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure?

"Show me one law the NRA passed liar. The NRA simply conveys the will of it's members to politicians nothing more nothing less".

The castle doctrine also known as "stand you ground" law and voter I.D. laws.

A federal law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun dealers, trade associations and manufacturers from liability in lawsuits involving firearms used in crimes. The measure sponsored by then-senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican and former NRA board member.

Firearms, however, long have been exempt from oversight by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates everything from cribs and children's toys to washing machines and pools — making it the only U.S. consumer product not subject to federal safety regulations. The federal agency with regulatory power over the gun industry is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which focuses on law enforcement.

A measure, inserted into a 2009 credit-card regulation bill, that ended a 25-year ban on carrying concealed and loaded guns into national parks. Supporters said the change was needed to address a patchwork of state and federal firearms regulators that made it hard for gun owners to travel between state and federal lands.

All NRA backed legislation.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2770 Feb 15, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Why not? I can buy 50 gallons of gas and a box of matches. I can buy a 5,000 lb car that exceeds 100 mph (great for mowing down crowds). I can buy a plane and crash it into tall buildings. I can buy vast amounts of rat poison and place it in city water supplies. When have you ever saw an armed guard near a city water tank? I can place Anthrax (or other suitable item) in envelopes and mail them to victims. Let's try the same test with you as Oidiot. Put you in a prison population where criminals can't get weapons for one day and see if you feel safe knowing they are unarmed. Then place you on a military base full of hundreds of men armed with the exact weapons you are scared of for one day then tell me your logic of "it's the weapon and not the person" holds true.
Wow, then under YOUR logic, why are teabaggers so worried about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2771 Feb 15, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you KNOW this, Jambi?
Too many politicians are on the gun manufacturers payroll.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2772 Feb 15, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
" Citizens can open fire on an officer without breaking the law if that officer is in violation of the citizens rights".
Where do teabaggers come up with this crap?
So you can kill a cop because he violated your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure?
"Show me one law the NRA passed liar. The NRA simply conveys the will of it's members to politicians nothing more nothing less".
The castle doctrine also known as "stand you ground" law and voter I.D. laws.
A federal law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun dealers, trade associations and manufacturers from liability in lawsuits involving firearms used in crimes. The measure sponsored by then-senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican and former NRA board member.
Firearms, however, long have been exempt from oversight by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates everything from cribs and children's toys to washing machines and pools — making it the only U.S. consumer product not subject to federal safety regulations. The federal agency with regulatory power over the gun industry is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which focuses on law enforcement.
A measure, inserted into a 2009 credit-card regulation bill, that ended a 25-year ban on carrying concealed and loaded guns into national parks. Supporters said the change was needed to address a patchwork of state and federal firearms regulators that made it hard for gun owners to travel between state and federal lands.
All NRA backed legislation.
Poor teabagger.
Are you saying someone like Rodney King would not have had the right to defend himself? Sorry but the courts have already ruled being a cop does not exempt you from the law and yes citizens have the right to defend from illegal actions of police. The SCOTUS has ruled police are not above the law. Your law passed was by congress not the NRA. FORMER means no longer a member. However being a member of a lawful organization is legal for congressmen. Many go to church and yes let their religion affect their job. Gun companies and dealers ARE liable if they sell defective products. Guns are not claimed to be non deadly items, in fact ALL owners manuals warn of the fact they can be deadly therefore not defective. I am not a member of the NRA but I support that law so does that make me credited personally for that law? Bad news. ALL laws are supported by someone and the support or opposition to any law is a right of all citizens. Did you personally pass the Brady law? Have you personally passed ANY law just by supporting it? Have you personally stopped ANY law simply by opposing it? Haa Haa Haa. Still the same old tired full of crap fed by the media fool. Do you ever realize how stupid you sound repeating known lies?
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2773 Feb 15, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, then under YOUR logic, why are teabaggers so worried about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon?
I'm not. It is simply a distraction by government from real issues. The USSR, China, and North Korea has had them for years and not a one has ever been used against us. Because we are armed and present a deterrent, the same as an armed citizen against a criminal.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#2774 Feb 15, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many politicians are on the gun manufacturers payroll.
They are also in the healthcare payroll, automotive payroll, bankers payroll, insurance company payrolls, ect. ect. Whats your point?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2775 Feb 15, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Are you saying someone like Rodney King would not have had the right to defend himself? Sorry but the courts have already ruled being a cop does not exempt you from the law and yes citizens have the right to defend from illegal actions of police. The SCOTUS has ruled police are not above the law. Your law passed was by congress not the NRA. FORMER means no longer a member. However being a member of a lawful organization is legal for congressmen. Many go to church and yes let their religion affect their job. Gun companies and dealers ARE liable if they sell defective products. Guns are not claimed to be non deadly items, in fact ALL owners manuals warn of the fact they can be deadly therefore not defective. I am not a member of the NRA but I support that law so does that make me credited personally for that law? Bad news. ALL laws are supported by someone and the support or opposition to any law is a right of all citizens. Did you personally pass the Brady law? Have you personally passed ANY law just by supporting it? Have you personally stopped ANY law simply by opposing it? Haa Haa Haa. Still the same old tired full of crap fed by the media fool. Do you ever realize how stupid you sound repeating known lies?
"Are you saying someone like Rodney King would not have had the right to defend himself"?

No, if that's what I meant to say I would have said it.

"Sorry but the courts have already ruled being a cop does not exempt you from the law and yes citizens have the right to defend from illegal actions of police".

In court, not from business end of a gun.

In most states you will be charged.

Indiana changed one aspect of that.

The NRA supported, backed and more than likely wrote those laws, that's as good as passing them.

More bizarro world teabagger NRA talking points.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2776 Feb 15, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> They are also in the healthcare payroll, automotive payroll, bankers payroll, insurance company payrolls, ect. ect. Whats your point?
There are too many recieving money from gun lobbyist.

Would you demand a cut in pay?

So a gun ban would never take place.

But teabaggers keep insisting there will be.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2777 Feb 15, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many politicians are on the gun manufacturers payroll.
Pleasse remind us...

How much money did the financial institutions that caused the economy to collapse give to Senator Obama?

I noticed you aren't complaining about that fact in US history.
just another guy

United States

#2778 Feb 15, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Just how does the NRA "fight" to defend the rights of it's members who are law abiding citizens of the U.S.? Can you sell your car to anyone (including drunks who drive )? Can you sell an axe to anyone (including axe murderers)? Can you sell matches to arsonist? Can you sell rope to rapist? To even think background checks work is a PROVEN lie. They have had no effect on crime or criminal behavior. A background check is like a crystal ball, it in no way can predict the future actions of a citizen. Logic says if you are too dangerous to own a gun then you are too dangerous to be free on the streets. If you have a violent enough past to be refused sells of ordinary legal items then you need to be behind bars. Why don't you start by removing plea bargains, parole, and any other form of early release from prisons? Remove the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense, in fact expand the ability to keep especially those behind bars. Would you feel safe having Charles Manson released and living next to you even if he had no way to get a gun? Being as you believe only guns make a killer dangerous then let's put you in a prison general population for one day with men who can't get guns (but most will be released someday) and see how safe you feel. Admit you are an idiot and your constant repeat of what the media has fed you is a lie. NONE of your constant rantings is a single thought of your own, just a repeat of propaganda fed to you through the idiot box (TV).
Well said. The only problem is you are thinking things through. The lunatic left never thinks, they feel.
There is no logic behind punishing someone for the criminal acts of another. The lunatic left just believes it will make them feel better because they have done something.
Taking one persons money to give to another has nothing to do with anything other than making those who do it feel better about themselves.
They are totally driven by feelings, not logic or facts.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min DEATH 1,223,520
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 2 min Dan 88
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 min Belle Sexton 59,494
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min red and right 180,124
News Sadie Robertson Defends Her Faith, Family and P... 5 min Black Thug Annie 8
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 5 min PolakPotrafi 1,042
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Kong_ 161,729
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 10 min Silent Echo 429
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 35 min Brian_G 326,015
More from around the web