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

#2931 Feb 17, 2013
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
The husband has the gun in his hands, the police aren't going to help his wife or his kids he just shot.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2932 Feb 17, 2013
just another guy wrote:
We only insist the government follow the Constitution.
What a shame it is you don't understand what it means.

The 27 words in the 2nd are 14 words too long for your attention span, it seems.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2933 Feb 17, 2013
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah our little turd flingin gay monkey, you are wrong once again.
If you took the sausage out of your mouth, you might find it easier to read the constitution you have so little regard for.

Wipe your chin, JustGayGuy.

PS: roll up the new Colorado gun check law and put some grease on it.

Like your boyfriend when the strokes get shorter: It's coming.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2934 Feb 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<
And when the ex breaks into the woman's house, she can throw the restraining order at him.
It's not the ex that kills hundreds of women a year.

It is the cowards and husbands like you, you pathetic yellow boys who can't and won't grow up. Losers who don't have the courage to go out in the garage and take themselves out.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2935 Feb 17, 2013
Rebel Against Tyranny wrote:
<quoted text>
What do my conclusions have to do with your ignorance?
Did that paragraph somehow prevent you from learning the term "Agenda 21", even before I posted it? I must have Super-powers I wasn't aware of that reach forward through time to affect an individual's ability to learn and remember facts.
Correct your conculsion has nothing to do with my ignorance
It stands on its own
I had heard of this when Chip Rodgers claimed Obama was using mind controll
Prior to that i have some friends in Arizona who brought it to my attention .
Your bringing it up refreshed things.
Now allow me to appologize for my gaffe once more.
Agenda 21...51...101
My senile old brain can't all the conspiracy theories seperate

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2936 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the ex that kills hundreds of women a year.
It is the cowards and husbands like you, you pathetic yellow boys who can't and won't grow up. Losers who don't have the courage to go out in the garage and take themselves out.
When someone said the phrase " talk is cheap " they must have been painting your picture.
Rebel Against Tyranny

Fruitport, MI

#2937 Feb 17, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct your conculsion has nothing to do with my ignorance
It stands on its own
I had heard of this when Chip Rodgers claimed Obama was using mind controll
Prior to that i have some friends in Arizona who brought it to my attention .
Your bringing it up refreshed things.
Now allow me to appologize for my gaffe once more.
Agenda 21...51...101
My senile old brain can't all the conspiracy theories seperate
First, the fact that you couldn't even get the term right is an indicator that you've done very little digging into Agenda 21, so therefor your opinions on it must be taken with a large grain of salt as well.

Second, it does not fit the "conspiracy theory" definition, as there is no secret about it, being that it's published on the UN website, there are only un-drawn conclusions as to the final results from the perspective of the population.

Third, calling even truthful and accurate facts and reports "conspiracy theories" is a US government propaganda ploy put forth by the Obama administration's Cass Sunstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
---
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the governmentÂ’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[25] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[25] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups." They also suggest responses: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."[26]

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[25] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."
---

In light of this, calling something a "conspiracy theory", particularly in regards to government actions/policies/etc, without strong factual and verifiable evidence against it has little meaning.
Tray

Oxford, MS

#2938 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The husband has the gun in his hands, the police aren't going to help his wife or his kids he just shot.
Yet those kids are in more danger from her than him. Mothers kill more of their kids than fathers. Keep trying to sell your crap but no one is buying loser.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2939 Feb 17, 2013
Tray wrote:
Yet those kids are in more danger from her than him.
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punis...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2940 Feb 17, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>When someone said the phrase " talk is cheap " they must have been painting your picture.
Same thing when they said: you have some spooge stains on your shirt.

PS: Happy to see you refute anything I've posted.
Rebel Against Tyranny

Fruitport, MI

#2941 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: Happy to see you refute anything I've posted.
Why? You refute yourself.

To waste one's time on your textual flatulence would be like your posts...redundant, offensive, and ignorant.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2942 Feb 17, 2013
Rebel Against Tyranny wrote:
Why? You refute yourself.
Like I said: you don't have the chops unless sausages are involved...
just another guy

Holly, CO

#2943 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The husband has the gun in his hands, the police aren't going to help his wife or his kids he just shot.
But that cell phone and restraining order you claim to be such a great defense will help? Wow you get dumber by the day.
just another guy

Holly, CO

#2944 Feb 17, 2013
Rebel Against Tyranny wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? You refute yourself.
To waste one's time on your textual flatulence would be like your posts...redundant, offensive, and ignorant.
Barefool refutes it's own posts. When the response to any fact is a rehash of a gay fantasy, we know it has no reasonable idea of how to discuss any topic in a civilized manner.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2945 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the ex that kills hundreds of women a year.
It is the cowards and husbands like you, you pathetic yellow boys who can't and won't grow up. Losers who don't have the courage to go out in the garage and take themselves out.
It can't be that many women killed by their ex's or estranged spouses. After all, the restraining orders protect them, right???? Please show ANY evidence you can find where a restraining order actually stopped an ex from attacking a women. Come on ball-peen, I triple-dog dare you.

Oh, and by the way, your backhanded insults and ad hominem, unfounded attacks are doing nothing but making you like more of an idiot. Just thought you would like to know.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2946 Feb 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said: you don't have the chops unless sausages are involved...
You have the worst case of penis envy of anyone I have ever seen.

LMAO!!!
Rebel Against Tyranny

Fruitport, MI

#2947 Feb 17, 2013
I said; "Why? You refute yourself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said: you don't have the chops unless sausages are involved...
And you just did it again.

You got nothin'

Troll elsewhere, kid. Adults are speaking, here.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2948 Feb 18, 2013
A biker was riding in the hills when he saw a figure in a flowing red evening dress standing on Broke Back Bridge about to jump. He quickly pulled up and stopped.
"Please don't jump" he pleaded.
"I can't live with the disgrace I brought my family" was the response.
"Kiss me. Just one kiss. After that kiss, if you still feel like jumping, I won't stop you."
They kissed, deeply, passionately.
"Wow. That was wonderful. How can a passionate woman like you even think about jumping off this bridge?" the biker asked.
"My parents are distraught over me liking to dress in women's clothes" was the answer.

... the police still aren't sure whether he jumped or the biker pushed him off the bridge.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2949 Feb 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Comparing one man from decades ago in a foreign country to a modern-day American political party.
2. Modern-day Dems are not "social radicals."
3. Modern-day Dems are not "consumed with racial hatred." The opposite of that, in fact.
4. Dems are not looking for "revenge" in regard to the Cold War.
5. We didn't "lose" the Cold War, anyway.
:)
You are truly ignorant. Let's start with the post:

Hitler:
Political genius.
Social radical.
Consumed with racial hatred.
Sought revenge for a lost war.

Democrats:
Political genius.
Social radical.
Consumed with racial hatred.
Seek revenge for losing the Cold War.

Tell us what is inaccurate in the above comparison.

... and your responses:

"1. Comparing one man from decades ago in a foreign country to a modern-day American political party."

Every person who every studied philosophy writen in a foreign country during a different era disagrees with you. The very reason philosophy is important is because it is comprised of universal truths about humans.
You are an idiot to not realise this obviously obvious fact.

"2. Modern-day Dems are not "social radicals."

Really.... please explain the Marxist principles being forced onto the population by the Democrats. Please explain why we pay people to not do the work the illegal aliens here are doing. Please explain the dramatic change in family values here since the so-called "progressives" that control the Democrats took control of the Democratic Party. What is the illegitimacy rate among the black population today? What was it 40 years ago? And, what the f**k do you use for information to draw your conclusions?

"3. Modern-day Dems are not "consumed with racial hatred." The opposite of that, in fact."

And that explains the so-called "new" black panthers, the NAACP, the demise of the SCLC, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc., etc., etc.

"4. Dems are not looking for "revenge" in regard to the Cold War."

So, putting all that effort into sabotage of the United States during the Cold War: sabotaging the South Vietnamese and condemning them to the statistically worst mass murder in the history of civilization and a life of poverty and deprivation while everyone else in the world achieved a middle-class living standard, and getting stomped by Ronald Reagan who crushed the Democrats' attempt to sabotage the United States in Central American front of the Cold War, an attempt to repeat the Democrats' sabotage of Vietnam, and then losing the Cold War was just another day for the Democratic Party?
Do you really think you're talking to a room full of idiots?

"5. We didn't "lose" the Cold War, anyway."

The history I recall was the communists lost the Cold War. I also recall the Democrats joining the communists and sabotaging the United States during the Cold War. In fact, the Cold War began with the most prominent Democrat in the country aside from the sitting president being convicted while spying for the Soviet Union. Then we have John Kerry lying his ass off every chance he gets in front of congress in support of the communists during the Cold War.
You really think you're talking to a room full of ignorant idiots, right?

The Democrats joined the communists during the Cold War.
Reagan beat you and won the Cold War.

And you don't feel anything from that....

How about you post here something about how great Reagan's victory in the Cold War was.
... can't do that, can you? That's because you can't quite accept that your side lost the Cold War. You are the same as those southerners that can't accept the fact that the South lost the Civil War.

Here's the comparison again:

Hitler:
Political genius.
Social radical.
Consumed with racial hatred.
Sought revenge for a lost war.

Democrats:
Political genius.
Social radical.
Consumed with racial hatred.
Seek revenge for losing the Cold War.
Tray

Oxford, MS

#2950 Feb 18, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
A 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy.

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 Teaman 1,433,892
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 244,080
News CBS' "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" Premieres O... 3 min Nic 924
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min Quirky 396,032
News Eastern Kentucky holds first Pride Festival 10 min antipolicticalcor... 123
News NATO boss in autobiography: Obama backed my can... 11 min Moanz558 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Coffee Party 225,495
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 14 min Tn clm 10,607
News Post-debate poll: Clinton takes round one 22 min Castro Rules 334
More from around the web