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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#873 Jan 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, so you have a right to only those arms carried by the militia at the time the 2nd amendment was written.....
Have fun with those!
Either the 2nd amendment covers ALL arms- past & present, including nuclear arms- or we as a society can pick & choose which arms can be restricted.
You can't have it both ways.
BS!! Can't you "frustrated control freaks" come up with something besides the nuclear argument...? "Arms", as used in the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover those.

"You can't have it both ways."

There is no "both ways"...and you can't re-write history to make it that way.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#874 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't.
A threat is a communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any persons or property.
Period.
Now you may be able to come here and prove from the long list of your posts that everyone here knows that you are full of cr@p and thus try to argue that it was "idle chat" and of course your lawyer would solicit testimonials from every who knows you personally as the sniveling coward that you are with an alligator mouth but a hummingbird azz.
But, no, they don't have to prove you have the ability to follow through on your threat and the intent is self-evident.
"A threat is a communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any persons or property.
Period."

Good...so the mear exercise of my individual right to keep and bear arms, to include so called "assault weapons" is no threat to you or anyone else...I'm glad you can accept that.

So when others or the gov't makes a "threat" to harm legal gun owners or take their property, then it would be justifiable to defend against such threat...yes..?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#875 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are tea baggers everywhere.
It isn't so much effort to scrap them off the bottom of my shoes.
There are "frustrated control freaks" everywhere.

The boot brush by the back door removes them quite easily.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#876 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a stupid F*.
Don't take that the wrong way, it is only an observation so others can see you are coming.
If they need someone like you to tell them an Abrams tank is coming, then you and they are a "stupid F*."
Tray

Etta, MS

#877 Jan 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Only AFTER the laws have been declared unconstitutional.
Keep trying, you'll get it right eventually.
Sorry but you fail again. SCOTUS does not review a law till it has been broken and a persons rights violated by enforcement of that law. Try to keep up.
Tray

Etta, MS

#878 Jan 23, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL A book written and re-writen and translated dozens of times from 2000 years ago????????? So the book proves itself????? LOL LOL LOL,.........
So Harry Potter is real because a book was written about him?????
Come on grow up and join us in 2013....Science has proven the cult myth around the buybull is mostly lies...
And those scientist are able to answer where the universe came from? Those human scientist are on mental par with an entity that can create a universe? Hell you can't even win a debate with normal people on here much less a God.
Tray

Etta, MS

#879 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't.
A threat is a communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any persons or property.
Period.
Now you may be able to come here and prove from the long list of your posts that everyone here knows that you are full of cr@p and thus try to argue that it was "idle chat" and of course your lawyer would solicit testimonials from every who knows you personally as the sniveling coward that you are with an alligator mouth but a hummingbird azz.
But, no, they don't have to prove you have the ability to follow through on your threat and the intent is self-evident.
I love proving you a fool over and over. You just admitted what I said. It must be viable and with intent. A 4 year old child can say they want to kill the president but it would not be viable so no real threat exist to prosecute. Brush up on case law fool.
Brown Girl in the Ring

UK

#880 Jan 23, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
He puts up with a lot of things He probably isn't too fond of. Take the UK for example. You people confiscated many of our guns in 1775 and were too stupid to keep them. Then when the nazis threatened to invade your island you folks pleaded with Americans to send them firearms to replace your semi automatic brooms and pitchforks and the NRA sent you over 7000 firearms.
Sounds like a lazy bugger!
Tray

Etta, MS

#881 Jan 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed- to a "reasonable person".
That is the key.
Guess who gets to decide what (or whom) is "reasonable"?
That's why convictions of Art 92 HAVE been upheld in some cases even though the underlying order may have been later rule as an illegal order and/or unconstitutional. Because of the nuances of what (or whom) constitutes a "reasonable person".
In other words, if a "reasonable person" would believe the order to be legal- EVEN IF IT IS NOT- then they are compelled to obey it.
Anything else would lead to chaos because everyone suddenly becomes a "reasonable person" in their own opinion and NO order or law would have to be followed until the court rules on each & every law/order given.
By the same token any reasonable person believes it to be an illegal order they have a responsibility to disobey it and not protected by "I was just following orders". The "Medina standard" is based upon the 1971 prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action even if ordered not to.
Tray

Etta, MS

#882 Jan 23, 2013
Tray

Etta, MS

#883 Jan 23, 2013
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#884 Jan 23, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
we will do that some time after you guys on the right admit that W. screwed up Clintons legacy
Good old billl left W. 4 ballanced budgets in a row, a surplus
if you guys were in any way interested in a ballanced budget you would asking your selfs now
W.W.B.D
What would Bill do
Even though Clinton pretty much gutted our military and was a complete embarrassment to this country....I would take Slick Wille over Uber-Socialist Oblunder any day of the week.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#885 Jan 23, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what FAUX viewers rely on redundancy.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -- George Bush -- Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
Poor teabagger.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.… Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”-- Obama, March 2006

Poor little uber-socialist hypocritical libtard.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#886 Jan 23, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>
Antigun sheriff instigates shooting rampages:
http://www.kvoa.com/news/sheriff-dupnik-speak...
Plagarizing me because you can't carry your side of the argument, Noid?? Pretty sad, even for you.

Here is the text from your link:
TUCSON - Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others spoke at a gun violence forum Thursday.
It was organized by the Foothills Democratic Forum and held at Skyline Country Club.
"Gun violence is one of the most complicated, difficult problems I think our society faces," Dupnik said.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department is working with schools to make campuses more secure. They also want to train teachers and students for a shooting the same way they practice fire drills.
Dupnik said he supports most of President Obama's gun control proposals. He does not think they would do anything to help immediately, but they would help decades in the future.
He does not think lone officers on hundreds massive campuses in the county will do much to stop another mass shooting.
"If you look at Columbine," Dupnik said, "there was a shootout with the officers at the school before they went into the school. They couldn't stop it."
Dupnik said there is not much more he can do to reduce gun violence.
"We do that now as best we can," Dupnik said, "but we're overwhelmed with all kinds of crimes, and most of the guns in our society are not involved with crimes."
Ephraim Peak helped put the event together. He wanted to talk about gun safety in homes along with other issues.
"They're small. They're not going to get national news attention," Peak said, "but if you save 2 or 3 lives because of it, that's not bad."
The superintendent of the Catalina Foothills School District was there and talked about school security.
The Southern Arizona chapter of National Alliance on Mental Illness talked about mental health. They estimate there are 100,000 people in Pima County with mental health problems and two thirds will go undiagnosed.

While I definitely do NOT agree with the sheriff, please point out to the group the part where the sheriff is encouraging people to go out and commit mass murder.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#887 Jan 23, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
let us review
BILL PAID HIS BILLS
Bill...Bill was a one term president until the Repubs took over the congress two years after he was elected. That was our last chance for a peaceful resolution to our issues. We still crapping out abortions and babies. and blaming others for it. We finished. Those evil Christians I tell you. I am not talking false zionist Christians like Biden and Pelosi and Santorum and many others. Obama is lovable. Yet we are still there in the middle east and everywhere else. Romney is a semi christian to people, yet he would do the same as Obama if elected. If Obama is true to his views...cut off Israel. Now! Cut it off. He won't. Because it is bullchitt. Read the bible fool. It is an education tool. Whether secular or through real belief. There are many secular men and women who use it to live a great life on others today. And there many others who pay homage to the same to live a great life on their backs if they spout their views. Check what happens when you disagree. There are examples if you look. Really...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#888 Jan 23, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.… Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”-- Obama, March 2006
Poor little uber-socialist hypocritical libtard.
Teabaggers can't resist off B.S. topic spam when they're "facts" (teabagger talking points) are embarassingly exposed as lies.

Run along poor nut job teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#889 Jan 23, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Your "messiah" has only been your Preezy for four years. Though with the amount of damage the head Marxist has done, it does FEEL like a decade.
Poor, Poor 'lil sheep.
Poor Bluntbutt,

Continuing the failed policies of Bush and the teabagger congress, I agree.

Poor teabagger.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#890 Jan 23, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers can't resist off B.S. topic spam when they're "facts" (teabagger talking points) are embarassingly exposed as lies.
Run along poor nut job teabagger.
Really...?...and you can prove the quote of Senator Obama as a lie...?
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#892 Jan 23, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers can't resist off B.S. topic spam when they're "facts" (teabagger talking points) are embarassingly exposed as lies.
Run along poor nut job teabagger.
It appears that the liberals even when confronted with the truth of their messiah and his own words will still attempt to redirect any conversation away from the reality of their chosen leader.

Run along follower
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#894 Jan 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really...?...and you can prove the quote of Senator Obama as a lie...?
The liberals believe that everyone in this country is as gullible as they, because in their minds, they as the bastions of intellectualism could never be wrong. HAHAHA

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 Trump says he's 'like, really smart,' 'a very s... 2 min Red Crosse 455
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Chilli J 51,989
News Members of Haitian community react to Trump's c... 3 min Taletha 368
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,682,072
News Leaders say Trump presidency is at odds with ML... 4 min Taletha 127
News Booker slams DHS secretary's 'amnesia' on Trump... 5 min Retribution 37
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 min June VanDerMark 326,226
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 12 min Poster Child for ... 2,585
News Oprah speech has Democrats buzzing about possib... 22 min Retribution 536
News Bipartisan deal would create 12-year citizenshi... 35 min Doe 125
More from around the web