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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#1001 Jan 24, 2013
Tory II wrote:
Only a poser would bother refuting this type of comment.
<quoted text>
http://www.kvoa.com/news/sheriff-dupnik-speak...
The Sandy Hook school shooting was instigated by local police.
And only a paranoid psycho would make such a claim without providing proof of such. Your link doesn't say shit about it.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#1002 Jan 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 94 percent of the Republican party is white.
Donglicker...
How much of a percentage the Dem party is white? What happened is African Americans know how to play the system as it is called. To their own detriment. And with people making money pushing a divide between races, one that will not end until the economic/financial collapse or police state takeover is complete. Perhaps if you study things, besides straight up poverty stats, you will find the most massive transfer of wealth in human history. And frankly, value for the dollar is massively shortchanged. Every way of stealing, corruption, faking injuries and disabilities, terrible work habits, endless false lawsuits, severe non responsible behavior and the list goes on and on with payoffs for all of these. This exists all over. But at a massive high percentage in those communities. But the 99% progressive Dem media glosses this over. Only those who have experienced this, sees through the bull. Unfortunately, it is dangerous also. Educated African Americans beter get off their butts and start wising up. Because keeping the same system in place will never bring what they desire to fruition. And what is worse, being survivors from past injustices, they have gotten used to government handouts in concentrated areas. This exists all over also. But if the economy collapses, it is going to be a catastrophe with no self reliance abilities.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#1003 Jan 24, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
You would think...but I'm sure they would get around that as not being "small arms"...or that the control of such weapons as nuclear weapons comes under the active and "standing army" of the Federal Gov't...NOT the militia...and are NOT necessary for the "security of a free State."
The Heller case in refering to the Miller case stated this;
"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."
Nuclear weapons would fall under that finding.
Bringing up the "nuclear" option continually only shows the weakness in your own argument. There have been some on here that seem to believe they do have a right to such weapons. They are being just as "frivolous" as those that argue the 2nd Amendment only covers "muskets".
Spot on!!
1 post removed
libturds are idiots

Miami, FL

#1005 Jan 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
As I noted, you're obsessed with gay sex. Also amusing that you refer to me as "hate filled," and yet post a long, vulgar, disgusting string of childish insults to me and others here. Would you say you aspire to be Topix' biggest hypocrite, or are you satisfied with the occasional blatant hypocrisy?:)
Awwwwww did the troof hewrt your widdle feewins there pookie?

Now quit your bitch'n, put on your big boy pants and go get a job you worthless lib moooch.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1006 Jan 24, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
perhaps if Trumps team of detectives were still on the case, the President would have no secrets.
Real or imagined
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it?
1 post removed
conservativecrap ola

Allentown, PA

#1008 Jan 24, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
So why was rugby hiding his tax returns?

au cry-a-thon: Day 79

hahahahahahahahaha
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#1009 Jan 24, 2013
Brown Girl in the Ring wrote:
Its very satisfying to know that a black woman can influence someone in making the right decisions even a dick head.
You got that right - Obama is a dick head.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1010 Jan 24, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Arnold Schwarzenegger owns a M47 Patton tank.
The Governator has a little more spare cash than I do.
I'm going to have to settle for dated Soviet era trash for my peace of mind
Damn thing is going leak oil all over my diveway

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1011 Jan 24, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>If you have nothing to hide, why hide it?
on the other hand if you actual had nothing to hide and some folk continued to accuse, how would you deal with it.
You can not indulge those who have been looking this hard for this long, and not believing their own lying eyes when they find nothing.
Come back with a smoking gun that will stand up to the light of day.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1012 Jan 24, 2013
conservativecrapola wrote:
<quoted text>
So why was rugby hiding his tax returns?
au cry-a-thon: Day 79
hahahahahahahahaha
He showed the same as Obama, and more.....he didn't hide his personal records like Obama.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1013 Jan 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!! You really need to get an education before you further embarrass yourself. Please post ANY reference you can find stating that the Founder's definition of "well regulated" meant "state". I will NOT be holding my breath.
That was quite possibly the the most ignorant, lame-ass things I have ever heard regarding the 2nd-A. And I thought I had just about heard them all. I literally LOL'd at that. Thanks.
Sorry fool, but it's right there in black & white in the text of the 2nd amendment.

Well regulated clearly refers to the state- ie govt.

Laugh all you want. All we need is to flip one justice on the SCOTUS and your individual right to bear arms goes bye-bye.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1014 Jan 24, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
If the M-1 Abrams and the AH Helicopter are "bearable arms"...then you are correct.
So how far can you carry either one of those...?...oh wait, you gotta be able to pick it up first.
A tactical nuke certainly is......
Brad

Manchester, CT

#1015 Jan 24, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
on the other hand if you actual had nothing to hide and some folk continued to accuse, how would you deal with it.
You can not indulge those who have been looking this hard for this long, and not believing their own lying eyes when they find nothing.
Come back with a smoking gun that will stand up to the light of day.
Makes it hard to find the smoking gun when 95% of the MSM is running interference for you and more than half the nation buys into it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1016 Jan 24, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
You would think...but I'm sure they would get around that as not being "small arms"...or that the control of such weapons as nuclear weapons comes under the active and "standing army" of the Federal Gov't...NOT the militia...and are NOT necessary for the "security of a free State."
The Heller case in refering to the Miller case stated this;
"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."
Nuclear weapons would fall under that finding.
Bringing up the "nuclear" option continually only shows the weakness in your own argument. There have been some on here that seem to believe they do have a right to such weapons. They are being just as "frivolous" as those that argue the 2nd Amendment only covers "muskets".
Where does it say "small" arms in the 2nd amendment?

Semi-automatic assault weapons were not in common use at the time.

I am 100% certain the founding fathers would have considered a rifle capable of firing 100's of bullets a minute to be "dangerous and unusual".

You can't have it both ways. Either the 2nd amendment can be limited or it can't.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#1017 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry fool, but it's right there in black & white in the text of the 2nd amendment.
Well regulated clearly refers to the state- ie govt.
Laugh all you want. All we need is to flip one justice on the SCOTUS and your individual right to bear arms goes bye-bye.
The fool is staring back at you in the mirror.

1. You are a f-ing LIAR! The 2nd-A does NOT say a well regulated "state". It says a well regulated militia, which is synonymous with "the people".

2. The 2nd-A doesn't give us any rights. It enumerates it. The 2nd-A is a limitation on the power of the fed govt. You know...that whole "shall not be infringed" part.

Try again, idgit.
Voluntarist

United States

#1018 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry fool, but it's right there in black & white in the text of the 2nd amendment.
Well regulated clearly refers to the state- ie govt.
Laugh all you want. All we need is to flip one justice on the SCOTUS and your individual right to bear arms goes bye-bye.
Connecticut recognizes the individual right adolf.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1019 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
A tactical nuke certainly is......
Really..."nuke"...ag ain...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1020 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry fool, but it's right there in black & white in the text of the 2nd amendment.
Well regulated clearly refers to the state- ie govt.
Laugh all you want. All we need is to flip one justice on the SCOTUS and your individual right to bear arms goes bye-bye.
"Well-regulated" refers to the militia...not the state or the gov't or arms.

Did you actually take an English course in school...?

The "individual right" decision was unanimous. Maybe you should try reading it...for once.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1021 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say "small" arms in the 2nd amendment?
Semi-automatic assault weapons were not in common use at the time.
I am 100% certain the founding fathers would have considered a rifle capable of firing 100's of bullets a minute to be "dangerous and unusual".
You can't have it both ways. Either the 2nd amendment can be limited or it can't.
any other right has some limit, my right to free speech clearly ends with my yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press ends with slander and liable.
The issue should be what limits, where and why.
libturds are idiots

Miami, FL

#1022 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry fool, but it's right there in black & white in the text of the 2nd amendment.
Well regulated clearly refers to the state- ie govt.
Laugh all you want. All we need is to flip one justice on the SCOTUS and your individual right to bear arms goes bye-bye.
Well sheetpole, as usual you are wrong... stupid and wrong.

Apparently the state that sold you your GED did not put much in the way of an educational requirement to get it.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Britain pressured for quick EU split as Brexit ... 1 min Le Jimbo 25
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min Patriot AKA Bozo 60,037
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 8 min Go Blue Forever 196
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Teaman 1,394,857
News Asians, many out of shame, not seeking U.S. dep... 10 min SeanOsorioLee 29
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min katrina 88 387,935
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 13 min Just Think 1,325
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr An NFL Fan 3,289
News Donald Trump: Brexit is sign of independence de... 1 hr abc 177
More from around the web