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: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1271 Jan 26, 2013
Bonhomme Richard wrote:
What is an assault weapon? I have a brace of muzzle loading pistols and a long gun from 1886, A M1 from 1944,A 30-06 Sniper rifle from Vietnam, 3 new Glocks with big magazines. I am looking for a black gun and the gun show this weekend.
How long does it take before the black gun is a antique and exceptable?
my question is do you recognize any diffrence between a military grade arm and a civilian arm.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1272 Jan 26, 2013
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>You're way off base, the people are entitled to have the same arms as the military for purposes of ammo and magazine commonality for the common defense.
do you mean i should be able to by a flame thrower?
Why should i be stopped from owning weapons that have been outlawed Geneva conventions and the UN. International gun control
So i f you were my neighbor, under you line of thinking.
I should be able to culture my own anthrax in my garage and you can't say a word.?

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1273 Jan 26, 2013
EASY MONEY wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.
All that half-breed bastard wants is to make it impossable for Americans to ever resist the government. They could care less how many children or adults get wacked each and every year. They just want you to roll over for whatever the government says.
what if otherwise law abiding moslems where stock piling arms because they just might want to overthrow the gov't?

You see no problem with allowing military grade arms to be held by civilian who have received no military?.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1274 Jan 26, 2013
Correction to previous post

You see no problem with allowing military grade arms to be held by civilians who have received no military grade training?
Researcher

Waco, TX

#1275 Jan 26, 2013
The NRA should get a reward for Best Marketing.

They've succeeded in convincing scuzzy,ignorant pencildicks that they will turn ito macho-me if only they will buy enough guns.

Of course, people who successfully persuade others to buy products that don't do what they are advertised are also called CON ARTISTS.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1276 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
do you mean i should be able to by a flame thrower?
Why should i be stopped from owning weapons that have been outlawed Geneva conventions and the UN. International gun control
So i f you were my neighbor, under you line of thinking.
I should be able to culture my own anthrax in my garage and you can't say a word.?
"...weapons that have been outlawed Geneva conventions and the UN. International gun control"

What "weapons" might those be that are protected by our Constitution...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1277 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
what if otherwise law abiding moslems where stock piling arms because they just might want to overthrow the gov't?
You see no problem with allowing military grade arms to be held by civilian who have received no military?.
"...might want to overthrow the gov't?"

Then that wouldn't be "otherwise law abiding", would it..?..and hopeful, good law enforcement work would be able to determine that if necessary.

"You see no problem with allowing military grade arms to be held by civilian who have received no military?."

Can you define "military grade arms"...?...and elaborate on "...who have received no military?."
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1278 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
Correction to previous post
You see no problem with allowing military grade arms to be held by civilians who have received no military grade training?
So if I have received "military grade training"...then you see no problem with me owning whatever I have received training on...?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1279 Jan 26, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Which "excuse" can be used at Newtown, Colorado, etc?
Dear, Panetta and others have every right to speak up about the gun culture in this country.
Great isn't it that people are speaking up?
How about your 'excuses' for the number of children killed by abortion every year...
You're right they speak up, but always on the wrong subject...

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1280 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...weapons that have been outlawed Geneva conventions and the UN. International gun control"
What "weapons" might those be that are protected by our Constitution...?
Clearly the difference between a civilian arm and a military arm in 1787 was in the training. The same musket a farmer used was serviceable for military duty, in the case of the Americans Rifled long guns civilian arms were superior. The founding fathers could never have conceived of WMD If you said mustard gas to Ben Franklin he would have assumed that you were having intestinal distress.
BTW...Weapons are not protected by the constitution...Allowing a legal access to them is protected, us lefties add the caveat drawn from the second amendment ..within a "Well Regulated" environment

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1281 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So if I have received "military grade training"...then you see no problem with me owning whatever I have received training on...?
So if i say yes, and you are pleased
then you are agreeing to restricting the second amendment. By requiring military training for any citizen who who seeks a gun more potent than what is required to bring down a deer.
In order to enforce this there would have to be some sort of licensing of those who have been trained.
And seeing you have agreed to allow or restrict access to some types of guns based on training. logically all sales and transfers of these types of arms would be required to be traceable by the Gov't.
So under these conditions...YES
If Vets and police officers who have spotless service records desired access to these arms and tight restriction were placed on others owning them, Then i will agree with you..
Then we have cut short some of the fuss and feathers and agreed on a gun control program.
And agreed that some restrictions are reasonable, even if currently we may be endorsing different levels of restriction?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1282 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly the difference between a civilian arm and a military arm in 1787 was in the training. The same musket a farmer used was serviceable for military duty, in the case of the Americans Rifled long guns civilian arms were superior. The founding fathers could never have conceived of WMD If you said mustard gas to Ben Franklin he would have assumed that you were having intestinal distress.
BTW...Weapons are not protected by the constitution...Allowing a legal access to them is protected, us lefties add the caveat drawn from the second amendment ..within a "Well Regulated" environment
Well we aren't talking WMD's...so you're being frivolous in that aspect.

"BTW...Weapons are not protected by the constitution..."

As long as the right to keep and bear them is not infringed by the gov't.

"Allowing a legal access to them is protected,..."

That's a new one...so WHO...is going to "allow" me to exercise my individual right...?

"us lefties add the caveat drawn from the second amendment ..within a "Well Regulated" environment"

Well since "well regulated" refers to the militia...you are misusing your "caveat". Has nothing to do with "environment".
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#1283 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
do you mean i should be able to by a flame thrower?
Why should i be stopped from owning weapons that have been outlawed Geneva conventions and the UN. International gun control
So i f you were my neighbor, under you line of thinking.
I should be able to culture my own anthrax in my garage and you can't say a word.?
Firstly, everyone knows where most of the murders and killings occur with weapons in America. But we are not allowed to say anything. It is hate. Secondly, no one questions the political correctness/diversity/etc.. Over the last half century in combination with a government that has grown ten times its size, men have been driven stir crazy over false equality. We love our children so much, mom ain't home. She was emancipated or so she thought.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1284 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
So if i say yes, and you are pleased
then you are agreeing to restricting the second amendment. By requiring military training for any citizen who who seeks a gun more potent than what is required to bring down a deer.
In order to enforce this there would have to be some sort of licensing of those who have been trained.
And seeing you have agreed to allow or restrict access to some types of guns based on training. logically all sales and transfers of these types of arms would be required to be traceable by the Gov't.
So under these conditions...YES
If Vets and police officers who have spotless service records desired access to these arms and tight restriction were placed on others owning them, Then i will agree with you..
Then we have cut short some of the fuss and feathers and agreed on a gun control program.
And agreed that some restrictions are reasonable, even if currently we may be endorsing different levels of restriction?
It was a question to elicite more information as to your position...it was NOT an endorsement by me in anyway.

So your assumption that I would agree is incorrect. As the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment is a right of the people...not any subset not specified...then your agenda would be unacceptable.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1285 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
So if i say yes, and you are pleased
then you are agreeing to restricting the second amendment. By requiring military training for any citizen who who seeks a gun more potent than what is required to bring down a deer.
In order to enforce this there would have to be some sort of licensing of those who have been trained.
And seeing you have agreed to allow or restrict access to some types of guns based on training. logically all sales and transfers of these types of arms would be required to be traceable by the Gov't.
So under these conditions...YES
If Vets and police officers who have spotless service records desired access to these arms and tight restriction were placed on others owning them, Then i will agree with you..
Then we have cut short some of the fuss and feathers and agreed on a gun control program.
And agreed that some restrictions are reasonable, even if currently we may be endorsing different levels of restriction?
Do you see the "military style", so called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines as in common use by the military or part of the ordinary military equipment...?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1286 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a "frustrated control freak"...got it..thanks.
\Picked up a nice AK from a Private party, no need to register in AZ.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1287 Jan 26, 2013
Bonhomme Richard wrote:
<quoted text>
\Picked up a nice AK from a Private party, no need to register in AZ.
Sweet...hope you got a good deal on it.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1288 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we aren't talking WMD's...so you're being frivolous in that aspect.
"BTW...Weapons are not protected by the constitution..."
As long as the right to keep and bear them is not infringed by the gov't.
"Allowing a legal access to them is protected,..."
That's a new one...so WHO...is going to "allow" me to exercise my individual right...?
"us lefties add the caveat drawn from the second amendment ..within a "Well Regulated" environment"
Well since "well regulated" refers to the militia...you are misusing your "caveat". Has nothing to do with "environment".
And how does a completely un governed environment, square with a 'Well Regulated militia'?
Yes using WMD as an example is gross hyperbole. How ever it illustrates a point. All men are created equal all armaments are not. If your point is that there are no acceptable restrictions on arms. Then it becomes easy to extrapolate...I assume than that you would at least agree that some military arms do not belong in civilian hands. Or is that frivolous as well .

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#1289 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you see the "military style", so called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines as in common use by the military or part of the ordinary military equipment...?
I have to take a mulligan
I dont have enough technical knowledge to answer
What I do know is the only gun i own was given to me by my dad 40 years ago...
i haven't been hunting in 30 years and that hasn't been used in 25 years..... My dad Korean War vet might be able to but...
do you think i have enough knowledge and training to not endanger my neighbors rights to be secure and safe if i owned an AK47 or... owned a .50 caliber machine gun. The right of one man to own the gun of his choice has to be at some point squared with everyones else rights to safety.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#1290 Jan 26, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
And how does a completely un governed environment, square with a 'Well Regulated militia'?
Yes using WMD as an example is gross hyperbole. How ever it illustrates a point. All men are created equal all armaments are not. If your point is that there are no acceptable restrictions on arms. Then it becomes easy to extrapolate...I assume than that you would at least agree that some military arms do not belong in civilian hands. Or is that frivolous as well .
"And how does a completely un governed environment, square with a 'Well Regulated militia'?"

Who said anything about "a completely ungoverned environment"..?

"If your point is that there are no acceptable restrictions on arms. Then it becomes easy to extrapolate...I assume than that you would at least agree that some military arms do not belong in civilian hands. Or is that frivolous as well."

It could be frivolous unless a common understanding is first established.

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 Donald Trump Is Mentally Ill According to Petit... 1 min Earl 295
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Injudgement 237,893
News Group of Parisians launch Obama 2017 French pre... 12 min Christian Fumblem... 3
News Politics speak at numerous volumes on Oscar night 14 min Christian Fumblem... 3
News SE Asia Stocks-Cautious ahead of Trump speech 17 min Christian Fumblem... 1
News Yes, Mass Deportations Are Coming. And We Know ... 18 min HOLLA ISABELLA 263
News Trump wins praise for skipping the nerd prom 21 min Christian Fumblem... 8
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 38 min Injudgement 259,176
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Quirky 413,285
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Cheech the Conser... 1,498,604
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 2 hr Copout 21,429
More from around the web