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.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#2615 Feb 13, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Any HUMAN is potentially guilty of homicide, including you. How do you explain the killers before guns? Were they not guilty of homicide. How about those who cause the death of other humans today without a gun? Are they NOT guilty of homicide? Poking holes in your lies is a great way to defend gun ownership. The fact you must continue to lie to defend gun control shows you have no case to start with. You only prove it is idiots who follow the anti rights propaganda you keep swallowing.
Intersting how much you sound like au Jimbo, are you another of his many aliases?:)

In any case, you're stupid and hypocritical. You can't show I've "lied" about anything, you can't grasp that I was talking about the ease with which a gun owner can use it to kill, and you end up by projecting your homophobia (or -philia?) onto me.

Sad, pathetic and totally expected from a gunner and rightie.
Responsibility

San Mateo, CA

#2616 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Democrats have no credibility on the issue.
So let's do what is right, dearie, on gun safety:

THEY DESERVE A VOTE
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#2617 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again a rightie can't think for himself, but must seize on more intelligent posts by others and project them back onto the poster.
Simple, childish...but not very effective.:)
Dodge duck dodge. Avoid the question.
Disabled American Patriot

Rochester, NH

#2618 Feb 13, 2013
It's not only the right and responsabilty for american(adults)to protect themselfs thier family and freinds as well as thier comunity.
They also have to be responsable for the safe use of thier wepons
Brad

Manchester, CT

#2619 Feb 13, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's do what is right, dearie, on gun safety:
THEY DESERVE A VOTE
From my cold dead hands,you dam dirty ape.

My vote has been cast.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#2620 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Intersting how much you sound like au Jimbo, are you another of his many aliases?:)
In any case, you're stupid and hypocritical. You can't show I've "lied" about anything, you can't grasp that I was talking about the ease with which a gun owner can use it to kill, and you end up by projecting your homophobia (or -philia?) onto me.
Sad, pathetic and totally expected from a gunner and rightie.
The ease? I can run you down with a car much easier. I have pointed out time and time again your lies and you know it, liar. You seem to confuse ease with intent. A killer who intends to kill usually succeeds regardless of the weapon or bear hands. STUDY HISTORY idiot. The major point of gun ownership is the ease of the smaller or weaker to at least have a chance of fending off an attack. Hey do you really want to compare homophobia usage? I'll be glad to go post to post comparing. You are a loser like all you think the rest of us will continue to buy your loser argument. Every post you have made has been met with a reasonable and logical response yet you dodge or duck trying to reply. LOSER, LIAR, FAILURE.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#2621 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
But the number of MASS shootings has increased, which was my point. Guns are highly accessible to everyone, including mental cases, and gunners and the NRA refuse to do anything about that.
Do you seriously think we could have a couple dozen kids gunned down with an assault rifle and nothing would be said? Huh?
Here is just one of you lies. An assault rifle (full auto military rifle) was NOT used in ANY of your posted crimes. The NRA has no power to make laws, control rights, control criminal activity. LIAR LIAR LIAR.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2622 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
"You need a license, registration and insurance to own a car"
You can own a car without a license, registration and insurance. You can't drive a car without those, though.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right specified in the Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution.
"You can not be beaten to death with a large building, nor a swimming pool. You can be sued or even imprisoned if your building or swimming pool is obviously unsafe"
The Constitution does not require you to own a building or a swimming pool.
"if you want to kill as many as possible in as short a time as is possible"
Multiple people with muskets, 6-shot pistol, lever-action repeating rifle, the bolt-action repeating rifle, semi-automatic repeating rifle, etc., etc., etc.
Kindly comment on why only Democrats are committing these mass murders. What is the connection?
Wyatt Earp - Cattle rustling, corruption of a public official. The law against firearms was just the excuse for the confrontation.
Shoot outs in the streets....
Like every weekend on the south side of Chicago, where the strictest gun laws in the country are already in place?
How will additional gun laws be more effective than the existing gun laws that obviously aren't being enforced in the Democrat-voting locations?
Democrats have no credibility on the issue. They are the ones committing the mass murders you reference, as well as the mass murders that occur in every large city in the country every weekend.
First the contributer who's post I was replying to stated that if regulations and laws were applied to this list of items he would allow his guns to be regulated. Thus at least as far as this one person goes I have clearly assuaged a very troubled mind.
There are no constiutional issues reelvent to any of those items mentioned, true,but I never made any refrence to the constution. It was the writer that I was responding to that drew the parrallel, thus your lecturing the wrong guy.
Wyatt Earp was a criminal himself. Most sheriffs and marshall in that era were accomplished gunfighters. Short of bringing in the army an accomplished gun fighter was the best bet to enforce law. This fact gives us both1\2 a point.
To you ...The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
To me......Its is best that drunks have fist fights rather tha gunfights in the saloon,or best stated. Not every one is responsile enough ,law abiding enough or sane & sober enough to be allowed to carry a conceled weapon.

Finally the wild streets of Chicago. The Chicago police force would have to dedicate all of is man power in order to enforce the gun law. An impossibility. The wild streets of Chicago also give us both 1\2 point
To you...There is no point in tossing another law on the pile, if you do not even attempt to enforce it, then that law was a waste of time
To me.....Registration of sales ...why because it is a low cost protectent that is easily with in reach. The existing regestration and licencing schemes have been found either constitutional of have not been challanged. Apply these nation wide and then we give law enforcement a tool to use making the good guy with the gun (And badge) more efficient..
The main thing conceeded to me by the comparison of Chicago and Tombstone, the people are sick of the violence in their streets

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2623 Feb 13, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>If you spoke the truth it was a power grab.
Wyatt Earp was not the second coming of Christ to face off against the evil doers in the world and make the world or his town a more peaceful place but he was ensuring his on consolidation of power against competition.
Earp's actions were self serving and hardly the actions of a benevolent man.
The point was not a moral judgement on Earp. He was a criminal. practically every sherif and marshal was an accomplished gun fighter. The only way to get rid of the devil was to hire a devil...
The point i was attempting to make was about the law itself and the reason it was put in place.
The people who were living in an era when every man carried a gun, repsonded to gun violence by ban guns within city limits. Thus the citizens of Tombstone ,Dodge City and Coffeville, were either dumb or were duped by the propaganda spewed at them by the mainstream media.
Or maybe they were all Democrats

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2624 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
What you seem to mean is "What do I do when my interpretation of the Constitution re: guns doesn't fly with the courts?"
And you'll have to answer that yourself. One hopes it won't be a violent, irrational answer.
The Constitution was written so any person with an average ability to read and understand the English language can easily read and understand the Constitution.
The Constitution does not need interpretion. It needs only enforcement. That is the ill-served function of the Supreme Court.
If you disagree, please provide text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.

If the Supreme court continually rules in obvious contradiction to the Constitution, and continues to contradict itself on its rulings, then the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity. When the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity, the government will be required to replace that normally occurring motivation with coercion. When the government applies the necessary coercion, the people will object.
That is why it is critical for the Democrats to disarm the American population.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2625 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
First the contributer who's post I was replying to stated that if regulations and laws were applied to this list of items he would allow his guns to be regulated. Thus at least as far as this one person goes I have clearly assuaged a very troubled mind.
There are no constiutional issues reelvent to any of those items mentioned, true,but I never made any refrence to the constution. It was the writer that I was responding to that drew the parrallel, thus your lecturing the wrong guy.
Wyatt Earp was a criminal himself. Most sheriffs and marshall in that era were accomplished gunfighters. Short of bringing in the army an accomplished gun fighter was the best bet to enforce law. This fact gives us both1\2 a point.
To you ...The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
To me......Its is best that drunks have fist fights rather tha gunfights in the saloon,or best stated. Not every one is responsile enough ,law abiding enough or sane & sober enough to be allowed to carry a conceled weapon.
Finally the wild streets of Chicago. The Chicago police force would have to dedicate all of is man power in order to enforce the gun law. An impossibility. The wild streets of Chicago also give us both 1\2 point
To you...There is no point in tossing another law on the pile, if you do not even attempt to enforce it, then that law was a waste of time
To me.....Registration of sales ...why because it is a low cost protectent that is easily with in reach. The existing regestration and licencing schemes have been found either constitutional of have not been challanged. Apply these nation wide and then we give law enforcement a tool to use making the good guy with the gun (And badge) more efficient..
The main thing conceeded to me by the comparison of Chicago and Tombstone, the people are sick of the violence in their streets
We are in agreement on many points.

however...

"To you ...The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
Wrong. I've known bad guys with a gun that were stopped by something other than a gun. But, that is not something that can be counted on. Another person with a gun, who knows how and when to use it, is something that can be counted on.

I just recently purchased a firearm. A call giving my personal information to the federal government was necessary for the establishment to sell the weapon to me.
So, the government has already been informed exactly who I am and that I purchased a firearm.
What else should be necessary? Please say "nothing".

"The Chicago police force would have to dedicate all of is man power in order to enforce the gun law. An impossibility."
Perhaps the city of Chicago should shift its expenditure from something else to the police to achieve an adequate number of policemen to enforce laws that are obvously being broken and creating an out of control situation. Obviously, the city of Chicago doesn't think the mass murder occurring every weekend there is a very important issue.

I've got a cheaper solution:
Train dogs to react to the presence of a firearm.
Patrol the streets where the most murders occur with these dogs.
Verify the legality of every firearm detected.
Arrest every person in possession of a firearm illegally.
Send every person in possession of a stolen firearm to prison.

Problem solved, and very cheaply.
What's wrong with that solution?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2626 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was written so any person with an average ability to read and understand the English language can easily read and understand the Constitution.
The Constitution does not need interpretion. It needs only enforcement. That is the ill-served function of the Supreme Court.
If you disagree, please provide text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.
If the Supreme court continually rules in obvious contradiction to the Constitution, and continues to contradict itself on its rulings, then the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity. When the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity, the government will be required to replace that normally occurring motivation with coercion. When the government applies the necessary coercion, the people will object.
That is why it is critical for the Democrats to disarm the American population.
BINGO->

BTW, it's interesting to note that the "alleged" killer Dorner was "vetted" by the authorities, was "allowed" to carry concealed and would have remained so even under Frankenstein's anti-A2 regulations, and was "permitted" to carry any amount of ammo that he saw fit. Naturally, his pro-Obama stance will be buried by the complicit press.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2627 Feb 13, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's do what is right, dearie, on gun safety:
THEY DESERVE A VOTE
I just happened to notice that you're not nearly as zealous about giving the victims of abortions a vote.

By the way, because all of these people who commit these mass murders were Democrats, just what in the hell makes you think they'll be voting the way the Obama cult wants?

How about we ask survivors of gun attacks about it.

Just ask them if they wished someone else had a gun when they were shot.

What do you think their answer will be?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2628 Feb 13, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
You need a license, registration and insurance to own a car
You can not be beaten to death with a large building, nor a swimming pool. You can be sued or even imprisoned if your building or swimming pool is obviously unsafe
You are correct that if you want one specific person dead almost anything can be a weapon, However if you want to kill as many as possible in as short a time as is possible. All of those thing you have mentioned above are damn inefficient.
Now here is a bit of a quiz for all of you gun rights people who believe that gun control runs counter to American traditions. Also for those who believe that if every one was carrying a gun all of the time we would all be safer.
Tombstone Arizona, the old west. The Wild West when a gun was a vital tool.
What crime was Wyatt Earp intending on enforcing that led to the shoot out at the OK corral?
Answer......
It was against the law to carry a fire arm in Tombstone.
Why? because the people who had seen with their own eyes the effects of having every one carrying a gun, reacted by banning the carrying of guns within city limits. Tombstone was not unique most towns in the old west had adopted similar laws. They just got damn sick of shoot outs in the streets.
Bill, gun ownership isn't a "tradition" as your Dear Leader would like you to believe. It is an acknowledged RIGHT guaranteed to be free of infringement by the government by the US Constitution.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2629 Feb 13, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
BINGO->
BTW, it's interesting to note that the "alleged" killer Dorner was "vetted" by the authorities, was "allowed" to carry concealed and would have remained so even under Frankenstein's anti-A2 regulations, and was "permitted" to carry any amount of ammo that he saw fit. Naturally, his pro-Obama stance will be buried by the complicit press.
naturally....

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#2630 Feb 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was written so any person with an average ability to read and understand the English language can easily read and understand the Constitution.
The Constitution does not need interpretion. It needs only enforcement. That is the ill-served function of the Supreme Court.
If you disagree, please provide text from the Constitution you have difficulty understanding.
If the Supreme court continually rules in obvious contradiction to the Constitution, and continues to contradict itself on its rulings, then the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity. When the people lose faith in the government as a constitutional entity, the government will be required to replace that normally occurring motivation with coercion. When the government applies the necessary coercion, the people will object.
That is why it is critical for the Democrats to disarm the American population.
If the Constitution is as perfect as you say then why are there 27 Amendments to it?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2631 Feb 13, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you can carry - if you have a permit, pass background checks to ensure the safety of all others around you.
Remember bubba - it ain't 1776 anymore.
Gee, To, didn't (former) Officer Dorner - one of your idealogical pisanes - meet those requirements?

Oh no!!!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2632 Feb 13, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are none sir - and the president has yet to issue any orders of this type.
Your RIGHT to own weapons are not being infringed upon - nor ever has been.
Cite any example showing the president in fact has done so.
LMAO, the pieces are in place, and he's just waiting for the next "crisis" to make the "emergency" Executive Order.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2633 Feb 13, 2013
DUH Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
ANY gun owner is potentially guilty of homicide.
That is the most insanely idiotic thing you have ever posted, comrade. Perhaps we should just go ahead and jail anyone who not only HAS a weapon, but who MIGHT one day obtain one? This way you will be all safe and sound from all of the potenial murderers.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#2634 Feb 13, 2013
Duh Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
F--k the NRA and you.
Running out of arguments, eh?

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 17 min Brian_G 35,436
News Closings set in NYC cop's trial in deadly stair... 37 min Cordwainer Trout 17
News Gingrich: GE 'clever' to avoid corporate taxes (May '11) 38 min Legal Polygamy 133
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 57 min OzRitz 1,348,304
News Will Hillary Clinton Go to Jail? 1 hr DR X 2
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr The Sin City Cat 370,954
News Axelrod: Clinton should look inward over struggles 1 hr Legal Polygamy 66
More from around the web