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

#4714 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are all for rioters being able to carry out the destruction
Poor gun gnutter: never able to find the quote he needs, he makes them up. Americans insist they need to do background checks before firearm sales, KJ insists they must have been all for the Holocaust.

Is 32,000 a bigger number than 28, and change, KJ?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4715 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And in roughly 35 years of private gun ownership, mine have never killed anyone.
No one that you know of or admit to and the day isn't over yet, KJ.

Still waiting- up or down?

It seems to everyone without regard to your opinion you are in the very least a liar.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4716 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You want an unrestricted right to vote without ID, fine...
Of course, the gun gnutter- never able to find the quote he needs- makes up the quote and insists that is the way someone else feels.

Gun gnutters: they live and breath straw men and straw purchases.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4717 Mar 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already crammed that up your azz, Knob Job.
Do you like having things crammed there? Is that why you keep wanting me slap the snot out of you boy? Do you enjoy being humiliated?
Sorry, but I don't care about your sexual proclivities. That's your business. And speaking of such, you have the worst case of penis envy of anyone I've ever seen here.

The only person you contunue to humiliate here is yourself, as you were just caught repeatng the same LIE again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4718 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And since I don't sell weapons to criminals or anyone I don't know,
You don't know the people you say you know.

I knew someone personally for a couple years who turned out to not only was wanted by the FBI, but was for a time on the most wanted listed.

Still waiting: is 32K bigger than 28K?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4719 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<
The only person you contunue to humiliate here is yourself,
You mean the way I pointed out to you that 32K is larger number than 28K and you insist that numbers are going down instead of up?

I am just pointing out that you are a liar, KJ, without regard to your opinion that you don't care if felons and nutcases can get firearms that you are all to happy to provide without doing a background check.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4720 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't care about your sexual proclivities. That's your business..
And yours are yours, and I don't care but you should clear yourself off before you open the stall door.

Up or down, KJ?

Because I say they are increasing.

And you haven't refuted what I have said with real numbers.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4721 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Remove any restrictions on my right to own firearms,.
Selling deadly weapons to felons isn't your right, and certainly doesn't fall under ownership, KJ. I don't know if you can legally own the weapons you have but certainly Americans should not have to put up with you and your fellow gun gnutters selling them to anyone you damn well please while screaming it's your right.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4723 Mar 22, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Knock it off!
Wipe your chin before opening the stall door, BlowFace.

You are starting a panic among your customers.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4725 Mar 22, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, Irish Spring, manly, yes. But barenuts likes it too!
You might also put some suave on that nasty zipper cut you have on your lips.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4726 Mar 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, dipstick: two million people have been denied access to firearms with the current system and the current system has a loophole that allows 40 percent of gun sales with no background check at all.
Do you want to pretend keeping two million gun sales to felons had no impact on crime?
40 percent ?

I guess you bent over and pulled that one out of your azz or did Father Obama hand it to you ?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4727 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank youfor stressing my point of him being a responsible gun owner, and not a trigger happy nut job as you libtards continually claim we ALL are.
Oh no. He essentially proved he didn't stop the event, or even reduce it.

I'm sure he would have jumped in if they outnumbered and outgunned Loughner.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4728 Mar 22, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, Irish Spring, manly, yes. But barenuts likes it too!
You remind me of the first Rocky.

Your job is simply to be the "muscle" and not think.

You do a damn fine imitation son.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4729 Mar 22, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
40 percent ?
Put some suave on that zipper cut, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4730 Mar 22, 2013
Overseer58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I've been to several gun shows over the years. Way to pick out one small point and misrepresent it.
Gun shows do sell guns without background checks except some states that require background checks for all sales.

EXACTLY.

Way to represent your fellow gun gnutters; you lie every time you open your mouth.

They expect nothing less of you.
Stoneman

Boise, ID

#4731 Mar 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it is as if people don't pay much attention to your attempts to steer the conversations and insist the argument should stay in parameters you set.
Probably because you have already been proved to be full of sh!t.
It is as if we were talking about vehicle fatalities and you insist we should only count deaths from convertibles.
Since the wildly inflated number you spewed out for "gun deaths" must include suicides by gun, how many suicides do you think will be prevented if you restrict the amount of ammunition the weapon can hold?

Sorry, pinhead, your "argument" doesn't hold water. If you lefties want to save the world by taking other peoples' rights (along with their money), you need to use logic.

Not a liberal strong point.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#4732 Mar 22, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the wildly inflated number you spewed out for "gun deaths" must include suicides by gun, how many suicides do you think will be prevented if you restrict the amount of ammunition the weapon can hold?
Sorry, pinhead, your "argument" doesn't hold water. If you lefties want to save the world by taking other peoples' rights (along with their money), you need to use logic.
Not a liberal strong point.
Actually, if magazines were limited to seven bullets, it would stop a quite a number of liberal suicides. Many liberals would need more than seven rounds to hit themselves. Wow, that's another reason NOT to limit magazine capacities.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#4733 Mar 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside creative bookkeeping and the : crime has been on a downward trend because more people are being put in jail and kept in prison longer.
Nope, you couldn't support that assertion with a straw from a juice box. The real reason that crime has decreased since the 1990s is because of the Row v. Wade decision. Since leftist women have been getting abortions, there's less leftist kids growing up to be criminals. This is exactly why I came off the fence post about abortion, it means less leftist kids.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4734 Mar 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no. He essentially proved he didn't stop the event, or even reduce it.
I'm sure he would have jumped in if they outnumbered and outgunned Loughner.
He wasn't in any position to stop it, moron. He wasn't even attending the event. He was buying cigarettes at a nearby store when Loughner started shooting.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_1710...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4735 Mar 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun shows do sell guns without background checks except some states that require background checks for all sales.
EXACTLY.
Way to represent your fellow gun gnutters; you lie every time you open your mouth.
They expect nothing less of you.
Do federally licensed gun dealers have to perform a background check when they sell firearms at gun shows? Is it optional?(serious question)

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,375,354
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Patriot AKA Bozo 58,884
News Donald Trump, pictured, was labelled 'divisive,... 25 min BHM5267 50
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 33 min _White American_ 381,674
News Paris climate deal on track for early start 55 min don t drink the k... 319
News What the Black Lives Matter campaign gets wrong (Aug '15) 1 hr bozo 43
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr Dr Guru 213,254
More from around the web