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

#4904 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should start by trying to help yourself which apparently is your greatest obstacle.
I'm sure you've never had any trouble "helping yourself," though...:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4905 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
True dip, but Gifford didn't have any protection because she didn't think she needed it while the president has an elite force designed to keep him alive and that includes surveillance of buildings in the vicinity.
The comparison still makes no sense whatever, and has no real meaning in the context of this discussion. Nor did "surveillance of buildings" help JFK much, come to that...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4906 Mar 26, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Keep posting meaningless replies.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#4907 Mar 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you've never had any trouble "helping yourself," though...:)
Speak for yourself. Oh, you already did.:)
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4908 Mar 26, 2013
The Ryan Budget:
Kill the child – spare the lamb!
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4909 Mar 26, 2013
The Ryan budget is just another one of the GOPers inability to deal with reality! Obviously a budget is important and cutting our deficits matters greatly. But in a country in which a CEO’s salary are 300 times more than their employees’, corporate profits and the stock market are at record highs, jobs are being created at a snail pace and median incomes are sagging while corporate managers receive millions in bonuses, we have far more basic and grave issues to grapple with.

This country has always operated under deficit spending, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as economic growth outpaces it. Please note that the worst deficit year as a percentage of GNP was 2009 ... the last fiscal year of the George W. Bush presidency, and his lasting legacy.

The United States is like a business whose model for making revenue is failing, trying to save itself by cutting down on travel expenditures and the cost of making photocopies. Sure, we shouldn't overspend. But if we don't figure out what business we're in -- what new industries will create tomorrow's jobs, what kind of new workers we'll need, what kind of infrastructure we must have to be competitive and attract investment -- our deficit problems will seem minor compared with our social and political concerns.

Our most important national discussion should not be about spending but about investment. We need to recognize that some federal programs help grow the economy and weigh the return on investment we will get from these and which are essential to growing the new industries that will be the employers of tomorrow ... and will provide the growth that is the only real solution to our debt issues.

The Ryan budget cuts transportation spending in a country that has neglected its highways and bridges for over half a century. It doesn't plan for the infrastructure spending we will need to respond to the consequences of climate change (like hurricane relief) or anticipate the investment we could make to avoid such problems in the first place. It doesn't discuss how to expand information technology and next-generation energy infrastructure as we must.
http://billmoyers.com/content/live-chat-with-...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4910 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
This month or last month?
According to the latest poll,
9 in 10 back universal gun background checks
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus and Brian Montopoli.

Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

"If you want to buy a gun -- whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one," Mr. Obama said Wednesday, adding that "as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."

++

Lick your lips, DL.

You have boyfriend all over your face.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#4911 Mar 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The comparison still makes no sense whatever, and has no real meaning in the context of this discussion. Nor did "surveillance of buildings" help JFK much, come to that...
No it did not and the fact that a citizen had a concealed weapon at the Gifford shooting and didn't use it is irrelevant. There are other instances where armed citizens have prevented or stopped potential mass shootings.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4913 Mar 26, 2013
Really, the GOPers are worried about federal expenditures?
The Congressional Research Service says the federal government spent nearly $4.7 million on former presidents last year. That covers a $200,000 pension, compensation and benefits for office staff, and other costs like travel, office space and postage. The costliest former president, you guessed it, Gdub Bush, who clocked in at just over $2.3 million. That includes almost $400,000 for 8,000 square feet of office space and $95,000 in telephone costs.
130,000 dead Iraqis
5,000 dead US troops
800,000 Iraqi orphans
1,400,000 Iraqis wounded and displaced
500,000 wounded US personnel
Taxpayer gets billed for $6 trillion
Mission accomplished
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4914 Mar 26, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>While your at it, what does the Daily Kos say about global warming? Sip that Kool-Aid carefully, you don't want any to dribble down your shirt.
Huh?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4915 Mar 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep posting meaningless replies.
Go look at the film and watch Kennedy's head move and tell me he was shot from that building.

Remember to pour yourself some Kool-Aid.

Don't forget to stop by the mirror if you want to see the king of meaningless replies.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#4916 Mar 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
9 in 10 back universal gun background checks
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus and Brian Montopoli.
Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.
"If you want to buy a gun -- whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one," Mr. Obama said Wednesday, adding that "as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."
++
Lick your lips, DL.
You have boyfriend all over your face.


I always pass instant background checks.Walk in, purchaser Bushmaster AR 15, walk out with same about twenty minutes later.. In contrast all those homies wearing Obama t-shirts in Chicago don't do background checks.

Have you had your gay fetish all your life?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#4917 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
Really, the GOPers are worried about federal expenditures?
The Congressional Research Service says the federal government spent nearly $4.7 million on former presidents last year. That covers a $200,000 pension, compensation and benefits for office staff, and other costs like travel, office space and postage. The costliest former president, you guessed it, Gdub Bush, who clocked in at just over $2.3 million. That includes almost $400,000 for 8,000 square feet of office space and $95,000 in telephone costs.
130,000 dead Iraqis
5,000 dead US troops
800,000 Iraqi orphans
1,400,000 Iraqis wounded and displaced
500,000 wounded US personnel
Taxpayer gets billed for $6 trillion
Mission accomplished
Let's see, when Obama took office the national debt was 10.7 trillion. Now it is 16.7 trillion and the U3 is still 7.7%

MISSION SNAFU
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#4918 Mar 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
9 in 10 back universal gun background checks
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus and Brian Montopoli.
Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.
"If you want to buy a gun -- whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one," Mr. Obama said Wednesday, adding that "as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."
++
Lick your lips, DL.
You have boyfriend all over your face.
Hey flamer, your poll was taken in January The most recent one that I posted was March . Tick, tock...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4919 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
I always pass instant background checks.
I don't believe a word out of your sticky mouth, DL.

But I don't care.

PS: 92 percent Americans favor background checks. Source given. When you boyfriend is done, you can reach around and shuve that up your azz, too.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4920 Mar 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Millions more are FOR gun control, you don't get your way just because you're in the NRA or affiliated with them.
Criminals have firearms because they steal them from multiple-gun owners, or because someone bought them legally and they got to circulating around and into criminal society. The more guns, the more guns criminals will have. This isn't rocket science - to my knowledge, there aren't any gun factories for criminals.
Take guns OUT of circulation - that will reduce the number criminals possess. It's suprisingly simple.
"So what? Millions more are FOR gun control, you don't get your way just because you're in the NRA or affiliated with them."

So what? YOU think just because YOU may get a majority, YOU can "get your way"...? It doesn't work that way...that's why we have "rights"...remember those things enumerated in the Bill of Rights...? The rights of the minority are protected from the agressions of the majority...but you already know that, don't you..?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4921 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
Have you had your gay fetish all your life?
For you, it's a life style.

You should change your bib before you leave the bathroom rest top, though.

You are a mess!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4922 Mar 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's so easy to dismiss a gun-related post that starts off talking about gasoline engines.
LOL!
There SHOULD be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, followed by a complete and harsh regulation of all firearms in this country.
Tough regulations in Australia ENDED mass shootings there. We could do it, too.
We just have to push the gun-nuts out of the way.
"There SHOULD be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, followed by a complete and harsh regulation of all firearms in this country."

I love it when the "frustrated control freaks" show their real colors.

"We just have to push the gun-nuts out of the way."

I'm curious now...and just how would you "push the gun-nuts out of the way"...? What will you even do when they "push" back...?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4923 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey flamer, your poll was taken in January The most recent one that I posted was March ..
My poll was on background checks.

I know, your boyfriend popped his cork and you got distracted.

If you want a March poll, StickyGums:

'Quinnipiac University’s poll, conducted March 7, found that 88 percent of those surveyed support such checks while 10 percent oppose them. Among gun owners, that number is 85-13 percent, respectively.'

Lick your lips, DL, you are a mess!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4924 Mar 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
So what? YOU think just because YOU may get a majority, YOU can "get your way"...? It doesn't work that way..
Yes, that is exactly how it works, especially when it is an overwhelming majority, and especially when ignorant dumphuqs like yourself don't know dicque about the US constitution.

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) 1 min cathy1691823 1,418,442
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 19 min katrina 88 393,254
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 43 min Earthling-1 35,571
News In-person voting fraud is rare, doesn't affect ... 55 min Dee Dee Dee 171
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 61,026
News Trump Time Capsule #81: 'What the Hell Do You H... 1 hr INFIDEL 52
News Clinton leads Trump, August 1 hr Chilli J 336
More from around the web