Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary
Reuters ^ | Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:12am EST | David Alexander

Posted on 01/17/2013 8:55:16 AM PST by Olog-hai

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.

Asked by a soldier what President Barack Obama would do to protect school children from gun violence without infringing Americans’ right to own guns, Panetta said action was needed after the attack on a Connecticut school in December in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

He told members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza (Italy) that there were areas where steps could be taken. “I mean, who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” …

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; govtabuse; liberalstooge; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2013 8:55:21 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“I mean, who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” …Leon Panetta, braindead moron.

Seriously?
Armor piercing rounds have been illegal to own for years, BATFE said so.
So where does Panetta say they are for sale at?
Also, it appears that all of these assclowns have never heard of let alone read the 2nd Amendment.


2 posted on 01/17/2013 8:59:12 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

TREASON - in real-time, pre-meditated, in-your-face, unquestioned, ABETTED, unchecked, continuous, ongoing...

FULP


3 posted on 01/17/2013 9:00:04 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Sounds like another Fed in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.


4 posted on 01/17/2013 9:03:34 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

They shouldn’t be. Anything that could be an effective weapon in the hands of the civilian militia is covered by the Second Amendment.

This is everything from small rocks to fully appointed AEGIS missile cruisers.


5 posted on 01/17/2013 9:03:56 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Senator Sessions:
General Dempsey, in one of your criteria for determining what we might do militarily, you say you have to ask the question as to weather the question is worth the cost and is consistent with law and what law. What law does the United States military look to?

General Dempsey:
Yeah, if I could, I would like to address both because they are related. So costs resources risk uncured elsewhere by the use of force, one other place. So, you know it is a zero sum game. We take them from some place else, we use them for how long, and that’s the kind of issue for costs. Is it and in course of (what did Jesse Jackson Say?).

The issue of legal basis is important though. We act with the authorized use of military force at either the consent of a government, so we are invited in, or, out of national self defense, and there is a very clear criteria for that. And then the last one is with some kind of international legal basis (unintelligible).

Senator Sessions:
Wait a minute, let’s talk about an international legal basis. You answer under the constitution to the United States government, do you not? And, you don’t need any international support before you would carry out a military operation authorized by the Commander in Chief.

General Dempsey:
No, of course not, that’s the second…

Senator Sessions:
I just want to know because there are a lot of references in here to international matters before we can make a decision. And I want to make sure that the United States military, I understand and I know you do, that we are not dependent on a NATO resolution or a U.N. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the United States.

Now secretary Penetta, in your remarks you talk about, we are working first to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join European Union and Arab League and imposing sanctions. And then you note that China and Russia have repeatedly blocked U.N. Security Council from taking action. Are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so, if the U.N. Security Council did not agree?

Secretary Panetta:
When it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, then obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in Libya.

Senator Sessions:
Now, some for legal basis, we’re worried about international legal basis, but nobody worried about the fundamental constitutional legal basis that this congress has over war. We were not asked in stunningly direct violation of War Powers Act whether or not you believe it is constitutional, it certainly didn’t comply with it. We spent our time worrying the U.N., the Arab League, NATO, and too little time in my opinion worrying about the elected representatives of the United States.

Do you think you can act without congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?

Secretary Panetta:
No, again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we want to get permission from congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.

Senator Sessions:
Well, I’m almost breathless about that, because what I heard you say here is, we’re going to seek international approval and then we will come and tell congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval. I want to just say to you, that’s a big, wouldn’t you agree, you served in the congress, wouldn’t you agree that that would be pretty breathtaking to the average American. So would you like to clarify that.

Secretary Panetta:
But I’ve also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who has always reserved to right to defend this country if necessary.

Senator Sessions:
But you, before we do this, you would seek permission from international authorities?

Secretary Panetta:
If we’re working with international coalition, we are working with NATO, we would want to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. All of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis to act.

Senator Sessions:
On what legal basis are you looking for? What entity?

Secretary Panetta:
Well obviously, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one, if we develop an international coalition beyond NATO, then obviously some kind of U.N. Security resolution …

Senator Sessions:
A coalition of, so your saying NATO would give you a legal basis and an ad hock coalition of nations would provide a legal basis.

Secretary Panetta:
If we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we need to make that justified. We can’t just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act.

Senator Sessions:
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?

Secretary Panetta:
Obviously if the U.N. passed a security resolution as it did in Libya, we would do that, if NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, then we would rely on that. So we have options here if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation.


6 posted on 01/17/2013 9:04:46 AM PST by Haddit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It’s not their job to define our “need.” It’s up to us as individuals under the Second Amendment to decide our own need.

Perhaps we are purchasing high powered firearms in anticipation of a need.


7 posted on 01/17/2013 9:05:00 AM PST by mom.mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

And we apparently don’t need a defense secretary either.


8 posted on 01/17/2013 9:05:22 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I am not willing to take that kind of advice from a Secretary of Defense who has yet to convince me that he thinks the US military should be properly armed and used to protect American citizens.


9 posted on 01/17/2013 9:05:58 AM PST by hometoroost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
There are a lot of things we don't need. It that's the measure, then we don't "need" a government which is measured at about 25% of GDP.
We don't "need" more than a single pair of shoes
We don't "need" an apartment larger than 400 SF
We don't "need" a house larger than 400 SF apartment
We don't "need" any car but a Nissan Versa ($11,000)
We don't "need" cable tv
We don't "need" 500 tv channels
We don't "need" public TV
We don't "need" art museums
We don't "need" movies/films
We don't "need" newspapers
We don't "need" . . .
10 posted on 01/17/2013 9:06:18 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Really? Then tell that to the rebels in Syria, Egypt, and Libya.


11 posted on 01/17/2013 9:07:35 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The only thing that Hollywood gets right about guns is that criminals will always get them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

How surprising, the govt. doesn’t think we should be able to defend ourself agains the government.

SItuational ethics, at it’s best.


12 posted on 01/17/2013 9:08:48 AM PST by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a person who DESPISES the military, is WRONG.
We NEED those weapons with as large a capacity magazine as possible, to defend ourselves from the TYRANTS in the government who will assault you and me, when they come to take our guns.

The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.


Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember: Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
13 posted on 01/17/2013 9:09:34 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

They are, banned and reviled as “KopKiller” bullets and thus regulated and tainted by the BATFE, and fearful paranoiac governments.


14 posted on 01/17/2013 9:09:41 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Whenever any party opens a line with "Nobody needs", I simply ignore them. Unless that party is paying for the goods, they have no say over what I need. I earn the money and purchase what I want. Beware any time you allow another to power to "decide what you need". Once you've ceded that authority, you are screwed. The communist mantra, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" has been applied to you. The parties in control will squeeze every last drop of blood from you and give only enough back to keep you alive...as long as that suits their purposes.
15 posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:10 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary."

The 0bama regime is the best advertisement why people do.

16 posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:16 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Yet another attempt at reframing the discussion. "Need" is not an operative word; nobody cares what someone needs. If you go down to basics, the only thing that a person truly needs to survive is a cave and food. That's why we don't discuss needs. The society progressed past the basic needs; now a sports car aficionado needs a good car, whereas a ham radio operator needs the new Icom IC-9100 and a 500' tower with a 16-element beam for each band down to 160 meters :-) Your needs are just your feelings. The society only needs to know about your needs when they translate into purchases.

That's why discussing the need is harmful. Professional trolls (a.k.a. politicians) can always prove that white is black and that you don't really need anything that you used to have - like your money, your freedom, your family, your life, your country. This is why you don't want to hear about "needs."

17 posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:35 AM PST by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“action is needed” after Sandy Hook. Keep hearing that but have yet to hear anyone explain exactly “why” action is needed? I’m not under that impression at all. Seems to me that knee-jerk legislation is pretty juvenile.


18 posted on 01/17/2013 9:11:13 AM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Whew! I was worried there for a second or two. Leon pinata is an idiot. Lucky for me I don’t have any “assault weapons”! Just semi-auto rifles with cosmetic upgrades. Sadly the were all melted when Mt. Pinatubo erupted and the pyroclastic cloud overtook them. Longing for the days of THE Donald. Rumsfeld that is. LOL!

Carson City. Noon. Saturday 1/19.


19 posted on 01/17/2013 9:11:39 AM PST by rktman (Live the oath you took or get out of office!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The Media craz-phrase....assault weapons. Their copy-cat repetition of that term is like "kicking the can down the road..." etc.....someone please define once and for all what the law NOW says is legal and what it is these bright lights are trying to say are not legal.....very confusing for the not caring and repeated nonsensical words for those trying to understand. What are in fact assault weapons? Does such a weapon exist?
20 posted on 01/17/2013 9:12:41 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
We don't "need" . . .

We don't "need" 0bama.

21 posted on 01/17/2013 9:12:44 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Dum bass does not realize that the average American citizen was better armed with his personal weapons up until 1957 when the US Army adopted the select fire M-14.


22 posted on 01/17/2013 9:12:56 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Based SOLELY on the reasoning the Founders had for the 2nd Amendment, it is clear that citizens NEED, at bare minimum, the same arms which may be used against them by their government. This defuses the straw man argument of well should citizens have nukes? Well if the government were to use nukes against them, then yes they need them.

As corrupt as our government is, I do not believe they would use such arms as nukes against us but I known damned well they would have all sorts of automatic weapons therefore we NEED the same.

This is the reason for “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, as once you limit the citizens ability to defend themselves from the government, you have eviscerated the 2nd Amendment. That is EXACTLY the position we currently find ourselves in with a weakened beyond usefulness 2nd Amendment.

We have been asleep and allowed them the chip enough of the 2nd Amendment away such that we can no longer stop them and they know it. We never drew a line in the sand at “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and our USSC black robed hacks will never restore the 2nd Amendment to its intended protection of American citizens from their government.

A great and initially successful experiment in limited government has failed due to the citizens lack of vigilance and allowing from K-12 and institutions of higher learning to degrade, distort and lie about the Founders and what a fantastic path they set forth for this country.


23 posted on 01/17/2013 9:15:28 AM PST by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
This from the little pussy who disarms soldiers when he has to get near them for photo-ops.

FU, Lyin' Pendejo.

24 posted on 01/17/2013 9:17:51 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

You have to remember, these morons have been brainwashed to believe that the 2nd amendment equals the National Guard.


25 posted on 01/17/2013 9:17:58 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, Forever in Rebellion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

..and who the hell needs draft-dodger service secretaries?


26 posted on 01/17/2013 9:18:04 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

Yeah, I did forget that factoid.


27 posted on 01/17/2013 9:19:04 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Funny how our retard gubmint will arm ‘rebels’ abroad and disarm citizens at home.


28 posted on 01/17/2013 9:19:36 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

He must think everyone can just ask their own personal security detail.

Why does he assume those soldiers LIKE him?


29 posted on 01/17/2013 9:21:31 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Americans do not need assault weapons what we need is more Homosexuals in our military.

After watching him in action, what we don’t need is Leon Panetta.


30 posted on 01/17/2013 9:23:58 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

what did Reagan say during one of the presidential debates?

He was responding to some MSM clown.


31 posted on 01/17/2013 9:24:51 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Well....good ole Leon “I don’t believe the President’s BJs rise to the level of an impeachable offense” Panetta....God Bless his duplicitous little keester.


32 posted on 01/17/2013 9:25:24 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
“action is needed” after Sandy Hook. Keep hearing that but have yet to hear anyone explain exactly “why” action is needed? I’m not under that impression at all. Seems to me that knee-jerk legislation is pretty juvenile.

Agreed. No matter what action is taken, it still won't guarantee the end of the school shootings that are totally random events that barely rate a statistical blip. The only effective action we can take is to eliminate the gun free zones that guarantee a safe place for shooters and even that doesn't mean it will never happen again.

It was no accident that our founders set up a form of governance that works at a snails pace.
33 posted on 01/17/2013 9:26:41 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Anyone against sequestration now?


34 posted on 01/17/2013 9:27:00 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

People withpower or in powerful positions seem to always be of the opinion that everyone MUST like them because after all they’re men of power.


35 posted on 01/17/2013 9:27:32 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

The Idiocracy marches on...

Weapons don't have human qualities or intent. Anything can be an assault weapon. Defining something by law does not make it into something else if the intention is demagoguery.

A well-trained attack dog can be an assault weapon.
A brick can be an assault weapon.
(and you may become a felon if you allow a criminal access to your unsecured bricks.)

A bat can be an assault weapon.
A well-placed rattlesnake can be an assault weapon.
An elected imbecile can be an assault weapon.
A well-placed rattlesnake can be an assault weapon.

Reminds me of the attempt by at least one state legislature, many years ago to redefine the math constant pi, to create a kinder, simpler human environment.

The obvious fundamental concept here is that, without a human intervention to create it, assault weapons can't exist. The asinine approach to a real problem today is like trying to outlaw fire. If the hydrant is two blocks away, let's spray water there, because at least you're doing something!

Amazing, the juvenile level of intellect that is a requirement of members of this idiocracy.

36 posted on 01/17/2013 9:28:29 AM PST by publius911 (Look for the Union Label -- then buy something else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mom.mom
It’s not their job to define our “need.”

The first ten amendments constitute the Bill Of Rights, not the Bill Of Needs.

37 posted on 01/17/2013 9:28:45 AM PST by Graybeard58 (Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“I mean, who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” …

We, the resistance do, when “you guys” come to try to disarm us.


38 posted on 01/17/2013 9:29:01 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This is just more muddying the waters regarding the language used in this debate.

The Defense Secretary needs to shut his pie hole.


39 posted on 01/17/2013 9:30:39 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

He’s read the Declaration of Independence and understands the Second Amendment.

He is one of the oppressors disarming the patriots who would remove the oppressors by force. He knows this is not about hunting or “the children”.


40 posted on 01/17/2013 9:30:49 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No. We need defense weapons. Badly!


41 posted on 01/17/2013 9:32:24 AM PST by crosshairs (They are only assault weapons in the hands of tyrannical governments and criminals. Ban both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Armor piercing bullets are quite legal for long arms. They are only disallowed for public consumption in the handgun variety.

Before the recent scare, I could have pointed you to numerous in-stock, on-line sources for AP in .223, .308, .50, etc. Everyone seems to be out-of-stock right now...

Heck, even the CMP recently had oldish Greek, steel core .30-06 for sale.


42 posted on 01/17/2013 9:33:43 AM PST by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mom.mom

Hey Panetta: Do. Not. Tell. Me. What. I. Need.

Got it Leon?


43 posted on 01/17/2013 9:34:11 AM PST by rhubarbk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

All the U.S. freeloaders need is a tin cup, but no one is talking about that. Why are our "needs" so one sided in this debate?

44 posted on 01/17/2013 9:34:21 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

[[Panetta said action was needed after the attack on a Connecticut school in December in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.]]

Hmmm- did panetta even bother to mention how many innocent children have died in their own homes because criminals with guns mrudered them and their parents didn’t have a gun to protect themsleves and the police arrived too late to save the kids DESPITE THE FACT that the left has assured us- assured us that all we need for proterction is the police?

What hte hell is wrong with peopel liek panetta? Maybe he’s theo ne America needs protection AGAINST


45 posted on 01/17/2013 9:35:17 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I believe it’s only against the law to sell loaded rounds, but you can still buy the armor piercing bullets which have been pulled from military rounds and load your own.

I bought a couple of hundred at a gun show. Don’t think I’ve ever tried them on steel though.


46 posted on 01/17/2013 9:35:38 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Travis McGee
This is an escalation of the psychological warfare attack we have been under. A comment by him, to the troops ?....the psyops have officially gone HOT.

STICK TO YOUR GUNS

47 posted on 01/17/2013 9:35:54 AM PST by SENTINEL (Kneel down to God. Stand up to tyrants. STICK TO YOUR GUNS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

That is right Pinata, yall have AP and FMJ....

So tell me what are yall doing with all of the HP ammo that the FERAL government purchased?

Do you plan on using it against the LEGAL American Citizen excercising their 2nd Amendment Rights?


48 posted on 01/17/2013 9:37:17 AM PST by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

“Once you’ve ceded that authority, you are screwed.”

Just ask the kids who have to live with michelle obama’s starvation lunch program.


49 posted on 01/17/2013 9:37:49 AM PST by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary.

Come and get them, Panetta, you tyrant. I pray God the military won't obey you, but if they do, there will be blood in the streets.

Folks, the rhetoric from the Left is the worst I've ever seen it.

50 posted on 01/17/2013 9:38:15 AM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson