Skip to comments.People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary
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 ...
I mean, who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle? Leon Panetta, braindead moron.
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.
TREASON - in real-time, pre-meditated, in-your-face, unquestioned, ABETTED, unchecked, continuous, ongoing...
Sounds like another Fed in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
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.
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?
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 thats 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).
Wait a minute, lets talk about an international legal basis. You answer under the constitution to the United States government, do you not? And, you dont need any international support before you would carry out a military operation authorized by the Commander in Chief.
No, of course not, thats the second
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?
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.
Now, some for legal basis, were 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 didnt 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?
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.
Well, Im almost breathless about that, because what I heard you say here is, were 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, thats a big, wouldnt you agree, you served in the congress, wouldnt you agree that that would be pretty breathtaking to the average American. So would you like to clarify that.
But Ive also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who has always reserved to right to defend this country if necessary.
But you, before we do this, you would seek permission from international authorities?
If were 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.
On what legal basis are you looking for? What entity?
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
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.
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 cant just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act.
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?
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.
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.
And we apparently don’t need a defense secretary either.
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.
Really? Then tell that to the rebels in Syria, Egypt, and Libya.
How surprising, the govt. doesn’t think we should be able to defend ourself agains the government.
SItuational ethics, at it’s best.
They are, banned and reviled as “KopKiller” bullets and thus regulated and tainted by the BATFE, and fearful paranoiac governments.
The 0bama regime is the best advertisement why people do.
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."
“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.
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.
We don't "need" 0bama.
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.
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.
FU, Lyin' Pendejo.
You have to remember, these morons have been brainwashed to believe that the 2nd amendment equals the National Guard.
..and who the hell needs draft-dodger service secretaries?
Yeah, I did forget that factoid.
Funny how our retard gubmint will arm ‘rebels’ abroad and disarm citizens at home.
He must think everyone can just ask their own personal security detail.
Why does he assume those soldiers LIKE him?
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.
what did Reagan say during one of the presidential debates?
He was responding to some MSM clown.
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.
Anyone against sequestration now?
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.
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.
The first ten amendments constitute the Bill Of Rights, not the Bill Of Needs.
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.
This is just more muddying the waters regarding the language used in this debate.
The Defense Secretary needs to shut his pie hole.
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”.
No. We need defense weapons. Badly!
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.
Hey Panetta: Do. Not. Tell. Me. What. I. Need.
Got it Leon?
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?
[[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
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.
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?
“Once you’ve ceded that authority, you are screwed.”
Just ask the kids who have to live with michelle obama’s starvation lunch program.
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.
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.