Skip to comments.
People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary
| 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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
posted on 01/17/2013 8:55:21 AM PST
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 8:59:12 AM PST
(Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
TREASON - in real-time, pre-meditated, in-your-face, unquestioned, ABETTED, unchecked, continuous, ongoing...
posted on 01/17/2013 9:00:04 AM PST
Sounds like another Fed in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:03:34 AM PST
(Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:03:56 AM PST
by Dead Corpse
(I will not comply.)
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:04:46 AM PST
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:05:00 AM PST
And we apparently don’t need a defense secretary either.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:05:22 AM PST
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
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.
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" . . .
posted on 01/17/2013 9:06:18 AM PST
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
Really? Then tell that to the rebels in Syria, Egypt, and Libya.
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.)
How surprising, the govt. doesn’t think we should be able to defend ourself agains the government.
SItuational ethics, at it’s best.
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.
The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life; These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
commonly called the first law of nature...If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."
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"
" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...
Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.
From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."
Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).
By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.
Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)
After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.
When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.
Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.
Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.
The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.
Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.
There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.
Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."
The Swiss have got it CORRECT !Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !
The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed
until they TRY to take it.
Read Second Amendment: Its Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
posted on 01/17/2013 9:09:34 AM PST
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Dead Corpse
They are, banned and reviled as “KopKiller” bullets and thus regulated and tainted by the BATFE, and fearful paranoiac governments.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:09:41 AM PST
(Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:10 AM PST
"People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary.
The 0bama regime is the best advertisement why people do.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:16 AM PST
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."
posted on 01/17/2013 9:10:35 AM PST
“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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:11:13 AM PST
by The Toll
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.
posted on 01/17/2013 9:11:39 AM PST
(Live the oath you took or get out of office!)
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?
posted on 01/17/2013 9:12:41 AM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson