Posted on 01/17/2013 1:34:01 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed assault weapons.
From Reuters:
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 that there were areas where steps could be taken,
“I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?”
In the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting – the latest mass killing in the United States on a list that includes Columbine in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007 – Obama launched the biggest gun-control push in generations.
He asked Congress on Wednesday to approve an assault weapons ban and background checks for all gun buyers.
Panetta, who is on a week-long trip to Europe, was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff when the United States banned the sale of assault weapons in the 1990s.
“Unfortunately that ban went out of effect,” he said.
He added that he was an enthusiastic hunter.
“I’ve been duck hunting since I was 10-years-old. I love to hunt and I love to be able to share that joy with my kids. But for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Panetta’s statements effectively deny the purpose of the unorganized militia and the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment. Any person who denies the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment is unfit to serve as an officer of the Federal, State, or local governments where an oath to protect and defend the Constitution is required. Panetta should resign from office or be removed from office by the U.S. Congresx for breaching his oath of office.
Nobody but you is even talking about AP ammo which is already illegal for civilians dumbass.
“Who needs armor-piercing bullets ...”.
Who the hell is this schmuck to tell me what I need?
Who needs an assault rifle??
Anne Franks family did.
1. “Assault Weapons” have been illegal since 1934.
2. The 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect citizens (us peasants who don’t “need” assault weapons) from the government (the guys who actually have the warp 9 killing weapons).
We don’t need “Assault Rifles”any more then we need Paneta as Secretary of Defence.
Thank GOD,this clown is leaving soon.
Anyway Civilians can’t own “Assault Rifles”Unless they are given to us by Obombers Attorney General Eric Holder.
That was Obombers first bite at the Second Amendment and it cost the lives of thousands of Mexican citizen’s.
Only Mexican drug cartel members need them...
They’re the only ones who will be having the assault rifles, that is, except for every criminal in the United States. We need to rid oursleves of these enslaving government officials who scoff at our constitution and disrespect our history.
“Who the hell is this schmuck to tell me what I need?”
He is Jerald Nadler’s friend.
Who said the government gets to decide what I need?
And
Who said that the second amendment was about what I need anyway?
Do I need free speech?
Do I need property?
Do I need to be able to travel freely?
Do I need to be able to worship according to my choice?
Need - really Panetta?
Panetta is too close to the forest to see the trees.
So the Democrat is saying “People Don’t ‘Need’ Assault Rifles” (What’s that!?), and turns the conversation from whatever an “Assault Rifle” is to “who the Hell needs armor-piercing bullets from ordinary citizens?”
By switching subjects quickly he spins some heads, and causes them to agree with him (Head nodding) rather than discuss the former topic much less the latter topic.
Old trick of the manipulative Left.
I got a lot of crap I dont need. Panetta is on page one of the short list.
... was the catalyst for the first shot.
Response: In the sense of "Need" true enough at this time in history. However, in terms of the right to own one an erroneous and misleading statement:
“I’ve been duck hunting since I was 10-years-old. I love to hunt”
That’s the point, Lil Caesar intends to say who’s a duck and who isn’t.
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...how hard is that, Lenny?
“banning them is either just a symbolic act or just the beginning.”
On the other side, buying them all up is symbolic, or the beginning ...
>> Aren’t armor piercing bullets already banned for the general public? H.R.3132 became Public law on 8/28/1986 Law No: 99-408
“Sort of.”
The legality of so-called armor-piercing bullets is actually a fascinating subject; I got interested and googled a little on the topic yesterday.
Here’s a couple links to get you started: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
http://gunwalker.com/5.7x28mm/armorpiercing.html
...and there’s lots more on the interwebz.
Hey Leon, where can I get some depleted uranium rounds for my
“assault rifle”?
,
The response should be that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. period no further comment
The next question should be is why do want to prevent me from having an ‘assualt weapon’ (whatever that is)?
The idea would be to force them to justify taking gun rights away and not discuss why I want to own guns.
The supposed reasons for taking guns away is not borne out by statistical data, in fact it is wuite the opposite. So therefore, why do they want to ban assual weapons??
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.