Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Panetta: Civilians Don’t Need Assault Guns

Panetta: Civilians Don’t Need Assault Guns
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta supports prohibitions on armor-piercing ammunition.

ICENZA, Italy (UPI) — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told U.S. troops in Italy Thursday he doesn’t understand why some people think they need assault weapons.

“I mean, for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon,” said Panetta, who is visiting NATO allies in Europe before leaving the Defense Department.

The gun control issue came up during a question-and-answer session with members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vicenza, Italy.

“I believe in the Second Amendment,” he said. “I believe people have the right to own weapons. But, you know, when these kids are getting killed in schools — and I know it’s tragic. I know what an impact it must have on those families — we just have to try to do what we can to make sure that we take some steps here to try to protect those kids.”

Panetta, a former California congressman who served as President Bill Clinton’s White House Chief of Staff in 1994 when a 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons passed Congress, said the government can take actions to reduce gun violence that don’t undermine gun ownership rights.

He said he also supports prohibitions on armor-piercing ammunition.

“I think there are — you know, there are areas like armor-piercing bullets — I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” he asked. Panetta said he has hunted ducks since age 10 and loved “to share that joy with my kids.”

It’s going to be a tough debate,” he said. “This is not going to be easy.”

UPI - United Press International, Inc.

Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Panetta: Civilians Don’t Need Assault Guns”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Harold Olsen

    Actually, Penetta is probably right. But, you never know. The way things are in this country between the crooks and our current Nazi government, they may become necessary. Most people who own guns probably don’t really need them. But so what. We have the right to own guns and I believe we have the right to own any type of gun we can get, and have as large a magazine as we want. I personally do not own guns and I do not like them. But I do believe in a law abiding citizen having the right to own any weapons that he chooses.

    • Warrior

      Harold, then why should a person save for a “rainy day” or for retirement? The gubmint will take care of you. And therein lies the whole conundrum. Nanny State or Free State? Personal Responsibility or No Responsibility. Sure appears as though the current “leaders” and their “followers” prefer the latter.

    • tgsherman

      If our guns are taken then do the Feds & law enforcement need assault weapons or do they even need any weapons?? After all we have the military to protect us!!

      • Jim in NY

        The military is the Feds

      • eddie47d

        Your forming your own circular firing squad and mounting an attack. I would love for the Feds to stand down on using assault type weapons also. The problem is that our gun manufacturers pump out weapons with easy access to everyone. The Feds feel they are outnumbered because the criminals also have that easy access to those weapons so they demand the same firepower. Some gun owners hate the Feds and feel they need the same firepower to kill the Federal Agents coming to their door. I think you are all crazy and doing nothing but buying into that same line that a more powerful weapon will make you safer.

      • WILDFIRE

        Eddie and his idiotic 3rd world thinking along with Panetta. – ” I think you are all crazy and doing nothing but buying into that same line that a more powerful weapon will make you safer.”

        How do you think we become a “super power”, and have gone for so many years without an attempt of invasion? I guarantee if we had a weaker, less powerful military than others. We would have been attacked by one of the Countries that we have stepped on by now.

        Furthermore, the 2A is not just about the peoples right to defend them self during a residential invasion or personal assault. It is about overturning a tyrannical government.

        Learn the “Declaration of Independence” The first few paragraphs will explain why “We the People” should have the ability and the right to equally arm ourselves with the same power as the military. You think “We the People” could overthrow a government with bb guns and sling shots against 50 cal machine guns and automatic high capacity assault rifles? The Government has already banned the People from having Automatic weapons, which puts “We the people” at a disadvantage against a abusive government. Now they want to chip away a little more by banning the semi- automatics and high capacity mags. In 5 -10 years they will come back around and chip away a little more and take all long range rifles and shot guns, then any hand guns larger than a .22 cal will be banned. Eventually having a paint ball gun will be a crime because the gun looks to real and scary.

        IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

        When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

        Panetta of all people knows why “We the People” need these arms. He hasn’t risen to his position or age without ever reading or learning and knowing about the “Declaration of Independence”. However the people by which he is addressing probably don’t know it, because the public school system fails to teach the youth about it and how the Government is designed to work such as “Checks and Balances” and so on.

      • Don

        Mr. Panetta, assault is a behavor, not a device.And just to let the folks here know, it is important for citizens to be equally armed in case of a tyranical government. You know this. Stop trying to BS people.

      • eddie47d

        Not a bad spiel Wildfire yet when will you figure it out that when the 2A was written there was no standing army and it was written in that context. Now there is no longer a need for any militias anywhere which at that time in 1776 was the individual citizen.

      • JeffH

        eddie, apparently the Framers, the SCOTUS and approximatly 120 million-odd gun owners in the United States, not counting illegally owned guns don’t agree with you.

      • ChristyK

        In response to Panetta’s question of why do civilians need assault weapons. My answer would be: Assault weapons are pretty much the same as hunting weapons except they have cool (aka scary looking) stuff on them. The attachments don’t make them any more dangerous that most other guns. Also, I have a right to defend my family. We live outside of town and the response time for law enforcement would be at minimum 15 minutes and likely 20-30 minutes. Any bad thing that might happen will be over a long time before they show up. Even trained policemen only have a 1 hit out of 4 shots ratio. Most civilians that have never been in a life threatening sitiuation will be worse. If there are more than one attacker (such as a gang), I may need a lot of bullets to defend myself. I intend to have plenty of ammo and preferably a more powerful/accurate gun than my attacker.

        Also, Panetta & others going specifically after assault weapons doesn’t make sense if they are trying to stop deaths. Here are some stats: Assault Rifles-18 deaths, Rifles-453, handguns-6,009 deaths, blunt objects (like hammer)-674 deaths, auto accidents-32,855 deaths, drunk driving-10,839 deaths, knives-1,817 deaths, and hands/feet/fists-869 deaths. Obviously, not even a gun is needed for those that choose to kill, and assault weapons have the smallest amount of people killed. There is only one reason to go after assault rifles and that is to undermine the 2nd amendment and disarm the people.

        Our founders were clear about the intent of the 2nd amendment in their extra-constitutional writings. It was primarily about defending the people from government tyrranny, but also allowing all people to defend themselves from all attacks. They speak specifically about giving the people the right to bear the same arms as the government because the point of the 2nd amendment was to defend against government tyrranny. They were also careful in their language. They chose to say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. They didn’t say “bear muskets”. They didnt’ say “bear guns”. They allowed for the fact that technology would advance and wished the people to have the right to bear arms as powerful as the government (foreign & domestic).

        Laws do not stop criminals and madmen from getting access to guns. If only stops law abiding citizens from having guns for defending themselves against said criminals & madmen. Criminals will always have guns. To make us safer, we need all Americans to have and know how to use guns. For much of the history of our country, it was a legal requirement for all adult males (except the elderly) to have sufficient guns & ammo & training to defend themselves and our country. We would be best served by going back to this stance. Many people that currently say that guns should be banned or limited would not say so if they had experience and training with guns. Guns aren’t scary. Only the criminals & madmen are scary. Even if they don’t have access to guns, they will find ways to injure and kill the innocent. Please allow people to defend themselves, thereby saving lives.

      • CZ52

        “Not a bad spiel Wildfire yet when will you figure it out that when the 2A was written there was no standing army and it was written in that context. Now there is no longer a need for any militias anywhere which at that time in 1776 was the individual citizen.”

        eddie it does not matter if you believe there is no longer a need for militias or not. The constitution has NOT been amended to remove or alter the meaning of the 2nd. Until that is done the 2nd Amendment stands as written and intended.

      • oh oh

        The founders did not trust standing armies, and neither should we. The fact they exist only increases our need for adequate weapons.

    • James Andrews

      You’re damn right we do! And the way theis government is stealing and overspending our money, outting our future and yourth into massive debt, as well as the continued loss of value of our dollar, we might jst need them someday. I hope not, but better to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones than not, especially from a tyrannical government!

      • Steve Thomas

        If gun control had anything to do with public safety, why did NY include the police in their new gun ban????? Aren’t the police the first line of defense charged with public safety?
        It really doesn’t matter (unless it is next door to a donut shop).
        When seconds count…the police are only minutes away.
        Rapists, murders, home invaders, robbers, muggers and bullies ARE REAL. Ignoring criminals does not make them go away.

      • Mike in MI

        ” Ignoring criminals does not make them go away.”

        Right, right, right, right on, on, on – Just ask that lady in Pennsylvania who had that creep ransacking their home trying to find her and her kids. Ignoring him and trying to get out of his way did not make him go away. Warning him did not make him go away. The first four shots did not make him go away.
        Shooting him the fifth round convinced him it was time to leave.

    • Jonathan

      The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, or target shooting, or even self defense. It is about the ability of the private citizenry to remove a government that has become tyrannical, by violence once all other methods are exhausted. The founders had fought a war to remove the tyrannical British government, after exhausting every effort of diplomacy and petition they had available, using weapons that were the equivalent or better that those used by the British Regular Infantry. If we are to have the ability to remove by force a tyrannical government, whether local, county, state, or national, then we need access to similar weapons that the military, who would undoubtably be ordered to stand against us, have.

      On August 1, 1946, private citizens in Athens, Tennessee, many who had recently returned from World War II, took up arms against a corrupt local government run by the Cantrell family. The Cantrells brooked no criticism of their control, arresting any who would speak out against them. The sheriff paid his deputies on a per arrest scale: the more arrests and fines, the more the deputies got paid, so many people were scurriously arrested and charge with petty crimes to pad the deputies paychecks. The Cantrells also refused to allow secret ballot voting, in defiance of state election laws.

      After numerous attempts to petition the state and Federal governments to step in (to which no effect was made by those governments), the veterans decided to run a non-partisan slate of candidates against the Cantrells. The state senator, Paul Cantrell, and his crony, Sheriff Paul Mansfield, planned to switch jobs. On the primary election day, August 1, 1946, several of the veterans group election judges were beaten and arrested by the sheriff’s deputies and a sheriff’s deputy shot a man in the back for voting for the GI candidates. After Sheriff Mansfield closed the election at 3:30 pm and seized the ballot boxes, removing them to the county jail for him to “count” in private, the citizenry of McMinn County used M1 battle rifles, British Enfield .303 battle rifles, and whatever else they had, and faced off against the sheriff. After hours of shooting, the sheriff and his cronies surrendered. The ballots were then counted per state law, and the veterans had won by a landslide.

      That was only sixty-seven years ago. This is why we have a Second Amendment.

      • joe1cr

        Right on Jonathan !!

        Bill of Rights
        The main difference between the US Constitution and constitutions of other nations is that ours was meant to empower the citizens, where other constitutions empower the state. The government, individuals acting alone or in groups, can possibly possess any “just power” to violate any Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights or their supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy nor can it rightfully and constitutionally, violate–Man’s God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with any of these rights. No President , no Congress combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man’s unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights that the self-governing people acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution–oppose any and all violators, public officials and usurpers.

        Our Constitution should only be changed through amendment where 3/4 of all the states have to agree. See Article V of the US Constitution. That is the only way for the people to retain control through their state legislatures. Changing the Constitution in any other way falls out side of Constitutional authority and is a usurpation of unauthorized Constitutional power. The Constitution has an additional layer of protection against federal intrusion into individual and state’s rights. This additional layer of protection is known as our Bill of Rights.

        It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation–in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: “. . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights–not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        They should have hung them after they gave up !

      • CZ52

        “The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, or target shooting, or even self defense. It is about the ability of the private citizenry to remove a government that has become tyrannical, by violence once all other methods are exhausted.”

        Actually it was ALL of the above. While the primary intent was about the ability of the private citizenry to remove a government that has become tyrannical, by violence once all other methods are exhausted. The authors of the second were well aware of and took for granted the use of firearms for hunting and self defence. As for the target shooting that was often if not almost always a part of the training as part of the militia. As a result all mentioned and any other legal uses of a firearm were meant to be included.

      • oh oh

        As inalienable rights, they were protected by the 9th Amendment.

    • al

      Actually Panetta has his head up and locked.
      The right it ‘keep and bear arms’ has nothing to do with Duck Hunting or any other kind of hunting for recreation.
      The 2nd Amendment is our right to defend ourselves from any enemy, foreign or domestic. This means that we, you and I, each have the right to arm ourselves with what ever weapon we can afford or find that is sufficient for our protection, and ‘this right shall not be infringed’.
      Congress nor the President can do anything to infringe this right. This right can only be changed by a change in the Original Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and God’s Law of Rights.
      The ban on the so called ‘Assault Weapon’ is against the Constitution and should be driven into the Court of the Nine Stooges to see if they have the slightest Clue about the Constitution. From their ObamaCare decision we know that most of their heads are in the same position as Panetta’s.

      • Steve Thomas

        Remember, this whole 2nd amendment fight is all smoke and mirrors. When did you last hear a story about Bengazzi????? Look up a video youtube watch?v=fhqjnxKOTSc

    • http://TWN dickboz

      Panetta, is wrong, we do need our so-called assault weapons, for protection!! from a government that persists in reducing or ability to protest their freedom restricting laws and Presidential actions!! that is the reason the 2nd amendment was written!!!

    • Benjamin Fox

      Panetta is a idiot, the crooks have them, we supplied many to the crooks and we are suppose to use pea shooters to defend ourselves against the crooks? The man is insane and needs to go to rehab to become human again with a brain that works.

    • Bob

      Police departments don’t need tanks and drones but they have them to use on us. Their all Nazi’s that should be tried for treason.

    • dan

      I wonder how Panetta would feel if a gang of armed ducks busted into his blind with
      (wait for it…………………….) fowl intent :)

    • http://aol hendrik kaarsgaren

      did anybody ever considered why Singapore is so VERY,VERY safe?
      I think people know the answer but they don’t want to know!

      • Chewy

        Singapore is safe because of their swift and severe penalties. They don’t plea bargain. It is also why it is so clean. You can be flogged for spitting or littering. There system actually deters crime, but would be considered inhumane here. Our system is basically a joke to criminals. They still hang people and have mandatory death sentences for murder and drug trafficking.

    • Arnie Tibus

      You are right in every word, Harold. I pray all thinkers are like you – free – free thinkers, so to say. Try visiting a target range one of these days and you will discover that people in these places are the safest to be with. They are respectful, friendly, and just simply good to be with. By any chemistry, that’s amiability at work.

  • eddie47d

    Thank You Leon Panetta in being courageous in speaking up. The military understands the need for powerful weapons in combat yet we have civilians who want to emulate their actions. Some folks can’t distinguish the difference between a soldier facing a multitude of enemy forces and a civilian confronting a home invader or a robber. Gun owners continually try and equate the two as being equal when that would be as rare as finding water in the Sahara.

    • Warrior

      And “sometimes” old “ideologies, err habits” are hard to break. Wouldn’t you say?

    • RivahMitch

      Quite frankly, Leon, to protect us from you and your boss just as the founders intended. Without the ability to protect and defend ones unalienable rights, one has no unalienable rights. If you’re totally dependent on the great collective (aka Government) for your rights, they’re not yours but belong to the great collective (aka Government) and may be granted or denied at the the whim of the great collective (Government). That’s why we have a 2nd Amendment.

      • Steve E

        So true.

      • Jake

        Exactly, “The Second Amendment was not created to be conditioned to the kind of weapons that people may have available to buy or whatever the federal government thinks are ideal social situations for people to own a gun.

        Governments alone are responsible for the murder of at least 250,000,000 people in the twentieth century and most of the people who were murdered were either lightly armed in comparison to their aggressors or completely disarmed.

        The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of the individuals to be equally armed as their country’s military, both to aid the military to defend the country from foreign threats, as well as to defend themselves from the Nation’s military forces, should they turn against The People. The Founding Fathers intended to provide the citizens the ability to be armed well enough to keep their country and themselves free from oppressive forces which could arise internally and externally.”

        So it’s only natural that Leon Panetta who BTW is a life long Communist and seeks the destruction of the United States ( )would not want the citizens to be armed. T

    • Adolf Schmidt

      In 99 out of 100 instances a assault rifle would not be needed by a civilian, but there are so many of these type of guns in American hands already. The previous ban on assault weapons did absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of gun violence! The laws that are being purposed now will only restrict the law abiding citizen from owning them, the criminal element will find one if he wants it! The number of deaths from car accidents is higher than deaths from gun violence. Do you think that banning sports car would reduce people from speeding? Every car on the road today can speed! The only way to reduce speeding would be to increase enforcement and penalties! This would not stop it, but it would help. The only real way, other than hiring more officers, is to promote more law abiding citizens to be trained to carry! Also, take down those signs on schools stating” Gun free zone”! Replace this sign with one stating” Staff may be armed”. You wouldn’t put a sign on your house saying” Gun free zone and shoe box full of money”. You wouldn’t last too long!

      • Steve Thomas

        Actually, the 1994 assault rifle ban DID have an effect on crime rates…THEY INCREASED!!

    • Ted Crawford

      ” Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohabition of Private firearms is the goal ” Janet Reno
      “We’ll take one step at a time…We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the Law.and then again to strengthen the next Law….Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time” Peter Shields
      “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come” Joe Biden
      ” We’re bending the Law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns” Rahm Emmanuel
      “We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission” Charles Schumer
      ” I don’t care about crime! I want the guns” Harold Metzenbaum
      ” Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed” Sarah Brady
      ” A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the Bourgeoisie” Lenin
      ‘Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or SA !Ordaniry citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns dosen’t serve the State” Heinrich Himmler

    • Chester

      Eddie, you are making the same mistake a lot of other extreme anti gun people make, assuming an AR-15 is the SAME as an M-16 or an M-60. Although the AR-15 does look a lot like an M-16, and uses some of the same parts, it is NOT the same gun. Main difference being the FACT that the M-16 is capable of burst and full automatic fire, which the civilian version is NOT. The old BAR was as close to that as any gun I know of that has made its way to the true civilian market, and even it did NOT have full auto capabilities. Have fully automatic weapons made their way to the streets, yes, but not in any legal sales, other than to specialized collectors. It is BARELY possible for you or me to own a fully deactivated full machine gun, let alone one that will fire. The AR-15 is a decent hunting rifle for the same reasons the M-16 is a decent military weapon, it is fairly light and easy to carry as well as accurate, and is dependable. As for armor piercing ammunition, that is not all that readily available, but, like a lot of other things, can be obtained for the right price, from the right source.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        @ Chester First off i am not for any form of gun control I believe any one who wants and can afford to buy any thing the military has should be able to have it , That said we can buy armor piercing bullets mail order they would be the black tipped ones the red tipped ones are tracers the green tipped are for light armor all can be legally bought and sold in most states , and i seen last week in the sportsman’s guide catalog M-16 part kits the only thing you don’t get is the barrel and the lower receiver and the disconnector, the last thing being the hardest to lay your hands on the other two no problem , however putting it together as a full auto well get you 10years max as a guest of the feds , however as long as you build it as a semi-auto it’s fine , same kits can be had for most military guns from old WW-2 steins to anti aircraft guns , and it is not illegal to get them up and shooting as long as they are not full auto . just to let you know , get a copy of shot gun news and see for your self .

      • Guest

        Correction Chester, the BAR was a fully automatic weapon. Thus the designation Browning AUTOMATIC Rifle. It could be fired either semi automatically or automatically via a selector switch:

      • CZ52

        “Eddie, you are making the same mistake a lot of other extreme anti gun people make, assuming an AR-15 is the SAME as an M-16 or an M-60.”

        eddie is making no mistake he is perfectly well aware of the differences he just wants ALL semi-auto firearms banned as he admitted earlier this week.

    • Elda

      Eddie, you are one of those people that functions on a foundation of feelings not fact. You argue from a reality you have created in your mind by manipulating facts to fit your feelings. It makes me sad to meet people like you because you never get what you really want because you can’t lie and get truth and you frustrate not only yourself but everyone around you. You need to step back and take a better look at what you are trying to do because you of all people will not like what you get in the end.

      • Mike in MI

        EVERYBODY STOP !!!

        WELL DONE, ELDA !!!

    • al

      Eddie, I would hope that your concept could be correct, but it is not and never can be. Read a bit of history of our Nation. We at one time were disarmed by King George and all of the arms were stored for the use of arriving troops to overpower the Mass colonies.
      Google on ‘Mass Colonies Revolutionary War’ you will get an education on how and why we have the 2nd Amendment.
      It is to ‘Protect ourselves from Foreign Governments and our Own Government’.

      Do you think that Hiltler came to power as a dictator in poof of smoke? Hitler started out as a rabble rouser, an early day ‘Community Organizer’ after he got out of prison. Overtime he slowly got like minded men to follow him, until he, after some ten years, had enough power to target different segments of the population in Germany. Then he created his own small army called the Brown Shirts, all volunteers from the population who could better themselves by looting other people. When he had Germany in his grasp then he disbanded, read killed, the Brown Shirts Organization and moved the leaders into the German National Army. (You might look at Obama and recognize a few similarities)
      Then Hitler went after Austria, then after the rest of Central Europe and then started WWII.
      Read, Read, Read. There is nothing new on the face of the earth in politics, they are all liars and cheats and we must learn to never trust them in any manner. Vote them into office and vote them out as soon as possible.
      Remember, a rolling stone can gather no Moss. This means that we should never leave anyone in office long enough to create his own power base… for he will surely enslave us.

    • daleh

      eddie ,
      I am a Korean War Veteran, have been in combat, M1 Rifle , BAR etc , and if someone broke ito my home , I would instantly go into combat mode , beause that is exactly what it is ,,combat–even though it is only one person or maybe 2 –I hope it neve rhappens to you for i am afraid you will come up short witrh your attitude

    • Benjamin Fox

      eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie makes me so mad I lose it. Mayor not mayour and some others I really don’t care about at this point, hope I run into the troll somewhere in town and see if he is a man or a mouse?

    • eddie47d

      More threats from tough guy Benjamin Brat. Are you the coward of the county? You repeat your threats so much you must love shadow boxing!

      • http://n.a. mort_f

        Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

        • eddie47d

          I know how you interpret words Mort I Fied! We experienced that earlier.

    • David Wilson

      Eddie you have got to be one of the stupidest humans that have ever lived

      • Steve Thomas

        Yes he is. I’ve seen a lot of his posts. He is just another commie in Democrats clothing. He is probably on disability and food stamps. That’s why he has so much free time on his hands.

      • Mike in MI

        STEVE -
        He (eddie47d) has indicated he has always been very much in the union movements and may be on a pension. He’s been around here for an awful long time and hasn’t learned
        a thing – history, philosophies, religious ideas/truths, science, research, new material — he’ll have none of it.
        It’s like he stopped learning before the tenth grade in the fifties or sixties. Be it disease, drugs, trauma, poison, abuse, avoidance of learning????? Who knows? He learned enough to get by then got a job where the unions did all of anything else he needed/wanted. I’ve seen it often in MI.
        Anything he’s learned since was part of the main course at a union meeting. But he’s not a shill or troll. He’s off-beat and often very singular in his commentary…but, it’s always eddie…not “talking points”.

        • Steve Thomas

          Thank you Mike. That adds to the distaste I have always had for unions, and does explain what warped eddie. Of course, that probably means he is on a pension and he doesn’t realize that when bho causes our economy to colapse, his pension will get vaporized.

    • Chief Boring

      Eddie47, I mean you no ill will, and have never responded to your misguided opinions. But I must ask, are you a masochist? You make a nonsensical remark about firearms, and half the posters jump all over you. Why do you keep doing the same thing with the same results? Just askin’. Chief Boring

  • Rick

    I always find those kind of words so Intesting when a Government Official says, Why should people need assault weapons..

    Would they like to remove their armed guards from them and their families???????

    O.K.,,,if they don’t remove armed guards from themselves,,,Why Should I !!!!!!!

    • tgsherman


    • eddie47d

      Who’s out to assassinate you? Are you a member of the Alaskan Peacekeepers Militia who openly advocated for the killing of any public official from judge,policemen and elected officials.

      • Adolf Schmidt

        I wonder if those children at Sandy Hook were thinking” Who would want to assassinate me today.” People like the shooter at Sandy Hooks would find a way to arm himself even if guns and ammunition were banned completely! The only thing that would have helped was to have a armed citizen there to stop him before he could have gathered such a high death toll.

      • al

        Eddie, again let me send you a message.
        I was a agitator in Alaska in the 1970s. The state government was full of crooks, we elected Jay Hammond as the governor. I started a movement called ‘Alaskans for Responsive Government’ and it caught on fire wihin a year and we passed a bill to move the Capital from Juneau to Wasilla, in the Matsu valley out by Big Lake. This would give the people of Anchorage and Fairbanks good access to the State Capitol.

        With the capitol in Juneau the meeting of the legislature was nothing more than a pile of drunks and whores having an unending party at the expense of the taxpayer with bills passed that only made their deal better.

        We elected Hammond as Governor because he said he would ‘take the State Seal and live in a Trailer House in Wasilla while a meeting house for the Legislature was being built.’ As soon as Hammand was elected his first act was to build an Airport on his small Island where his house was, then he paved the roads on the island. Then he and the legislature put a bill together where the cost to move the capital to Wasilla was going to cost 300 million dollars and he put it up to a vote. It was turned down naturally.

        Me and my group leaders started getting death threats and in a couple months some were dodging bullets. Our Kenai leader got shot and was still in the hospital when I sold my property, took my family and left. Within a year the organization was taken over by Bill Sheffield, of the same name hotel. And I have never went back to Alaska.

        Where is the Capitol of Alaska today – Juneau. And that is why Sarah Palin ran for office, to clean up the government of Alaska. She also did a good job, but McCain interrupted her plan and Alaska is still a can of worms….

      • eddie47d

        Thanks for being an activist in the political arena and putting your boots on the ground. Politics can grind you down and sometimes one wonders why we even try to enfluence good government. That’s unfortunate that you supported someone and he then turned against you and other citizens.

      • Steve Thomas

        Guns are used to prevent cimes 2.5 million times PER year. Gun ownership from age 20 to 70. Population 320 million. Do the math, You have a 39% chance of using a gun to prevent a crime…but only if you are smart enough to have one!!!!!!

      • Steve Thomas

        Remember, “when seconds count…the police are only MINUTES away!

  • http://charter josebear5

    I love it these people keep there in the sand. Thay have no idea what going on around them.

  • Thomas

    Leon: We “need assault weapons” as DEFENSIVE weapons against people like YOU. That is the only reason the 2nd Amendment was written.

    • Jack Penland

      I wish you hadn’t said that, I was going to say that. At least it shows we’re both right.

      • Steve Thomas

        The only correct view on gun control is that it is TOTALLY unconstitutional. The last 4 words of the 2nd amendment cover it…”shall not be infringed”. That means “by the government”. Who the hell are you to tell me what guns I am allowed to own!!! Ditto to obama.

    • krc

      Well said Thomas I agree

    • Steve E

      Leon shows his Washington elitist attitude when he talks about gun control.

    • eddie47d

      What did Panetta do as the Secretary of Defense that makes you think you have the right to kill him? You may be trying to make a good point but I want to hear the real skinny. Was it authorizing drone attacks and you think taking him out would stop that or what?

      • Gregg

        You mean the same Panetta that told congress that he takes orders from the UN and not you. Look it up.

      • Gregg

        No one wants to kill anyone.

      • Gregg

        Please watch!

      • Gregg
      • eddie47d

        I understand what Panetta was saying and indeed we should have a coalition gathered together in order to start any operation. He did dance around the question of Congressional approval and that lack of approval of coarse is what gets us in trouble with our false flag wars. Senator Sessions did not get the answer he was looking for and he heard the same old duck and cover.

      • JeffH

        (dufus ignoramous)eddie says “What did Panetta do as the Secretary of Defense that makes you think you have the right to kill him?”

        Leave it to an ignorant anti-American commie to derive such an idea from a pretty clear and un-threatening comment.

        eddie, you get dumber by the second!

  • http://n.a. mort_f

    Wonderful, the outgoing Secretary of DEFENSE does not even know what an ‘assault’ weapon, military terminolgy, is.

    A note to Panetta, a C-130 is a transport aircraft, load it with mini-guns and cannons, and then it becomes a combat aircraft. A Boeing 757 is a civilian airliner, load it with terrorists, and then it becomes a weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD).

    An AR-15 is NOT an ‘assault’ weapon, unless it is modified to replicate an M-16 for fully automatic operation, and so used by a nutcase.

    Words do have meanings, stop misusing them.

    • eddie47d

      I bet Panetta does know what an assault weapon is and yes an AR-15 can be converted into an assault weapon. Personally I could care less if 20 people are killed with an AR-15 or 30 people are killed. Death is death so who gives a rats patute in what they are called! Maybe Mort i Fied should take a closer look at perception instead of glossing over the damage a AR-15 can do.

      • Chester

        Eddie, perhaps you should take a good look at the airline industry if you are going to complain about things killing people. More people have died in air crashes than in mass killings in this country, yet people STILL fly, and the airlines get bigger and more dangerous planes to fly. Far as that goes, we still use cars on highways, yet more people are killed every day in car wrecks than in shootings. If we are going to ban things because they might be dangerous to the public, why not start with banning speech we don’t agree with. That way we wouldn’t be tempted to walk over and smack them in the mouth. Has been TRIED in the past, and, as you can see, did NOT work all that well. I can show you a dozen or more things that are just as dangerous if misused, yet there is never any talk of banning them, or of mandating all of them be registered and licensed. Pipe wrenches and baseball bats are only a couple.

      • alan

        eddie i can do the same amount of damedge with my ruger 10/22 its not the gun its the person behind it

      • eddie47d

        Chester; World wide 766 people died in plane crashes within the world in 2007. That is the lowest number in the last 30 years. The highest is 3,234 which doesn’t ever come close to all the gun deaths that have occurred. The issue of mass shootings is extremely important but hardly the only statistic with guns..As I said 1.3 million Americans have died from the use of guns since 1968 yet few have the courage to do anything about it. Except for maybe a terrorist such as with Lockerbie few if anyone buys a plane ticket for the sake of killings themselves or anyone else. Planes are also safer than cars by 62% and nobody rides in a car expecting death either. Now if someone points a gun in your face I think there is a reasonable chance he could kill you because that is what the gun is for. Cars and planes are a transportation issue with hundreds of rules and safety features to avoid people dying. I expect nothing less from the gun owners in America and the manufacturers of weapons. With all those deaths by guns someone is dropping the ball and shirking their duty .

      • Adolf Schmidt

        Eddie, your contradicting yourself! You say it doesn’t matter weather 20 or 30 are killed by a ar-15, just look at what they can do. I have worked in a emergency room, and have seen people dead from something as small as 22 cal to something as large as a 44 mag. I really couldn’t tell too much difference between who was deader. Guns cans can kill period! Some handguns can do as much damage as a assault rifle. Handguns are not made for hunting even though some of them have been equipped to do so! A handguns primary purpose is to kill a person, as is a assault weapon. No matter what laws are put in place you well never keep any type of gun out of the hands of a person bent on killing. The only thing that might reduce these tragic deaths is to have more weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens that know how to use them. But with all the plans in the works for limiting some of these guns, there will less chance to stop someone from killing our children! The school my children are going to is having all the staff take a gun course to prepare for there CHL. I hate that it has come to this, but banning of certain weapons did not work before. It’s pretty much the same as the cold war. The Soviet Union kept its distance because they had little chance of survival. What do you think could have, or would have, happened if The United States had disarmed before them? Please, think of something that will work, trying what failed before is not the answer.

      • eddie47d

        Thanks for pointing out the dangers of handguns too! How can you say something won’t work if we keep pumping out semi-automatics like crazy. I guess I should be asking you do you enjoy taking bullets out of bodies regardless of the caliber size? Since we are the number one manufacturer of arms in the world ,78% then obviously we control the damage.

      • Steve Thomas

        Ooooooooo, a big scary gun. 200 hundred people are killed each year by Bambi (that means deer, eddie). Almost 200,000 are killed by doctors and prescribed drugs each year. The “presciption” drug culture in our country is far more dangerous than the so called gun culture. The difference is guns are a part of self suffiency, magic pills are part of the nanny state…depend on a doctor, the government, etc to diaper your ass you are to lazy and stupid to take care of yourself.

      • Steve Thomas

        You say that 1.3 million people have died since 1968 because of guns. The other side , and there are ALWAYS 2 SIDES, is that some 60-70 million have been SAVED by guns. I’ll take those odds anytime.
        When seconds count…the police are only minutes away.

  • peter

    Merely stating that he shared the joyous experience of duck hunting with his kids already makes him an arsehole. Teaching kids to kill anything is a heinous crime. Humans are pathetic. There is no way a killer can be taught to be civilized. Does Panetta have blood on his hands? Just like the pompous emperor he so adores. Clothes do not hide their character. Killers of children preaching the virtues of being responsible gun owners – hypocritical does not even come close! But then, I suppose they feel that Iranian or Afghan children are of no importance to anyone. These are the guys who preach against violence, but use it at will and then justify it. What does that tell any decent thinking individual about their values and their real leadership qualities? May God help us all. Amen.

    • Ranchman

      Peter, Peter the vegetable eater, how does your garden grow? With cries against hunters and cries against guns, how can a liberal have any fun? Give it a break, toad. We’re Americans, end of discussion.

      As far as the govt trying to ban MY firearms…MOLON LABE!!!

      Remember 1776 & Keep Your Powder Dry!

      • ibcamn

        canvas pouches in a wooden barrel!..there ya go!

    • al

      Comon Peter, Panetta is a fool, but him teaching his children to hunt ducks is a horrible crime? We should not teach children to kill anything?
      Stop and read what you write, you cannot possibly believe these things.

      Think about what our lives would be like if we all lived by your rules. Our life span would be maybe 25 to 30 years maximum. Average would be maybe late teens.

      We must kill living things by the thousands on a daily basis in order to survive in the world.
      You do realize that all organisms are living things don’t you? Every virus is alive, every germ is alive, everything we eat was alive at one time.

      Take it another step backward, everything that is, was created from exactly the same items. Everything is made from Quarks and Leptons, EVERYTHING ON EARTH. Trees, bushes, rocks, flies, bees, dogs, carrots and potatos, you and me, stars and the moon. We are all of the same things with only the connections being different.

      We were put on earth for some reason and we were told to multiply and be nice to each other. Well we have done one of those things and so here we are.

      If we do not kill other things we cannot survive and multiply. Get used to it…..

    • Steve Thomas

      If you have ever eaten a big mac (or any other meat), you are just as guilty of “your henious crime”. You just keep going to your PETA meetings and tell yourself you are doing something good. Deer kill 200 people every year, injure 10,000 more, and cause over 1.1 Billion dollars in damage. We kill them or they kill us…period!

  • Benton Bain

    Ask Panetta why the government needs, not for the military, but other federal agencies 1.4 billion rounds of HOLLOW POINT BULLETS if it is not target practice on the civilian population? Hollow point bullets are illegal in warfare, but Muslim Communist Obama thinks it is okay to use on USA citizens that disagree with his Muslim Communist ideas..

    • Warrior

      That little fella with the mustache liked to collect weapons and ammo in secret also. AND he remembered where he hid them and why he hid them.

      • eddie47d

        Then some of you gun owners must feel a tight bond with that little guy with the moustache since some of you have quite a secret little arsenal stashed away! LOL!

    • Ted Crawford

      One thing is certain here, they are not for Combat operations against a foreign enemy. The Geneva Convention requires military ammo to be Full Metal Jacketed!

      • Jim S

        Not only that Ted, but most people don’t fire hollow points at the range. That’s why they make FMJ. Now the gov’t agents might fire hollow points at the range since we the people are paying for them, but most of the general public don’t.

      • tim

        Hollow points cost 2-3 times as much as regular ball ammo. Oh I forgot we are paying for them. And if obama is approving homeland security to buy more hollow point bullets than there are people in this country, than I’nm sure as hell not giving up any of my weapons!!! He plans on having homeland securtiy confiscate these weapons. They also took an oath to the constitution to the 2nd amendment and swore to protect american citizens. How many of them do you think would actually stand behing that oath… Look at TSA!!!!! The biggest violators of the constitution!!!!!!! So I wouldn’t count on even one standing behind ath!!!!!

    • Steve Thomas

      Eddie, you finally almost got something right. My guns are stashed from Hitler, Stalin, obama and YOU!

  • northbrook

    Ask Panetta -does he own a gun and do any magazines have more than 7 rounds? If so will he surrender any weapon that does? Also the same would be true of any body guards. Real question what prevents a person from reloading another magazine. Limiting guns is not the answer by doing that you only limit the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

    • Adolf Schmidt

      Well said Nortbrook! If the man that shot all those kids had only a 10 rd clip, those children would have still died! As long as there is no one there to stop them, they can kill at their leisure! The gun free zone signs might as well say, ” Come on in! It’s safe for you to do what you want, with no one to stop you!” And Nortbrook is right about how quick it is to reload with even lower capacity clips! If we are going to protect our children, make laws that will do that instead of hampering the people that could really help stop the lunatics.

      • Jim S

        It’s like a friend of mine, who is a long time police officer and Army Reservist with 2 tours in Iraq, said. Teachers are taught to gather the children together in a group in the corner of the room in an instance like Sandy Hook. That makes them easy targets. Wouldn’t matter if he had a 10 rd mag or a 100 rd mag. They are all together in a huddle so taking a couple of seconds to reload with a 10 rd mag wouldn’t make a difference.

    • Steve Thomas

      We 2A’s (2nd amendment supporters) are missing the point. If limiting the size of magazines is about public safety, WHY DOES IT INCLUDE THE POLICE!!!???!!! NY’s new law includes the police and it is supposed to be a “model for the nation”?!!?

  • Jack Penland

    Is that what Panetta said? It was difficult to hear him clearly from behind the wall of assault weapon armed bodyguards who protect him and his family 24/7 at taxpayer expense.

  • R.L. garner

    As far as I’m concerned, this country does not need Panetta deciding things for us!

    • Kane bonkers

      As far as I’m concerned this country does to need Panetta.
      And, now that I think about it, the other 535 members of congress along with the entire obummer administration up to and including the illegal usurper himself.
      They all need to go. Period.
      And, at this point, I don’t care how it happens.
      Think about that.

      • Kane bonkers

        Sorry…should read “does not need Panetta”
        My bad.

  • czman75

    Lets see, when was the last time an AR15 was used to commit a crime? …crickets…in the grand scheme of things, 1/2 of 1% is not a lot. This is the % of how many times. Hammers, cars, doctors baseball bats, knives, poison have killed more people than guns, but nobody speaks of banning those things. We can wage war with the government with guns, they don’t like that. That’s why firearms are the chopping block…
    And one more time, mr. panetta, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, but it is about the right of Americans to “KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”!

    You know mr. panetta, I have seen healthier looking old men in the old folks home my uncle was in, maybe you should think about retiring…

  • worldwatchman

    It’s quite simple. We The People want the kind of guns that are NOT assault weapons and are being called that. If it was full automatic THEN it would be an assault weapon. We also want these weapons because you say we can’t and THAT is infringement that we gun owners won’t tolerate. Gun owning Americans ARE the militia in times of war in our country if it were to happen. The government has NO right to step on the 2nd Amenndment and We The People won’t let you. Is THIS government pushing for a 21 century civil war? Are ALL democrats communist who try to dumb down the masses? History has shown what happens by these things that are happening. Hitler would love this administration because they seem to think alike.

    • JCfromDC

      A “Brown Bess” musket with a fixable bayonet was considered the “assault weapon” OF ITS DAY (18th century). We all need an “upgrade” now and then. Nobody squawked about people acquiring M-1 Garand rifles after WWII, but now even an “obsolete” weapon of that era is now considered an “assault weapon” (because of the bayonet). When did a criminal last use a fixed bayonet in a robbery or other “assault weapon” crime?

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Joe Anthony

        Leon Panetta has a history of representing groups that had direct ties with Communist Parties or Communist Governments- which fits with his placement in the Obama Administration.

      • eddie47d

        Joe; Okay since I’m not aware of that point out those commie groups he hangs out with. No links necessary!

      • JeffH

        Joe, please allow me to respond to eddie’s comment. Hang out? That’s comical but but not unexpected from eddie.

        CIA Director Leon Panetta inserted a tribute in the April 11, 1984, Congressional Record to one of his constituents, communist sympathyzer Lucy Haessler, calling her a “woman of peace” for her work in the pro-Soviet Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). This is when Panetta was a California Congressman representing Santa Cruz.

        Panetta’s praise for Haessler got the attention at the time of Human Events, the national conservative weekly, which noted that WILPF “appears to take the Soviet line on virtually every issue that comes up, ranging from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and yellow rain [communist chemical warfare] to the issue of new U.S. missiles in Europe.” The Women’s International Democratic Federation was an outright Soviet front organization.

        tribute to identified Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy, inserted into the Congressional Record in 1983, suggests that Panetta did have keen knowledge of these “real activists,” by virtue of his praise for DeLacy’s stand against “McCarthyism.” Hence, it appears that Panetta did indeed “check” on these people, completely understood they had been accused of membership in the Communist Party or having communist sympathies, and found them totally acceptable and praiseworthy.

        The series of “Dear Hugh” and “Dear Leon” letters discovered by blogger Trevor Loudon in the Hugh DeLacy papers at the University of Washington proves that Panetta had seriously checked out this particular constituent and had a working and cordial relationship with him. In fact, Panetta provided DeLacy, a key contact of a communist spy ring, with sensitive documents. And judging from the tone of some of the letters, DeLacy appears to be telling Panetta what to say and do as a sitting member of Congress. Even after Panetta attended a private “celebration” for DeLacy and his wife Dorothy, another communist, DeLacy reminded Panetta that he should return to scrutinizing the “military boondoggle.”

        The tribute to Haessler proves that the DeLacy controversy is not a fluke but part of a disturbing pattern. In 1979, Panetta had spoken in Santa Cruz when the local chapter of WILPF was the site and host of the organization’s national congress.

  • BillT

    Just another governmental clown. What seems to be the difference between an “Asault weapon” and one that’s not – Only the way it looks – NOTHING ELSE.

  • Joan Secrest

    Maybe be you and I don’t want an assault gun, but citizens (civilians) have a right to have guns. It is not up to Panetta to say anything about it. It is up to the individual who wants the gun, has a permit for it and has gone through a check up to have it. I personally am happy that civilians have guns. I think it is one reason that the radical left has not been able to take away all of our rights. They have to consider that. If they get them all taken away, then we will have no rights left at all. The government is not in charge of us, we are in charge of the government. If they have all the guns, guess who will be running for a third and fourth term. We don’t want an all powerful government. It never ends well when that happens.

    • Rick

      The Mayor of New York forgot to exempt cops and military…..but not to be outdone Obama did the same so all you military and cops out there are breaking the new law. This is so dam funny its scary. Should have an open season on stupid politicians…oh..and the media. LMAO!

      • eddie47d

        Your comment should be placed in the stupid box as spastic as it was. Okay lets disarm all the police and military I could possibly agree with that if the circumstances were right. What better way to stop wars from happening if our soldiers aren’t armed. Might even stop a few cops from killing.

      • Elda

        Whoa eddie….are you serious or are you talking in your sleep. The best way to start a war is to disarm the people. Weakness invited invasion. It is obvious you have never studied strategies. The best way to create peace is having the best armed people that know how to use them. Every part of our counrty that is gun free is where the most killing takes place. Those areas that are well armed are safe and quiet. I mean really….this has been proven so many times I thought we all understood it but is seems you never got that memo.

      • Chester

        Eddie, under the executive orders and proposed laws, as proposed, that is exactly what will be required. No magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, period, will be sold or allowed in the United States. Seems someone forgot that ninety per cent of all police HANDGUNS have magazines that hold more than that, FROM THE FACTORY. Mssrs glock and sig saur both fall into that category. BUT, they were NOT excluded in the high capacity magazine ban, so those guns will have to be turned in or converted to use smaller magazines. Tell that one to the crooks who love those big bang bangs and see how fast you are laughed out of town.

      • eddie47d

        Elda: Do you understand sarcasm for that is what I leveled at Rick for saying police shouldn’t be armed .

      • eddie47d

        Chester; I support the 10 round limit but I don’t write the rules. If it passes then police should also reduce their capacity.

    • roger

      permits and “checkups”? those are infringements……….never mind, go back to sleep.

  • http://none bill stoffel

    obama is still out off his minde, impeachment would be better then that ass doing away with the second amendement. We need to put armed state troopers at every school and arm the princaples along with teachers trained in defending our children with a gun rather then teaching the children to hide in a closet becausr the buggey man is coming. wake up get real. Obama how long are u going to waste our money and time get real or get the hell out..??,,..

  • Bob Johnson

    When you do not trust the government, you get armed. There is nothing that this administration has done that encourages trust.

  • harvey

    I really think it’s sad that the second most powerful man to control our military, who has sworn to uphold, and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC seems to have no idea what it is. I really don’t remember reading anything in the 2nd amendment that has anything to do with hunting. Therefore hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I wished these morons would at least be required to read and UNDERSTAND the constitution before they put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold it.

  • Cessna

    That is the thoughts of a mentally ill person !
    What are we supposed to use to protect ourselves against a tyrant and his thugs,
    Or in an event like Sandy when armed gangs break into homes ?
    You’d have to be an idiot, or have a polictical agenda to think that FEMA or the police are going to be able to protect you under those circumstances !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Herb

    I’d advice Panetta to read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers. It appears that though the Founders trusted the people more than a Centralized government to bear arms; he trusts the latter more! Such idiocracy will strip away our God given right of self defense and emboldens leaders to rule with tyranny. Just as we earned all of our rights by the barrel of a gun; if we relinquish our Right to Bear Arms; it is by the barrel of gun that we can lose them. The safest and most effective way for a tyrant to rule is to disarm the people. I don’t know about Panetta; but I trust my neighbor more with a gun than any standing army. Also: “We the People are the last line of defense’ in any war or in the event of an invasion. I wonder why Panetta thinks that the Libian’s or other middle eastern rebels should be armed; yet not us common US citizens?

  • Ken

    Go to OathKeepers website right now and sign up to become an affiliate member and sign the pledge to never disarm. Do it now. They need all the patriots they can get. Its time to do something to show force in a peaceful way before Obama shows just how stupid he is.

    • tim

      Most of the people in DC should be tried for treason.. They don’t think they should have to remember the oath they took, especially obama and most of his demoncrats!!!!! Oathkeepers!!! Remember the oath you swore to the constitution of the united states of america!!!!!

  • Thomas Griffin

    I would appreciate it if all you anti’s could list all the murders in the US where an “assault rifle” was used.

  • Mikey

    Can you Katrina and L.A.?

  • Mikey

    Can u say Katrina and L.A.?

  • trp878

    Being a first generation Italian in US, I rememb3er my grand father talking of Mossilini and the atrocities he committed. The Women finally had enough and took care of him. You, Paneta have no idea about the Marxist agenda and therefore can say No Assult Rifles. So the lack of knowledge makes you ignorant as well as a disgrace to the Italian American Heritage. The only reason you get to speak in Italy is becasuse your a politician from America and Italy no doubt needs aid of some kind from the US.

  • Steve E

    “Politicians are propaganda, the people with guns are the enforcers and the media is the enthusiastic lapdog who enables the entire behavior and acts as the verbal abuser against those who deviate from nodding their heads at the vast statues of evil that we inherited.”
    ― Stefan Molyneux

  • tlance

    Assault wepaon definition; Any WEAPON a politician can wave around to ASSAULT the second amendment and the poeples rights. Plain and simple.

  • Michael F Rivero

    If the criminals coming into our homes have assault guns, then We The People have every right to match them in firepower. Every year, 1.5 million crimes are thwarted by law abiding citizens with legally owned firearms. Average response time for a 9-11 call is 19 minutes.

    • eddie47d

      You’ve been watching too many gangster movies and the shrapnel must have hit you in the head.

      • Adolf Schmidt

        It must be nice to live where you do, all safe , with no threat to your well being. The vast majority do not have that option. Have you every caught someone breaking into your house, or found yourself in the middle of a riot? I have found myself in both situations! Last year in our town, a man was stabbed as he walked down the street to witness the aftermath of a car accident. Luckily I have a gun which I have not had to use, but it is better to have one and not use it than to need one and not have it!

      • Jim S

        A few years ago, police officers only carried sidearms and shotguns. The criminals started using semi-automatic rifles so the police officers were outgunned. The cry went up that the police needed to be as well armed as the criminal, so they purchased AR-15 rifles. Then they purchased armored cars, although I haven’t seen any criminals with armored cars. Then they purchased more and more military equipment (thanks to DHS grants). So, if the criminals are that well armed, what chance does the average citizen stand against them without the same semi-auto rifles? I rue the day some of the criminals come to your home and it takes the police even 5 minutes to get there. Many people live in areas where the police take 30 minutes to an hour to respond to a call. You know what that gets you if you are not as well armed as the criminal? It gets you dead. So Eddie, I suggest you take your stupidity somewhere it will be appreciated or educated yourself before posting your stupid comments.

      • eddie47d

        Everyone with guns has an I COULD of used it story. Since I believe you all including myself has a right to defend yourself it seem like you all have an ego problem. You all make it seem like I’m out to take your protection away because that is how you phrase your comments. Why make up stories when they are not true? I have made myself clear in dozens of comments and I have never said you don’t have the right to defend yourself. If you need a CC permit then get one for I won’t stop you. How much clearer can a person say it.

  • RF

    Panetta is just another Oblamer butt puppet. Anything he says or does mimics the would be king and his court of Liberal Jesters.

  • B Walton

    Panetta is a leftist and supports global one world government. He like his illegal boss has no respect for our Constitution. I will stand with our founders. The 2nd Amendment is all about keeping the people armed to resist tyranny in our government. For this military pattern weapons are a necessity. If our founders had our modern technology they would have armed themselves with M16s, AKs and similar weapons. Additionally the folks in our government who intentionally violate our Constitution would have been tried for treason.

    • eddie47d

      H Bush was a right wing New World order guy so they come in all shapes and sizes. Maybe we should do away with voting and presidents or any public official and let the gun rule this country. Seems like that is what quite a few of you want anyway.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        No Eddie he was a dam liberal Or you could call him a RINO , Same thing !

      • eddie47d

        Don’t confuse yourself anymore than you have to Jimmy. Yes GWB was a RINO but no Liberal.

  • Brent

    Well Leon, since your bosses felt it proper to give Mexican drug lords thousands of military style weaponry, including .50 cal Barett…I find it disingenuous of you to not see the reason why We the People, the GOOD GUYS NEED EM TO PROTECT OURSELVES!
    [expletive-laced threatening comment removed] as soon as We the People get our heads on right and embrace the FIRES Of LIBERTY!

  • Elda

    How did we manage to elect so many people to Washington that have no idea what the founders meant in their words. Of course we need to have weapons to keep the government in line. These people that are supposed to be representing us are scaring me. The second amendment is not about hunting weapons just as the freedom of speech is not about kind and every day words. It is about the weapons and speech that are scary to some and possibly offensive to most. It is about people being responsible for what they say and do. It is about the government minding their own business and letting individuals exercise their God given rights and living free lives from government ternary. It is true that a people that give up freedom for safety deserve neither.

    • Jim S

      It’s easy Elda. Most of them are lawyers. No common sense.

  • Chewy

    Again the misunderstanding of an “Assault weapon”. An AR-15 is a look alike weapon, it is not an “Assault weapon”. When we the general public can buy a weapon that has a fully automatic mode of fire, then we will be able to own an “Assault weapon”. SWAT, the Military and other Federal agencies have access to true “Assault weapons”, we the public do not. No number of “Military style components make a semi-automatic rifle an “Assault weapon period”. The uninformed public listen to this BS and take it for gospel instead of learning about guns. No current, future laws or bans will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals as they could care less about laws or bans. One can look at NYC, Chicago, Mexico or Great Britain. They all have either very strict laws or bans yet they all suffer from high rates/capita of violent crimes committed with guns. More violent crimes are committed with hammers than with guns and more people are killed by drunk drivers, but no one is trying to ban hammers or cars are they?

    • ibcamn

      remember chewy,this assault style weapon was designed this way for function,it is the straight design of the M16 and AR15 style that makes it more accurate at long range and of course the length of the barrell(rifle style),there are pistol style weapons that look like the AR and they are registered as such,a pistol.this is just a stepping stone for the progressives and liberals to add laws later that will say,if you break this law,you are no longer allowed to own pistols(then that would fall under the law)and then some new law passed later would say you break it you can’t own something above a .22 and so forth,next thing you know,Americans are disarmed!they are using the style and type of weapon to work their way and wiggle through the laws they create to get our guns!the assault(military) style is just the start!…what else falls under this military style weapon?the military carries pistols and knives and machetties and tomahawks plus all ammo to fit said weapons!are any of these going to fall under that law?!or a new law at some point…….it’s all in the wording of this new law.

      • Chewy

        I agree that this is all about control and a stepping stone to that control. “Assault weapons” by legislative definition attempted to include any semi-automatic weapon that possesses 2 or more Military attributes, now Sen. Feinstien wants it to include any thing with 1 Military attribute. Which would include almost all firearms made today, except wheel guns and low capacity (less than 10) semi-auto pistols. I will debate your statement that M-16/AR-15 design makes for a more accurate long range weapon. This is only true if you are comparing them to simple blow back semi-automatic rifles. Gas operated semi-automatics are only more accurate in that they have more velocity compared to the same gun as a simple blow back. For true long range accuracy hunters and snipers use bolt action rifles.

  • Mike D

    “Why do we need assault rifles?”

    How about, since when are you only allowed to have what you “need”?

    You don’t need cigarettes, booze, ice cream, super size fries, designer clothes, swimming pools, sport cars, or liposuction.

    Since when was a “need” a requirement to being able to own something?

    “Why do I need one?”

    Because F U, that’s why!

    • Adolf Schmidt

      I agree Mike! The banning of assault rifles will have the same effect as last time,none! History is to be studied as not to repeat the same mistakes. Prohibition proved that banning anything the public wants creates a black market for that item. Prohibition was the main cause of organized crime to escalate during that era! It doesn’t look like we’re doing too well on the drug war either! Banning assault rifles and large capacity clips will only work if you have a plan on teaching criminals not to break the law.

    • Steve Thomas

      Well put. And actually, macs kills more people than all the guns combined. Why not ban some stuff that WOULD save lives. Like HFCS, aspartame, GE foods, Rx meds and doctors. Doctors and prescription meds cause 195,000 wrongful deaths each year. We know why the government doesn’t try to protect us from those evils…because they are to busy taking bribes–uhm.. I mean taking campaign contributions, from lobbyists.

  • Leon

    Panetta talks too much. It’s none of his business what guns people have…. We have rights that he doesn’t like Obama doesn’t like…. They need to keep in mind half the country doesn’t like them

  • ibcamn

    So can we(Americans)tell Panetta,”you don’t need that much pay per year,or you don’t need to ride around in that limo?”.what right does he have to tell us what we do or don’t need or what we should have?!my assault rifles are mine,end of story!i use one for hunting Mr. Panetta and one for the range for fun and to teach my children how to use that weapon for security(family).i don’t hear him telling his rich friends they don’t need that $100,000 painting,or that porsche or they don’t need that summer house in the Hamptons!these liberals(progressives)want to be some type of nobility or something and make use the working poor.just two classes of people.they take from us but not from them.look at what they do for their friends,let them slide on breaking the law or defend them and then sweep it under the rug!he is just one piece to this red puzzle that’s being put together in the white house!

  • luther chinn

    In a nutshell it all boils down to CONTROL!! I myself, choose not to comply with any of

    these socialist policies. I will not sign up for ” OBAMACARE,” I will not register my firearms, they were registered when I legally purchased them. I am tired of this “regime” pushing the American public around,as if they are cattle!




  • Bonnie

    What’s an “assault” gun? It’s like equating apples and pears. Assault is a verb, an action word, and a gun is a noun. And it’s a Human that acts one way or another, not the gun.

    So, anything can assault, a stick, a knife, a baseball bat, a fork, ho horros! Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!

    Anyway, Panetta, you little man, YOU have a myriad of guards, Why should YOU have protection, and we not? We’re paying for your salary!

    • Steve Thomas

      The fact that Panetta is ignoring, is that obama is about as likely to stop with banning so called assault rifles as he is to balance the budget this year.

  • http://yahoo Bob

    An He would be the one to know that. He can’t keep his ass out of HOT WATER .He uses the State plane for personal trips misuses STATE FUNDS . Than He says we don’t need protection . He is like a liar saying believe me People like him rob us blind than they want too take our rights away from us.

  • dave o

    question : why do i need 20 round mag? because the goverment just bought 1.4 billion rounds of HOLLOW POINT BULLETS
    question : Why does the government want my weapon? because it no longer is an American government

    • dave o

      question : Why do I need an AR15? because the government just allowed
      2,500 AR-15 ‘s to be transfered to the mexican drug Cartels via the Fast and Furious.

      question : Why do I have an assult weapon? I don’t have an Assult Weapon, I have a semi-automatic rifle for self protection. I am not assulting anyone, but I am preparing to protect my family!

      • tim

        dave o says:
        January 18, 2013 at 11:38 am
        question : why do i need 20 round mag? because the goverment just bought 1.4 billion rounds of HOLLOW POINT BULLETS
        question : Why does the government want my weapon? because it no longer is an American government


        dave o says:
        January 18, 2013 at 11:51 am
        question : Why do I need an AR15? because the government just allowed
        2,500 AR-15 ‘s to be transfered to the mexican drug Cartels via the Fast and Furious.

        Can you see what would happen if there were no ar15s or ak’s in border states. Obama and holders presents to the drug cartel would be crossing the border and slaughtering american citizens. Obama and holder are 2 reasons why we don’t need anymore gun control!!! NO MORE GUN CONTROL, NONE WHATSOEVER!!!!! Write your’e federal officials and demand obama be impeached for violating the constitution!!!!

        Barack Obama yesterday made his biggest push for gun-control yet – twenty-three executive actions worth!

        That’s right, after delivering a speech on his plan to curb “gun violence” – in which he urged Congress to pass legislation to ban so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, limit ammunition access, among other things – Obama signed twenty-three executive actions, setting into motion his plan to further dismantle the Second Amendment.

        Included in his nearly two-dozen actions were three pieces of presidential memoranda:

        Executive Action 1: Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

        Executive Action 9: Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

        Executive Action 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

        Not only will the enforcement of these three orders cost the taxpayers dearly, all of them are flat-out unconstitutional. These orders all violate the 10th amendment!!!!!!

  • tim

    He’s the ahole who went to afghanistan to give a speech and wouldn’t let any of his soldiers carry a weapon in the building. Yet he let the afghan police and military be armed!! You know the same ones who are ambushing our sons and daughters!!!!!! Why aren’t our military men and women allowed to carry a sidearm on base.. Are they afraid one of them are gonna kill some dumbazz officer who deserves it, especially that fricking arab that shot our sons and daughters at ft hood!!!! This is exactly why there should be NO gun free zones. These crazies drive straight to them and start shooting!!!! I carry concealed and when I see one of those signs I walk right in unless there is a metal detector, take care of my business and leave. I am not leaving myself exposed to some crazy. If one ever shows up I will defend every person in that building and blow that crazy straight to hell before he can shoot anyone!!!!!!

  • http://yahoo Doug

    Mr. Panetta ,
    Open your eyes and look at the Government you work for.

    • Dennis48e

      Panett’s eyes are wide open and he is well aware of who he works for. What he ignores is who he is supposed to work for, that being the American citizens.

  • Dr dbiggs

    Why has DHS purchased over 650 million rounds of hollow point ammunition? I think everyone should purchase an assault rifle and prepare for the worst! Obongo from Chicongo has some radical views to change America!


    Panetta: Civilians Don’t Need Assault Guns.

    No, only the drug-cartels, right panetta? What a despicable worm!

    In his usual theatrical style, on Wednesday on live television, President Barack Obama revealed his plans to implement his administration’s agenda for a new gun control policy that includes assault weapons bans, more thorough background checks of gun buyers, limited ammunition magazines, and government access to mental health records of potential gun buyers.

    “In just one afternoon, the man who is suspected of okaying the smuggling of guns into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels — known as Fast and Furious — has ‘outed’ himself as the king of the gun grabbers. He’s also implementing the strategy of his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanual, by not allowing ‘a good crisis to go to waste,’” said police detective Jose Santos.

    Obama’s proposal are allegedly the result of a rushed review process spearheaded by Vice President Joe Biden, that addressed law enforcement, dangerous firearms and ammunition, school and campus security, and keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

    Surrounded by children and their parents who support Obama’s gun-control agenda, the president recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; a tougher and more far-reaching assault weapons ban; limiting ammo magazines to 10-rounds; eliminating armor-piercing bullets, also known as cop-killer bullets; hiring more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute.

    The cost of the package, senior officials estimated, would be roughly $500 million, some of which could come from already budgeted funds.

    “Ironically, the price tag for Obama’s gun crime agenda is the same amount lost in the Solyndra scandal by the Obama administration,” said Mike Baker, a political strategist.

    “I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality,” said the president. “If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

    The National Rifle Association, anticipating Obama’s overreach and disregard for the U.S. Constitution, released a television advertisement accusing the president of hypocrisy. In the commercial, viewers are reminded that Obama’s daughters are protected by a detail of armed bodyguards when they attend school, but Obama denies that same right to American parents and children by his opposition to arming individuals who work in government schools.

    “It is unfortunate that this administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems,” the NRA said after meeting with Biden last week. “We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.”

    As part of its policy recommendations, the White House called on Congress to act on an old administration proposal to spend $4 billion to keep 15,000 cops on the streets. In addition, the president is proposing a new initiative that would incentivize police departments to hire more school resource officers and encourage schools to hire more mental health professionals. The president’s plan also calls on Congress to allocate resources to help schools, other educational institutions and houses of worship develop emergency management plans.

    The White House proposals, even officials there admit, are not a cure-all for mass shootings. Among the suggested recommendations on the gun-policy front, only the ban
    on high-capacity magazines could have had a tangible impact on the shooting in Newtown, and it’s unclear what, exactly, the effect would have been.

    Clearly folks, the “stranger” in the White-House, is hopelessly insane! He has surrounded himself with the most despicable, criminal-element possible.

    The rest of article here:

  • Bill Lund

    His argument is total baloney. What exactly is an ‘armor piercing bullet’ anyway? Maybe they exist in the hands of the military, but if they are referring to FMJ ammo, you are more likely to survive being shot with that than with expanding soft or hollow point ammo. It is this kind of inaccurate terminology being thrown around that conjures up all kinds of false images in peoples minds and as a result you will start seeing most of your target ammo dissapear from store shelves. Doesn’t save a single life, but that wasn’t the anti’s purpose to begin with anyway- they accomplished their aim of disarming the American populace.

    • Chewy

      An armor piercing bullet has a tungsten, or similarly hard sabot that is smaller than the jacket of the bullet and extends to the tip. It will penetrate body armor, most ballistic glass and light armor plating. The sabot will not expand, but the jacket and alloy that encase the sabot will if the round hits something hard enough to make them separate. There only valid use is in the Military and by LEO’s. Criminals use them to shot though a LEO’s vest or shoot someone inside a car. The ones that I have seen and shot hard Black tips and were from WWII in 30-06 caliber.

  • The lone ranger

    Panetta, you’re off the mark. Civilians have a God given right to own guns or whatever we want to own. It is you panetta Civilians don’t need.

  • David Cook

    I will not support or vote for anyone who supports Obama’s gun ban. It goes against our constitution. Obama has spent this country into oblivion on wastefull spending. When is it going to end? He seems to be trying to make the United States another third world country and it looks like he is doing a pretty good job of it. He is killing us all and I’m scared. He is a President who is not to be trusted and I wish people would open their eyes so that our country dosen’t bury itself in dept. My God he is a horrible president.

  • Jan

    Has nothing to do with ‘needing’.

  • gunner

    Obama didn’t think it was even important to charge school shooters under the age of 18 as adults when he was in the Illinois State Senate. He voted “present.” Apprehending and charging the deranged shooters has never been his intent. It has always been about restricting gun ownership.

  • oldandtired

    Assult rifle? All the law-abiding citzens I know have no intention of aggressively assulting anyone with their rifles. They may use it to pervent an assult upon themselves or their families, so maybe the term should be Anti-assult Rifle. Trouble is that discription would weaken the reasoning being used. As far as I know, an “Assult Rifle” is capable of fully automatic fire and all civilian weapons are only semi-automatic. I guess most of the anti-gun nuts have no idea what the difference is. Let’s pass a law that all armed guards for the elite must wait for nine minutes before drawing their weapons to protect their charges. I believe nine minutes is the average response time for police. “We, the people” must have the same rights as the elite even if they don’t think so.


    Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die.

    Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

    First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

    Statistics confirm the obvious truth that the police in America cannot prevent violent crime. In 1997 for example, nationwide there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes. All those crimes were unprevented and undeterred by the police and the criminal justice system.

    Many criminals use firearms to commit their crimes. For example, in 1997 criminals did so in 68 percent of murders and 40 percent of robberies. Thus criminals either have or can obtain firearms. The existing “gun control” laws do not stop serious criminals from getting guns and using them in crimes.

    Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

    Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue. It’s faster than the pizza man. Faith in a telephone number and the local cops is so strong that Americans dial 911 over 250,000 times per day.

    Yet, does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”

    It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

    In the especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

    The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

    The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours.

    When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

    The law is similar in most states. A Kansas statute precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to provide police or fire protection. A California law states that “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service.” As one California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.”

    The state legislatures and courts protect government entities and police departments from civil liability for failing to provide adequate police protection. Some states invoke the “sovereign immunity” defense, a throwback to the days when the subjects were forbidden to sue the king.

    Other states have statutes that prevent legal challenges to police “discretionary” functions. Courts preclude lawsuits in those states by holding that answering emergency calls or providing police protection are “discretionary” functions.

    Many states evade liability by relying on the ironically named “public duty” doctrine. Like a George Orwell slogan, that doctrine says: police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

    Police Advice: “Get a Gun”

  • Eddy MARRERO

    Old dog of the same pack.


    Most urban combat scenarios occur in, or under the 200 yard range, well within the effective range of most modern rifles, including the 22 long rifle caliber. The AVERAGE effective range of all handguns is no more than 50 yards at most. In a fire fight, which would you chose to use to defend your life? (Pros know, that one only uses a handgun to fight their way to a rifle.) If you shoot a lot, compete in 3-gun or other shooting games, you know that it is not unusual to shoot somewhere between 300 to 500 rounds per day, but these clowns want to limit our ammunition. Most serious shooting devotees have, and use military caliber firearms, because the available surplus ammo is much cheaper. A lot of the surplus rifle rounds are “armor-piercing” rounds, with a steel core, inside a metal jacketed, lead encased bullet. These military surplus munitions cost the shooter less than half of what newly manufactured rounds would cost. The legislative idiots appear to be totally ignorant of which calibers and types of bullets will defeat body armor, and I do understand why that specific information is not general knowledge, but it is available. We all recognize that firearms can be used as harvesting tools, or competitive sporting equipment, or man cave wall decorations, or DEFENSIVE WEAPONS employed to preserve life and property. The Bill of RIGHTS, 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of The United States does not grant the FREEMAN CITIZEN any privilege to posses and use firearms, it only reaffirms those existing rights, for they already existed prior to the Articles of Incorporation. The Famous “SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD” occurred when the King of England sent his troops into our Father’s homes and places of business to confiscate their guns. Remember always that any so called “LAWS” that violate our Constitution and our amended Bill Of (Citizen’s) Rights, are NOT really LAWS at all! Free men, (and women), possess firearms for self defense as their birthright, but “Subjects” and “Slaves” are never allowed by Tyrants, Despots, Dictators, or Kings, to possess personal firearms, for obvious reasons. The question is: Are you a Freeman or are you someone’s Subject? Time to start pushing back. If your State does not have a “Castle Law”, you need to organize with others and work to get one passed. Strange, how the fact that the kids slaughtered at the school, were shot by the four handguns carried by the shooter, and that the nasty assault weapon never left the trunk of his car. Strange, how the idiot legislators don’t know, or won’t admit, that every gun has the potential to become an assault weapon if it is applied by the shooter, with that goal in mind. At close range and with knowledgeable aim, modern pellet rifles have sufficient power to kill human beings. Guns do not MURDER people. People MURDER people, as they have since Cain murdered Able, and they will use whatever tool that is handy. Let’s outlaw sticks and stones next.

    • michiganian

      Justified , extremely well put response! Problem is, trying to convey these thoughts to people that cannot think any further than one move, so they cannot see the what the government is actually planning for them. This is our Defense Secretary, this fool should have been left standing alone after his stupid non American History remarks. Right in line with Nancy Pelosi’s remark (regarding health care bill) we need to pass this bill so we can read it or a Democratic senator making the remark, this is what Ted Kennedy wanted for the people – what about – WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT FOR THE PEOPLE…of the people, by the people, for the people…for the people that do not know American History. Keep up the good work and God Bess.

  • michiganian

    Please read the Declaration of Independence, it states all the injustices that they were suffering under English rule. That’s the reason for the second amendment – PLAIN AND SIMPLE – TO PROTECT YOU FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT!

  • James Cobb

    Panetta’s statement on armor piercing ammo is a smoke screen designed to raise our emotions-over an non-issue. AP is already illegal, and is virtually nonexistant-except to criminals. As for Assult weapons, First, shooters have been collecting and shooting military surplus weapons since the 1800′s. Second, So called assult weapons or hi cap mags are just not being used to commit crimes. Third, the definition of Assult Weapon is such a stretch as to be ludicrus! Any semi auto rifle with more than two (soon to be one if Feinstein gets her way) of these COSMETIC items: adustable stock, pistol grip, hand guard, flash hider, multi cap magazine, and bayonet lug. When was the last time anyone was accosted by a bayoneted rifle? According to these definitions, even a .22 rifle, when put in a military stye stock becomes a crowd killing terrorists weapon. These are not the bullet spraying full autos the anti gun crowd like to show videos of. Assult rifles are by definition of medium caliber, half a powerful as my hunting rifle. This is not about saving the public, its about denying dozens of types of the most popular sporting rifles to the shooting public who incidently spend millions of dollars on equipment and ammo each year and pose no threat to anybody, except to a tyranical, empire building, self styled dictator!

  • r.p.

    Look very closely at the picture provided in this article. That is the epitome af an American Terrorist.

  • Dad

    Panetta is one glowing example of the fact that Americans most definately need the second ammendment.

  • Jimbo

    “For the life of me”, I don’t understand why ignorant peopel like Panetta, get promoted to jobs they can’t handle.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.