SecDef: US Civilians Do Not Need “Assault Weapons”

Leon Panetta doesn’t think you should be able to own ‘assault weapons,’ whatever they are. This should surprise exactly nobody, considering that Panetta was President Clinton’s chief of staff when the original AWB was passed in 1994. But why is he using his position as Secretary of Defense as a bully pulpit to indoctrinate U.S. troops about the 2nd Amendment?

Speaking to U.S. troops at a base in Italy, the SecDef pontificated “I’ve been duck hunting since I was 10-years-old. I love to hunt and I love to be able to share that joy with my kids. But for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon.”

Forget the fact that the 2nd Amendment has sweet f***-all to do with duck hunting. Forget the fact that the term ‘assault weapon’ can mean just about anything that an opportunistic gun-grabber wants it to mean, including 120+ year old cowboy carbines.

What really concerns me is that the Executive Branch, speaking through an unelected Cabinet member, is starting to define the meaning of the United States Constitution for our armed forces. Don’t forget that those armed forces take their orders from the Commander-In-Chief, who coincidentally happens to be the head of the Executive Branch.

What are the chances that Panetta went off the reservation and spoke without authorization from the White House? Zero. What are the chances that this is part of the Obama Administration’s multi-front campaign to redefine the 2nd Amendment without having to amend it through the Constitutionally-prescribed process?

You make the call.

113 Responses to SecDef: US Civilians Do Not Need “Assault Weapons”

  1. avatarSlappy says:

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out Leon!

  2. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Which of the pro-2A advocacy organizations can we count on to remind the troops, enlisted and commissioned, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to safeguard freedom from tyranny, against enemies foreign and domestic?

    • avatarJoel says:

      Oath Keepers?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        If they really believed it, they’d never be a government thug in the first place.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          I’d guess most are thoroughly brainwashed into blindly assuming that they are defending their country.

          For example, Pat Tillman wasn’t a “thug.” Yet he was figuring out the US Military was thuggish when he was killed.

          Often it takes a while for them to reckon the real purpose of the US military, as Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, finally admitted:

          “I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.”

          He has some provocative advice for making the US Military into an instrument of defense instead of Mafia-style thuggery in his book War is a Racket.

          Full text available online FREE here:
          War is a Racket
          Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
          http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

        • avatarJoshua says:

          Let me get this straight: I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and to follow all LAWFUL orders = I’m a thug? I don’t see any difference in the number of people willing to be gov’t lemmings outside of the military vs those in the military. Please explain your statement more clearly, maybe I misunderstood.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The Standing Army you’re serving is unconstitutional.

          I doubt you’re a thug. But I also doubt you’re thinking much either.

          “Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

          Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933 speech
          Author of:
          WAR IS A RACKET
          http://www.warisaracket.com/

        • avatarSee This Also says:

          Joshua, “lawful” just means “whatever is allowed by law”. As we all know, any fool can make a law. Just because something is a law doesn’t mean it’s a morally just law.

          Also how exactly does being stationed in over 100 countries defend the Constitution? Does the Constitution state that we should be the world’s policeman and continually further the cause of imperialism?

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      safeguard freedom from tyranny

      Allow me to remind the good folks here that the “tyranny”[1] that the 2A Militia is intended “prevent”[2]–as a “substitute”[3]–is the Standing Army itself.

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary to quit supporting bootlicking the troops Standing Army….

      _______________
      [1] “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791
      [2] “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
      [3] “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army…” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29

  3. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    actually, TTAG needs to post the video floating around. It is my understanding a US Serviceman asked the question and grilled F**knetta about it and he fumbled the answer

    • avatarALH says:

      If you know where it is I’d love to see it, I tried finding it and haven’t seen it anywhere.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Leon Panetta may be coming from the other side of the fence, another General McChrystal. I doubt he thinks US citizens “need” or should be trusted with, any means of defense against government or, for that matter, their own defense during civil disturbances. He seems to favor (at least, when in power, not to object to) the notion that the National Guard and Army Reserves should be trained to handle, “mentally and emotionally,” service in the “domestic theater.” Lovely. I cannot find any reference that he objected to that doctrinal “supplement,” for which the superficial reference is to the training doctrine created and implemented from 1991-93 at Fort Ord, Monterrey, CA, which might be called his home military base. (See Wikipedia, Ft. Ord, Leon Panetta, if you have no larger bio’s.) In the 1992 LA riots, sure enough, the police let things burn and Guard and Reserve units were sent to LA (from Ft Ord) to provide the ultimate containment if needed. His brief two years of military service after college and law school in Santa Clara were performed at Ft. Ord, a few miles from his High School, as director of operations and intelligence for the base. This was a plumb assignment, as were his subsequent Washington jobs. I assume his parents were loyal CA republicans, but can’t verify that. His Monterrey connections are very extensive. He devoted his early career to particular forms of civil rights enforcement during the Nixon Administration, assisted in the bankrupting of New York City under Republican Mayor Lindsay (my view), returned to government with the Clinton Administration (after switching parties), supported the AWB, and later ushered in the termination of “don’t ask, don’t tell” under President Obama. In general he seems to have taken the side of the elite on one hand and of minorities of various sorts on the other. I consider that politically astute, a good reading of the tea leaves. I can’t imagine he wants to encourage any group, least of all the 70%, to provide for their own defense. Defend yourself against ducks. Maybe against a hobo. Leave the rest to them. And no, he doesn’t want that to be optional, obviously. He doesn’t seem to worry about who “them” will be in the future. That gives me pause.

  4. avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

    *COUGH* Douche *COUGH*

  5. avatarBadjujuu says:

    Since when was he appointed the Secretary or Needs? What he needs to focus is what my Brothers down range need while sweating and bleeding in Shitcanistan. Take Away the retarded Rules of Engagement. Give us freedom to operate like we train. But instead, they tie our arms and feet together, throw us into the pool and tell us to swim to victory.

  6. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Leon can kiss my Obama!

  7. avatarCZJay says:

    Almost all the troops don’t know what the Constitution says. So being told what it says is much easier than reading it. Police don’t even know the law/s they enforce. They just say everything is illegal because the police chief says so. See how that works? Just follow our orders because we are the commanders here not you, submit.

    • avatarCasey T says:

      Almost every Marine knows the Constitution. You are flat out wrong. We were told repeatedly that it has supremecy over any order.

      • avatarMike DC says:

        +1

        I have a copy in my desk and everyone gets a copy when they get to our unit.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Why do you keep taking a paycheck off the taxpayers? Your funding is unconstitutional, being that the strict 2 year time limit for funding a temporarily raised army is long past.

        • “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” ~Article 1, Section 8

        What part of NO don’t you understand?

        • “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…” ~Article 1, Section 8
        • “A well regulated Militia…” ~Second Amendment

        What part of Militia don’t you understand?

        • avatarmountocean says:

          Marine Corps is part of the Navy. As in “To provide and maintain a Navy.” It’s the enumerated power immediately below the one you quoted.

          But even so, the “appropriation of money” is renewed every year (defense authorization act) and there are very strict rules regarding the use of last year’s money, let alone two years past.

        • avatarCasey T says:

          First off, I didn’t join the Marines for money as my family had plenty and I was pulling in scholarships for college. I joined because some terrorist @ssholes decided to fly planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. I left college after two years on my college baseball team and pulling scholarships because I’m a patriot and wanted to help. Second, we were required to sign an eight year contract, four years active duty and four years individual ready reserve. There were no two year contracts or I would have taken one. Now, why don’t you leave us veterans alone, we were willing to put our lives on the line to protect everyone and the Constitution. Calling us ignorant or criticizing our willingness to serve is rude and uncalled for. People a lot braver than anyone here have fought and died to protect liberty, the Constitution, and every amendment in the Bill of Rights. Think where we all may be if it wasn’t for the bravery of others, we’d still be British Subjects or could be speaking German if others had not joined the military.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Marine Corp used to be sharpshooters in the rigging of tall ships, or “naval infantry.”

          Now they’re just another Army. “…the mission of the Marine Corps has evolved…overlap those of the United States Army… President Jackson’s attempts to combine and integrate the Marine Corps with the Army…” /wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

          You say: “appropriation of money” is renewed

          What part of NO don’t you understand?

          “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” ~Article 1, Section 8

          There is no “renew” in the Constitution, just like there’s no “hunting and sporting” in the Second Amendment.

          Quit sticking bullshit words in the Constitution that ain’t there.

        • avatarShawnP says:

          That is why congress passes a new appropriation bill for the Armed Forces Budget every year…duh!

          It says no longer than two years, that doesn’t mean the the founders intended that there would only be an Army for two years! It means that the appropriation bill must be redone every two years.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          protect everyone and the Constitution

          Looks like you swallowed the Koolaid, parrot.

          In actuality, you’re working as a “high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

          Got a problem with what Major General Smedley Butler, USMC says?

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Ivy: Those words, “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

          It doesn’t mean that the Armies can only stand for 2 years. It means that appropriated funds must be obligated (plain English, spent) within 2 years. But, of course, money is appropriated on a yearly basis.

          Go read some fiscal law so you can argue intelligently. No, quoting wikipedia is NOT arguing intelligently. Any imbecile with a computer can change wiki content.

          As far a Gen Butler, well then, if he wrote it must be true. Just because his quote supports your misguided world view doesn’t make it fact.

        • avatarUSMCVeteran says:

          +1

      • avatarTacticalDad says:

        Most of the Marines I served with (Gulf War Era) had no idea what the hell the consitution said. I was in the Grunts 3/5.

        However, we did have a good sniffer for BS. So I’m sure if anything “stupid” came down the pike, many of us would be like… Hmm.. I’m not sure about that..

        I’d like to think my squad mates would take long leaves back home rather than carry out what the perceived to be unlawful orders in Southern California.

        my .02

  8. avatarRabbi says:

    The real first responders are victims and bystanders. Cops are third responders. FU Panetta

  9. avatarLance says:

    Surprised a life time democratic brown nose would oppose Adolf Obama? The guys a loser he has been purging the military of all none liberals the last few years. In way any man whose a christian progun or pro Constitution he has been trying to throw out. Look at all the Marines Solder being kicked out for saying something on face book.

    Overall good riddance to see him leaving.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      The guy replacing him is worse, many would say.

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      “Come meet the new boss…same as the old boss…”

      Members of the Armed Forces are prohibited from making disrespectful comments about persons in their chain of command, or about any officer for that matter. Elected officials are off-limits too. Undermining the chain of command or challenging civilian control of the military is considered bad JuJu. Truth is not a defense.

      Members of the military on active duty that post stuff on Foolbook with their real name attached are stupid and get what they deserve. I much prefer anonymous blog comments posted under a pseudonym. ;)

  10. avatarMike DC says:

    Is this why they no longer sell or order AR or AK style rifles at the Ft Belvoir gun store (sign posted, they didn’t just run out)? Is this happening to other gun stores on military bases?

    • avatarwaif says:

      Ft Belvoir has a gun store? Where?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      That’s curious, as I hear from reading on another board I frequent that Patrick AFB has a gun department in their Exchange, and MacDill AFB opened one in their Exchange two weeks ago. Both apparently stock black rifles and accessories for same.

    • Gun store on Ft Huachuca was selling AR items and rifles, but I think the latest “Don’t let a crisis go to waste” episode has cleaned them out. Hopefully they will get some more in the future.

  11. avatarAir Force TSgt says:

    I wonder how silent the room went we he said that…

  12. avatarensitu says:

    Amazing how all the Old School Clintonistas and the newer OZombies are in LOCK-effing-GOOSE STEP when it comes to disarming America. Why would 2 groups who absolutly HATE each other be so Collective in their Unionfied hatred of people defending themselfs against Tyranny?

    • avatarFug says:

      Because they are secret communists. Seriously. One side may eventually purge the other, but they are united against us like we were the White Army or Makhno’s Anarchists.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Communism is secretly capitalism. Seriously.

        “If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory.” ~Vladimir Lenin, 1918

        • avatarBill says:

          Wrong again! But, thankfully, no mention of the uterus.

          State Capitalism = Communism – Yes.

          State Capitalism does NOT equal a free market.

  13. avatarNick says:

    F… him. Molon Labe.

  14. avatarSubZ says:

    Civilians? We used to be citizens…

    • avatarMikeinid says:

      He meant subjects.

    • avatarDrewR55 says:

      Agreed. Can we please stop calling this a ‘Civilian Disarmenment’? I am a Citizen. But I am all for a Civilian Disarmenment, we can start with the ATF.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Civilians are “non-combatants.”

      Citizen-soldiers are a Militia, and supposed to be “well regulated” (2A) with Congress providing that it be “organized, armed, and disciplined” (Art. 1, Sec. 8.)

      But the well-regulated Militia has been usurped by the Standing Army…so yeah, you’re Civilian to the Standing Army hierarchy, a non-participant.

      It’s time to emancipate ourselves from tyranny, like the Swiss did with their citizen-militia.

      “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a MILITIA, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.”

      ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

    • avatarmountocean says:

      NY’s new state magazine capacity restricted will disarm their Civilian Law Enforcement in March. Ha-HA-HHA! (except for the changes I’m sure they’ll make soon exempting them).

  15. avatarJim Scrummy says:

    Sure, as soon as PFPA, which provides protection to OSD, gives up all their nice M4s and other automatic weapons.

  16. avatarstateisevil says:

    The empire is afraid of veterans because they’ll be trained to use firearms when they return to civilian life. They’re afraid of having those firearms used against them as they bring the country to its knees.

  17. avatarDave S says:

    The only reason for the 2A is for, in extremity, the “militia(title 10, USC) to resist the standing army of the Tyrannical Government.

    To that end, the People should be able ALL weaponry, personal equipment issued to the light infantry forces of said Tyrant.

    Since Crew Served weapons of the Day were typically owned by the Organized Militia and funded by the community, I will give the Government authority over them.

    In reality our weapons would only be of use during the initial stages of revolution, since we could have the international opponents ship us arms, ala Lybia, Syria, ect

    The fact that our pols dont acknowledge the reason for the 2A is troubling, very troubling, pehaps they think they can control us? They obviously dont work for us any more!

    • avatarJSIII says:

      Yep I am sure China , Russia and many Central American nations would arm a resistance during a second civil war. Just like the Libyans did for the IRA.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Are you kidding me? The world depends on the US ruling with an iron fist and providing endless subsidies to those who play nice.

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        European nations would side with the leftist authoritarian states, as would the UN in general.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      “to resist the standing army”

      There wouldn’t be any Standing Army in existence to have to resist if the Constitution were actually followed.

  18. avatarCasey T says:

    If they try to use the military to disarm us, they are going to hate the Marine Corps because they will get a huge middle finger from them. The Marines teach honor, courage, and commitment and will wreck havoc to protect the Constitution.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      My guess is they will create their own corps of Federal thugs sworn to protect the government and not the constitution, perhaps under Homeland Security. My question is whether the armed services stand by or actively oppose them.

  19. avatarRKflorida says:

    What I “Need” is none of your damn business. What I also don’t need is an idiot like you telling me what I need.

  20. avatarDale says:

    Tell me again…who is it that is supposed to be working for whom? Seems like some folks need a little reminding on that front.

  21. avatarAvid Reader says:

    I’ve never had any use for this assclown. I’ll be glad to see him shuffle off the national stage. Unfortunately, he’ll probably go on to become a high dollar K street lobbyist and a regular fixture on the Sunday morning shows.

  22. Further evidence of the tyranny we’re currently living under.

  23. avatarRoss says:

    What a tool

  24. avatarTJB says:

    Hmmm.. And Obama ‘needed’ a $4 million vacation in Hawaii … On my dime?? And his wife needed an even more expensive vacation to Spain… Also in my dime?? At least i pay for (and can afford) the things I have and don’t ‘need’… Not that its any if thier business.

  25. avatarguzzimike says:

    I’m so tired of hearing folks say “I own a shotgun & support the Second Amendment” as though that somehow makes what they are about to say somehow worth listening to. I know more folks who don’t own and in all likelihood will never own a gun who are more adamant in their support of 2A than any of these yahoos.

    Here’s a question… do you have to own something in order to be a supporter? I say you don’t.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      I have an anus; that doesn’t make me a proctologist.

    • avatarDerryM says:

      +1000 You’re absolutely correct! A Right is only worth exercising as long as you can choose to exercise it or not. The war over Rights is as much a war for everyone’s Right of Choice as it is for any specific Right.

    • avatarIng says:

      Exactly. I don’t own any Scary Black Rifles and don’t really plan to, but this battle isn’t about what I own or want to own. It’s about the universal right to self-defense against tyranny of all sorts, including the “soft” tyranny of those who would (for our own good of course) dictate what we “need” and remove our right to make our own choices.

  26. avatarMikeinid says:

    I have the right to the same weapons the government is going to try and use on me.

    Not my line, got this off instapundit. It is worth a read.
    http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-crush-democrats-dumb-gun-control.html

    Sorry I’m not savvy enough to embed that.

    edit: I guess I did, but I must admit I don’t know how it happened.

  27. avatarOutlaw says:

    **** you, Panetta.

  28. avatarYea...We aint listening says:

    Trust me most service members are staunch supporters of the 2A. We really don’t care what he has to say…… unless it is about our pay ;)

  29. avatarIng says:

    He’s right. We don’t need assault weapons — because WE DON’T ASSAULT PEOPLE. We need self-defense weapons. And hunting and sporting firearms.

    And we have a natural human right — enshrined in the Constitution of the United States — to have, keep, and use any suitable weapon we choose in the pursuit of our own happiness, the protection of our own liberty, and the protection of our own families. (But you already knew that.)

  30. avatarChristoff says:

    Panetta’s statement was not vetted by the Obama admin. It came during a Q&A with soldiers during a troop visit in Vicenza, Italy. It was an off the cuff answer.

    A soldier asked: “I was wondering if, in the near future, what we’re going to see from the Obama administration as far as stopping attacks on our children in schools that don’t have to do with tearing apart our Second Amendment.”

    If the Obama administration had deviously set this up for Panetta to knock out of the park so eloquently, it would surely have been phrased differently.

    http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5179

    • avatarEric S. says:

      Q: Mr. Secretary (off mic) 503rd. I was wondering if, in the near future, what we’re going to see from the Obama administration as far as stopping attacks on our children in schools that don’t have to do with tearing apart our Second Amendment.

      SEC. PANETTA: I think — you know, you heard the president yesterday on gun control. And, you know, they’ve laid out a series of things that, you know, they’re going to propose to the Congress and that he will do by executive order to try to tighten up on the situation.

      And, you know, I — I think — I’ve been through the Congress. Actually, I was chief of staff in Bill Clinton’s administration when we had to implement, you know, some gun control measures at that time, largely dealing with assault weapons. We banned the sale of assault weapons at that time. And then, unfortunately, that ban went out of effect.

      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? I mean, you know — look, I’m a hunter. I go out. You know, I’ve done duck hunting since I was 10 years old. And I love to hunt. And I love to be able to — you know, to share that joy with my kids.

      But I don’t — I mean, for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon. And I don’t — you know, look, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe people ought to 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.

      And I — you know, I think this can be done — I think steps can be taken that will not — that will not undermine the Second Amendment and, at the same time, try to protect some of our schools so that the nuts that are out there won’t use these kinds of weapons to — you know, to wipe them out.

      It’s going to be a tough debate. This is not going to be easy. I’ve been in the Congress. I know how politically sensitive these issues are. But I do hope that steps are taken to try to do something to make sure that — and, look, that’s all we can do. All we can do is to try to take some steps to try to protect these kids in the future.

      It doesn’t mean — it doesn’t mean that there aren’t nuts out there. It doesn’t mean that there are people that might use other ways to do it. But we have to take some steps to try to make sure that it’s a safer environment.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Yeah, that doesn’t exactly read like a scripted, PR campaign answer. Not by a long shot.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        In his answer Panetta referred directly to the Administration’s expressed intentions of the day before, in which Biden, handed the task, announced “a need for Congress to quickly act upon” the need for a new AWB and a limit on magazine size. The Founders were sensible enough to realize that a government which becomes oppressive never believes that to be true. Now the establishment has a serious problem, a remarkable number of men who served only 3 to 10 years in the various wars, that has expertise exactly with the semi-auto clones of the M16/M4, has bad jobs or no pensions, and faces a contracting real economy for years to come. This isn’t 1953. The stock market is at a five-year high but real wages have done nothing but decline for two decades. The government and corporate establishment have a problem. They know it. The 2nd Amendment, they fear, gets in the way of a ‘solution’ to growing resentment. You’ll be left with revolvers and duck guns if you’re not careful.

  31. avatarSilver says:

    Fvckwads like him aside, I wonder what exactly is the mentality of the average soldier? Just like the police, I’ve no delusions that a great number would follow any unconstitutional or anti-citizen order to the letter, some possibly just for the opportunity to kill something.

    So any recent veterans of the modern military out there – what have you experienced in your ranks? What would your comrades do if put on a campaign in Everytown, USA?

    Because, let’s face it…the way things are right now, the one army in the world we have most to fear is our own.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Silver, if such a campaign begins we will need all the cops and military people who will come over to our side. Just as we will need the vets such as me. We need to avoid calling all cops thugs and all GI’s baby killers. It’s counter productive and could well weaken or defeat our cause.

      If we splinter off into a bunch of factions hating on each other as much as the g we will lose and that will get ugly.

    • avatarYea...We aint listening says:

      honestly most of us, you know, at least, your know, in my circles wouldn’t raise arms against US Citizens, you know, we swore to defend the constitution, you know, from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, you know, and we are for the most part, you know, supporters of the 2A and believe that it is a right that no government can take away, you know, I mean don’t worry we’re on your side, you know. I mean most of us are not just looking for an excuse to kill shit, you know…………

  32. avatarDamocles says:

    I don’t own an assault weapon, I own a defensive rifle, a modern musket. Screw you Leon.

    Signed,

    some old Army guy

  33. avatarboardsnbikes says:

    I propose that all presidential appointees pass a First Test. That test being the writing of the Declaration and Bill of Rights on a chalkboard (yes…the old fashion one not one of those whiteboards) three times.

    Grading: pass/fail on perfect execution. Spelling and readability counts. Appointees may repeat the First Test until they pass. Once passed they’re permitted to continue other federal and departmental tests as necessary.

    After the First Test you can be sure the appointee knows the Declaration and the Bill of Rights even though they may not believe it. A step forward for our current civilian federal servants.

  34. avatarMr. Obvious says:

    To clarify – Panetta authorized both torture and the assassination of American citizens without judicial review or due process, correct?

    His opinion on the matter is null. Besides, if I were to believe the CIA, I would believe that there were sleeper cells throughout the nation. Sounds like I should have an “assault weapon” within reaching distance at all times with risks like that…

  35. avatarRalph says:

    Ralph: US Civilians Do Not Need a F^cking “Secretary of Defense” to Tell Us What We Need.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      But Ralph, they’re trying to teach you what you need. Please don’t be so difficult. “Or we’ll put you in a f^^g camp. For your own good. It hurts us more than you, really. Love, Leon and Stanley.”

  36. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    First, Leon needs to re-read the Constitution and not fall asleep this time. He also needs to read the U.S. Code Title 10 Subtitle A Chapter 13 which will explain to him the facts regarding militias. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      U.S. Code Title 10 on the militia is unconstitutional garbage.

      “There is no such thing as an organized and unorganized militia or an unarmed militia … an unconstitutional usurpation of the fundamental right to a well regulated militia system.”

      ~Rudolph DiGiacinto
      Founder &c.
      Virginia1774.org
      http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php

    • avatarMark says:

      I seriously doubt Panetta doesn’t actually know what The Constitution says. He simply disagrees with it and is part of a massive group of power-mad criminals endeavoring to undermine it for their own convenience.

  37. avatarBen in UT says:

    I’ve been an American since I was born. I love to be free and I love to be able to share that joy with my family members, friends, and colleagues. But for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell the Department of Defense needs $689 billion a year to simply create more hostility towards this great nation from abroad.

    Two can play at this game.

    P.S. Your tie-shirt-jacket combo sucks.

  38. avatarAharon says:

    My concern with the Pentagon interfering now is to take it as a warning that the military wants American citizens with less modern less tactical weapons should or when the military moves out across America under orders of Martial Law. Does the military want us disarmed so we are easier for them to control?

  39. avatarJoe says:

    Brief Bio: Recently Honorably discharged combat veteran, of Afghanistan. 3Three months before the end of my enlistment (thank God I got out when I did ). I asked an MP what he would do if he showed up to work one morning and was ordered to disarm the Base’s Citizen population. His reply ” I’ve got a wife and 2 kids to feed and care for. I cannot afford to lose my house, my position, or my rank over something like that in todays economy… guess we’d have a long busy day”. This Marine was a junior NCO. I was appalled to say the least. I debated him for 20 minutes to little avail. There are deadbeats in all professions sad to say. The other side of the story is that amongst my fellow Infantryman it is a completely diferent story (at least as far as my former Regiment goes) I have had several seperate discussions with grunts from multiple battalions. We all agreed on one thing. On the day of or before we were supposed to disarm our fellow American Citizens the Battalions armory would be mysteriously emptied of all weaponry and into the hills we would go. We swore to uphold and defend the Constitution ,I personally swore 3 times to do so. I keep that promise today and forever. Returning Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan know a thing or two about unconventional warefare and I highly doubt that “just the Infantry”- end sarc. feels the same way.
    Kinda hard to implement total civilian disarmament when you have mutineed nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, stealth bomber squadrons, artillery, armor, attack helicopters and….well I hate to say it but a large percentage of the U.S Army :) fighting/ resisting back at the tyrants.
    I do not fear a disarmament, nor do I welcome an attempt. It will be a dark day when it happens but our nation has seen dark days before. Semper Fi from a Patriot.

  40. avatarensitu says:

    Hey? What’s that sound?

  41. avatarKCK says:

    Million Mag March!
    Fight for 2A in Iraq and Afghanistan, infringe when you get home!

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      I don’t think the U.S. sent troops to those countries to fight for the right of the Iraqi and Afghani people to keep and bear arms.

      No 2nd Amendment In Iraq Constitution
      Colin Powell hails prohibition on arms while emphasizing ‘liberty’
      Published: 03/10/2004 at 1:00 AM
      by Ron Strom, WND

      Iraq’s new interim constitution sounds many of the same themes as the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of the people – with one stark difference: There is no right to keep and bear arms in the new charter.
      .
      .
      .
      Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of “rights” and “liberty.”

      “Read what it says about arms not being allowed within the society except under the control of civilian authorities,” he said. “Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty, and what the new Iraq will look like. …”
      .
      .
      .
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2004/03/23651

  42. avatarGreg says:

    Okay, if I don’t need an assault rifle, you don’t need more that 1500 calories a day. Really, obesity kills. Let’s get these killer diets under control. Millions die every year directly because of obesity. It’s time to stop the madness, end unlimited access to calories.

    Idiotic control freaks.

  43. avatarMarine 0331 says:

    I can’t speak for all servicemembers, but I know a lot of grunts, myself included, who would fight against stupid crap like this. We took an oath to support and defend the Constitiution, and I plan to do so if I’m ordered to march against American citizens. It’s bad enough already that they’re trying to get us to register our guns with our commanding officer. This Marine will not follow unconstitutional orders.

    • avatarMark says:

      Funny how taking that oath inspires interest in what you might be dying to defend, isn’t it? I don’t believe the “progressives” have any idea of the level of skill and commitment that exists among those who have done so.

  44. avatarJPT says:

    As a Marine 0311 i would say that the majority of the Marines I served with would not carry out an order to disarm as most of us were ordering scary black rifles before we even came home. Many spades games were played discussing many of the topics discussed on this website. And i do think the government is uneasy about the number of veterans that are armed as we are well trained and can pass that knowledge on to others. I personally was lucky enough to cross train with the Isrealis at their counter terrorism school. The knowledge I picked up there would be invaluble should the need ever arise to pass it on. ;)

  45. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    If you think what Panetta said was messed up, look at who the Government has the military conducting WMD disaster drills against, gun owners disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment!

    Mock Disaster Training Exercise in Scioto County
    http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Mock-Disaster-Training-Exercise-in-Scioto-County-187322931.html

    The new meme is Gun Owners = Domestic Terrorists

    • avatarDerryM says:

      “The new meme is Gun Owners = Domestic Terrorists”

      Well…we could all see that coming.

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        Aye, but there was a whole lot of sheeple who just recently used to say “Obama will never come after your guns you conspiracy nut!”.

        Now the Gun Grab begins and the labeling of law abiding gun owners as Domesstic Terrorists take it to a whole new level!

  46. avatarRetired Infantry Grung says:

    Eff you Panetta, the 2nd Amendment says we can so your opinion does not amount to spit. The very purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect WE THE PEOPLE from assholes like YOU AND OBAMA.

  47. avatarJD says:

    Lifelong DNC operator/apparatchik and general dirtbag…& damn ugly one at that. Time to go, and they’ve already ‘found’ a replacement.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.