“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA– ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” –Heinrich Himmler
Ghost of a past we don't want repeats. Sent chills to my being.
“Who needs armor-piercing bullets ...”.
Who the hell is this schmuck to tell me what I need?
Who needs an assault rifle??
Anne Franks family did.
1. “Assault Weapons” have been illegal since 1934.
2. The 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect citizens (us peasants who don’t “need” assault weapons) from the government (the guys who actually have the warp 9 killing weapons).
We don’t need “Assault Rifles”any more then we need Paneta as Secretary of Defence.
Thank GOD,this clown is leaving soon.
Anyway Civilians can’t own “Assault Rifles”Unless they are given to us by Obombers Attorney General Eric Holder.
That was Obombers first bite at the Second Amendment and it cost the lives of thousands of Mexican citizen’s.
Who said the government gets to decide what I need?
And
Who said that the second amendment was about what I need anyway?
Do I need free speech?
Do I need property?
Do I need to be able to travel freely?
Do I need to be able to worship according to my choice?
Need - really Panetta?
Panetta is too close to the forest to see the trees.
So the Democrat is saying “People Don’t ‘Need’ Assault Rifles” (What’s that!?), and turns the conversation from whatever an “Assault Rifle” is to “who the Hell needs armor-piercing bullets from ordinary citizens?”
By switching subjects quickly he spins some heads, and causes them to agree with him (Head nodding) rather than discuss the former topic much less the latter topic.
Old trick of the manipulative Left.
I got a lot of crap I dont need. Panetta is on page one of the short list.
Response: In the sense of "Need" true enough at this time in history. However, in terms of the right to own one an erroneous and misleading statement:
“I’ve been duck hunting since I was 10-years-old. I love to hunt”
That’s the point, Lil Caesar intends to say who’s a duck and who isn’t.
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...how hard is that, Lenny?
The response should be that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. period no further comment
The next question should be is why do want to prevent me from having an ‘assualt weapon’ (whatever that is)?
The idea would be to force them to justify taking gun rights away and not discuss why I want to own guns.
The supposed reasons for taking guns away is not borne out by statistical data, in fact it is wuite the opposite. So therefore, why do they want to ban assual weapons??
Beware a government that seeks to ban the weapons THEY fear the most.
And Rosa Parks doesn’t have to sit in the front of the bus.
This means banning ammo for and thus rendering useless all military and civilian-version stuff like the AR-15, SKS-56, de-miled AKA-47, TT-33, M-1, M-14, Enfield rifle, Moison Nagant, 30.06, the list is endless. Who needs a gun ban when you can ban ammo and ammo components (if you haven’t figured this out yet, the LibTards are going after ammo and components as well)
The military generally are under the command of the commander in chief. Political issues are not discussed and discouraged.
However, they are taught to only obey a lawful order.
So what is the point in giving the troops a lesson on gun control? What is the ulterior motive?
Just a thought.
bobo
bobo
Panetta’s Communist background:
- - - ——— - - -
“Leon Panetta’s Communist Ties
Posted by Dave Blount at June 15, 2011 10:24 AM
Barack Hussein Obama, protégé of Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers, isn’t the only member of the current misadministration with communist ties. Look what Accuracy in Media has learned about current CIA director and Secretary of Defense nominee Leon Panetta:
The evidence shows that Panetta had a close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party by the name of Hugh DeLacy, whose record included meeting with communist espionage agents.
Still more disturbing is the evidence they did not find:
[W]e find no evidence that the Panetta-DeLacy relationship was ever examined by the FBI or the Senate when Panetta was being considered and confirmed for the post of CIA Director. The major media have been even more derelict, content to cover the Panetta hearings for Secretary of Defense in a cursory manner and then turn their attention back to something that is easier and more fun to cover and which is sure to attract interest — [Anthony] Weiner.
Nestled in a political establishment that is friendly toward our communist enemies and shrieks “McCarthyism!!!” at anyone who isn’t, Panetta didn’t have to try very hard to keep the relationship from going public.
Back in 1983 he inserted a tribute into the Congressional Record, recognizing DeLacy and his wife Dorothy, another communist, for their commitment to “social justice” and resisting “the dark forces of McCarthyism.” The latter strongly indicates that Panetta was aware of their involvement in the communist cause and that not only did it not matter to him, it was evidence of their courage and bravery. …
Trevor Loudon writes, “The couple, Hugh DeLacy and his wife Dorothy Baskin DeLacy, both had long histories with the Communist Party USA and were very active in the Santa Cruz ‘progressive’ movement that had helped nurture Congressman Panetta’s career. Phrases like ‘social justice’ and ‘dark forces of McCarthyism’ rolled from Rep. Panetta’s pen, in a piece that would not have been out of place in the Communist Party’s Peoples Daily World.”
He adds, “The DeLacys were not merely Panetta’s constituents—they were close personal friends. Hugh DeLacy was also a longtime correspondent, with whom Panetta regularly discussed defense and foreign policy issues.” “
-end snip-
We don’t need all those government agencies. We don’t need all the support staff Congress and the Senate use. We don’t need czars.. etc. etc.
When we send soldiers into a home/building to clear it of murderous enemies, what is the minimum weapon they use? An M16/M4!
When a civilian homeowner hears a bump or crash in the night along with other indications a criminal with probable murderous intentions is inside and looking to do harm, why the hell is he limited, under threat of severe legal punishment, to weapons LESS than the MINIMUM a soldier would be issued for the same confrontation?
And since the highest speed limit in the nation is 85, then people don’t NEED cars that go over 85. Blood alcohol levels for legally drunk are .08, so no one NEEDS to buy more than one beer at a time ... get rid of cases and six packs.
This entire NEED argument is stupid. Some folks play frisbee, others golf ... but some like to shoot targets. I don’t have a problem with that.