Anti Second Amendment Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks to U.S. troops in Italy. "For the life

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Leon Panetta asks U.S. military troops why anybody but them needs assault weapons.


“Who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” Panetta told the soldiers at the U.S. Army Garrison Vicenza in northern Italy. “For the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have assault weapons.”


Link

This guy is a loon and doesn't even seem to know much firearms considering he's the Secretary of Defense. Good article too.




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by danneu89
Leon Panetta asks U.S. military troops why anybody but them needs assault weapons.


“Who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?” Panetta told the soldiers at the U.S. Army Garrison Vicenza in northern Italy. “For the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have assault weapons.”


Link

This guy is a loon and doesn't even seem to know much firearms considering he's the Secretary of Defense. Good article too.


How does someone who does not know what an assault weapon is, or isn't, have any right to open their mouth on the matter? Dumbass...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by danneu89
 

for the SoD to even pose such a question should warrant a psyche evaluation ... early onset dementia maybe ?
it doesn't appear he remembers his DUTY.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I swear to God--we have GOT to demand our country back. This is getting really annoying....



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Mr. Panetta, with all due respect sir, it is unbecoming of you to try to drag us into a political fight knowing we cannot legally speak for ourselves.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
While the question is innocent enough, it borders on fringing upon the Hatch Act and Department of Defense Directive 1344.10. Any answer given to the Secretary could be seen as advocating political activity while representing a branch of the armed forces. Of course, the Hatch Act does exclude the Secretary of Defense in engaging in the politically charged rhetorical question he posed, but it does not protect the soldier that falls under Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 and decides to speak up and out against it.


Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.


It isn't that hard to find a military court to nail a soldier who speaks out against the SecDef in regards to this under Article 92.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


How many AR 15's are protecting this idiot as he wanders around Europe?

Maybe he just doesn't realize that military people can't voice a political opinion about their "leader"?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
For the life of me i dont know why the hell anyone in a leadership position at the Defense Dept would question the Second Amendment (especially one sworn to defend the Constitution and who represents the soldiers who gave their lifes to preserve that right - right not government granted privilege).



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


None, the US Military doesn't use the AR-15. They use M-16s and M-4's the AR-15 only looks like an M-4 or M-16. M-4's and M-16 are select fire weapons. In single shot mode they function the same as an AR-15. M-4's and M-16's have the additional fire mode of either a 3 round burst or full auto depending on model.

An earlier poster gave good evidence the Secretary of Defense is probably immune to any military provisions against political activity. It might not be illegal, but it is unbecoming.



edit on 17-1-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
reply to post by Happy1
 


None, the US Military doesn't use the AR-15. They use M-16s and M-4's the AR-15 only looks like an M-4 or M-16. M-4's and M-16 are select fire weapons. In single shot mode they function the same as an AR-15. M-4's and M-16's have the additional fire mode of either a 3 round burst or full auto depending on model.

An earlier poster gave good evidence the Secretary of Defense is probably immune to any military provisions against political activity. It might not be illegal, but it is unbecoming.



edit on 17-1-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)

no they use AR-15 lol



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.


Put the broad paint brush away.

Either way, regardless if his statement was in a more "pro" light, he placed soldiers in direct conflict of an order he is supposed to enforce. While the soldiers are free to express their opinions as citizens, voicing them in uniform represents the branch of uniform they are wearing and can be seen as politically partisan activity.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
While the question is innocent enough, it borders on fringing upon the Hatch Act and Department of Defense Directive 1344.10. Any answer given to the Secretary could be seen as advocating political activity while representing a branch of the armed forces. Of course, the Hatch Act does exclude the Secretary of Defense in engaging in the politically charged rhetorical question he posed, but it does not protect the soldier that falls under Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 and decides to speak up and out against it.


Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.


It isn't that hard to find a military court to nail a soldier who speaks out against the SecDef in regards to this under Article 92.


The bolding in the ex is mine, concerning the wording of "partisan political activity" meaning aligned to a particular party and voicing or acting upon ones political views. A soldier who says, "the POTUS is a democratic horse's ass" or "the democratic POTUS is an ass" or "the POTUS is a republican horse's ass," etc., would be making a partisan political statement by attaching a political affiliation to the statement. A soldier who says, "the POTUS is an ass" (a simple non-partisan statement), is not making a partisan political statement. You can look up the definition of "partisan" in any dictionary.

It appears that Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 does not restrict freedom of speech or opinion, just making a partisan statement verbally or in writing concerning allegiance or opinion pertaining to a specific political party.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is simple logic and legalese as it is written above in the "ex".

Cheers - Dave
edit on 1/17.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





This guy is a loon





Dumbass...





for the SoD to even pose such a question should warrant a psyche evaluation ... early onset dementia maybe ?





How many AR 15's are protecting this idiot





Put the broad paint brush away.



My bad.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I guess no one has explained to Panetta that some calibers are armor piercing by size and power alone and many by simply not using lead. (which the environmentalists are working HARD to have banned from bullets)

Ban lead and then it's steel instead ... oops.. Now it's a steel penetrator and armor piercing. shucks.. those are banned too (so he'd like) Maybe we'll be allowed frangible ammunition? Simunition? Really nasty paintballs like pepperballs at least? I know... At least let us keep our big evil black guns with lead down the barrels so we can at least beat the bad guy like a club. I'm sure it'll be deemed too realistic to be a toy tho so.. Naww.. no on that too.

Indeed.. We gotta take back the nation. Violence is a dead end...but vigilance in the traditional sense and being politically involved is simply a necessity as anyone has time and ability.

I mean, even if the nation radically changed by other means, it won't STAY good unless people are involved then anyway. Why not start now?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.


Yes, you're right. If he were speaking in defense of our constitution instead of against it we probably would say how great he is.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ireminisce

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.


Yes, you're right. If he were speaking in defense of our constitution instead of against it we probably would say how great he is.



Except neither of you decide what is constitutional. The Supreme Court does. We will find out soon.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
Maybe he just doesn't realize that military people can't voice a political opinion about their "leader"?


That isn't entirely true. Military personnel are expected and encouraged to be political active within the DoD directive I posted. As a member of the military you sign away only the right to speak for the military, but not your personal views; though it can be muddied waters depending on how vocal and how you are presenting yourself.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Ireminisce
 

i gave ya a star for the logic ... however, this is Panetta we're talking about.
even IF he were doing as you say, the accolades would be minimal.

ppl do need to notice his blatant disregard for his oath, his countrymen and his troops.
some things should not be forgotten.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Except neither of you decide what is constitutional. The Supreme Court does.


If you believe this to be true, then you shouldn't have a problem pointing out the clause in the constitution that grants the supreme court the power of judicial review.
edit on 18-1-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join