Let’s walk through this together. Leaders (“Cardinals” as one writer identified them) of America, Panetta being one, think that an armed populace, carrying the same type of weapons as soldiers and the police, are no longer necessary. BUT, according to Panetta, they can be armed with lesser weapons, less potentially troublesome for some future leader.
Asked by a soldier what President Barack Obama would do to protect school children from gun violence without infringing Americans’ right to own guns, Panetta said action was needed after the attack on a Connecticut school in December in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
He told members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza that there were areas where steps could be taken,
“I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?”
In the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting – the latest mass killing in the United States on a list that includes Columbine in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007 – Obama launched the biggest gun-control push in generations.
He asked Congress on Wednesday to approve an assault weapons ban and background checks for all gun buyers.
Panetta, who is on a week-long trip to Europe, was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff when the United States banned the sale of assault weapons in the 1990s.
“Unfortunately that ban went out of effect,” he said.
He added that he was an enthusiastic hunter.
“I’ve been duck hunting since I was 10-years-old. I love to hunt and I love to be able to share that joy with my kids. But for the life of me, I don’t know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon.”
So we can have stuff that kills ducks but is limited in range, unlike the M4 owned by the police, the feds and the military. Hmm….. That would make any future conflict somewhat one sided, wouldn’t it. Kind of what the founding fathers were against? Panetta knows the truth, he also knows what side the bread is buttered on since he’s been eating government funded bread for the better part of forty years.
But ask yourself if this limiting of an amendment should be applied to the others? As we speak the fourth and fifth and others are under assault by an ever growing and intrusive government. But what about the First? If applied equally, the theory Panetta supports would look like this “You have the absolute freedom to speak your mind. As long as we approve the type of words, how many you speak and what they can potentially do- like criticize authority.” Sounds a like “1984” ish doesn’t it?
Which may be why Anonymous has decided to pitch in. The realize freedom of speech is often quelled by the barrel of a gun if it is held by the people being criticized.
Something the men and women in uniform have witnessed first hand. Which makes you wonder what in the world Panetta was trying to accomplish?
Other than being part of a team trying to change the truth by changing the narrative by attempting to throw enough crap against the wall in hopes some sticks. And without conscience. Something to be remembered about him.