You know I've had people come up and ask me to sign their guns. Sign my name on gun handles and holsters and stuff. I've done it once or twice for law enforcement officials, but when people do that -- and there have been quite a few of them lately -- I always tell them no. I don't want to do that. I don't want my name on that and I hope you use this gun, whatever its purpose is, I hope it's used wisely.
It's not about the stuff. The issue is how we use that stuff and how do we train people to use that stuff. Do we use that stuff to confront people who are protesting in a community? Do we use a sniper rifle to see closer in a crowd? That's where it breaks down.
Why would Russia care about chemical weapons in Syria? They have no incentive to care.
A weapon isn't good or bad, depends on the person who uses it.
Let's talk... we have indications, let me just finish this point, because how can use WMD while your troops are only 100 meters away from it ? Is it logical ? It doesn't happen. It cannot be used like this.
Every animal is providentially directed to the use of its proper weapon.
No matter how many people you kill, using a machine gun in battle is not a war crime because it does not cause unnecessary suffering; it simply performs its job horrifyingly well.
If the guy has a gun, that's the power. He doesn't need to wave the gun; he just needs to point the gun in a very relaxed fashion.
With 'Divergent' and 'Insurgent,' there isn't great emphasis on uniformity; it's a vigilante military, the state is in disarray, and there is no reference point for authenticity, so it's just weapons work and circumstantial fighting.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in wars.
People tend to forget about nuclear weapons. We think they are going to remain in silos for the rest of time. As long as they exist, they are going to be used.
When your holding a double barrel shotgun use both barrels.
Israel uses weapons to safeguard civilians. Hamas uses civilians to safeguard weapons.
Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't make an image controversial. It all depends on where you put the gun, who is holding it.
If you have a block of ballistics gelatin and a high-speed camera, pretty soon somebody gets a gun!
I can kill a dog in six ways. Five of them are throwing missiles at it.
The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.
As the equipment has gotten better - and it's gotten better in an attempt to try to protect the player more - then the equipment becomes used more as a weapon.
It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.
Even if you want to take the American story, they say we used chemical weapons the same day the team or the investigation team came to Syria ; is it logical ? It's not logical. Even if a country or army wanted to use such weapon, they should have waited a few days till the investigation finished its work. It's not logical, the whole story doesn't even hold together.
Let's presume that a country or army has this weapon ; this kind of armaments cannot be used by infantry for example or by anyone. This kind of armament should be used by specialized units, so it cannot be in the hand of anyone.
Well, the next attack in the United States will be larger than 9/11. And there's no doubt that if they have a weapon of mass destruction, they'll use it.
