Sentences with phrase «weapons of war on»

«It's clear that the people on the [TIME] cover are pushing for gun reform and they're pushing that they don't want to see weapons of war on the streets,» Kashuv said.

Nearly two dozen Democratic senators, including Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, introduced a bill to ban the sale of military - style assault weapons and bump stock devices like the one used in the Las Vegas massacre, saying it «will begin removing the weapons of war on our streets.»

Nearly two dozen Democratic senators, including Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, introduced a bill Wednesday to ban the sale of military - style assault weapons and bump stock devices like the one used in the Las Vegas massacre, saying it «will begin removing the weapons of war on our streets.»

Not exact matches

Speaking on Sunday, Fihn said the risk of nuclear weapons being used was now greater than during the Cold War.

Follow - on versions will be configured as first - strike weapons against heavily defended targets for a «first day of war» scenario.

Fusion bombs are also on alert and ready to launch, and they are thousands of times more powerful than any nuclear weapons detonated during World War II.

WASHINGTON / BEIRUT, April 14 (Reuters)- Western powers said on Saturday their missile attacks struck at the heart of Syria's chemical weapons program, but the restrained assault appeared unlikely to shift the course of the 7 - year - old civil war.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, a war with North Korea is the markets» biggest geopolitical black swan, because it would likely be cataclysmic, with hundreds of thousands dead, the world's fifth - largest metro area, Seoul, suffering massive destruction, and perhaps even nuclear or chemical weapons unleashed on Japan or U.S. bases in the region.

... I don't understand why I can can still go in a store and buy a weapon of war» Sam Zeif was on the second floor of the Parkland, Florida, school where 17 people died after a mass shooting.

And though the chemical weapons negotiations have largely taken the conflict out of the headlines, the war that has displaced millions is still going on each day.

In these days of Enron, Martha Stewart and wars waged on behalf of phantom weapons, we know better than to defend dishonesty.

Many of the Congress on both sides would have voted against the war had Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld not «cooked the books» to indicate weapons of mass destruction.

That was the century when, during two terrible years, the Black Death killed more than a third of the population from Iceland to India, returning four more times before the era was up; when gangs of terrorists roamed and plundered Europe without hindrance; when the Hundred Years War took on a life of its own, frustrating efforts to end it, «an epic of brutality and bravery checkered by disgrace»; when new weapons and errant knighthood brought an end to chivalry; when widespread peasant revolt was answered by terrible aristocratic repression; and when internal scandal robbed the church of its ability to comfort and save.

Mr. George W.Bush, the previous President of United States of America, initiated a war against IRAQ, without obtaining the previous sanction of United Nations Organization (UNO) on the pretext of having nuclear weapons, even though the then IRAQ government openly exhibited to the whole world that it has no nuclear weapons.

On October 2, David Kay, the U.S. inspector in charge of finding weapons of mass destruction, reported to Congress that he had found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, although their existence was one of the major rationales for going to war with Iraq.

Contemporary warfare has in fact taken the form of local conflicts, more often than not civil wars, in which no great alliances of nations are involved; these have been wars fought for reasons based in local rivalries, typically inflamed by historical animosities, ethnic disparity, or religious difference, rather than for reasons of global Realpolitik; they have been fought not with nuclear weapons (or, indeed, other types of weapons of mass - destructive capability) or the latest in military technology, but instead with conventional weaponry, often of old design, and often limited to rifles, knives, grenades, and light, crew - served weapons which individual soldiers can carry on their persons.

A weapon of war, and just as easily become a weapon of peace depending on whos hand it is placed in!

Thus as Asia and Africa grow in military capacity, perhaps based on chemical or biological weapons, «the coming havoc, in short, will make the bloody religious wars of the 16th century look and like calesthenics.»

If one asks, what are the possible roads to a world without war, that essential way - station on the way to freedom of information in anecologically organized world, Arthur Waskow answers that there are five: (a) Control of the nation - state system through stabilizing the balance of power and reducing international tensions but keeping the weapons; (b) Reform of the system through total disarmament without abandoning national sovereignty or the pursuit of national interest; (c) Extension of the system through the creation of a federal world government; (d) Fragmentation of the system through increases in the power of extra-national associations and Institutions across national boundaries, and corresponding decreases in state power as these occupational, industrial, scientific, and other groups gradually expropriate from the national governments the power to make decisions within their own fields; and (e) Abolition of the system through substituting love f or coercion.20.»

Within that functional world - village, we find now existing genocidal war (Indochina), cold war, nuclear weapons threats, conventional weapons threats, colonialism and neo-colonialism, wildly unbalanced use of resources so that a major part of the world population starves or verges on starvation while a minor part consumes lavishly, racism, ignorance, a defilement of the environment through pollution of air, water and soil, and reckless wastage of irreplaceable resources.

They are severe critics of war, its atrocities, its trust in weapons, its reliance on alliances.

Nightmare thermonuclear weapons are poised in underground ICBM silos on both sides of the cold war.

(CNN)- As President Obama rallies support for a military strike on Syria, Pope Francis condemned chemical weapons and called for an international day of fasting and prayer to press for a peaceful resolution to Syria's escalating civil war.

Beginning with the invention of interchangeable parts, and spurred on by the desperate need for weapons to fight the Civil War, guns suddenly became abundant.

The purpose is to «interdict enabling technologies and materials» — by implication, to wage war on Iraq for seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction even in the absence of an actual and imminent threat against the U.S.

A series of co-ordinated missile strikes on the war - torn country were carried out in an early morning operation on Saturday by the US, UK and France, which targeted alleged chemical weapons sites.

It also saddens me that we spend so much money on weapons of war, knowing that as soon as we make a better one, the others will only come up with even better ones causing us to have to spend more and more, that could be better used on more productive causes.

They turned out to be based on erroneous information (weapons of mass destruction) and a dreamy idealism (democracy)» there was and is much to criticize» but the arguments for war in 2003 were articulate and admitted of just war analysis.

«Though we live in the world, we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

Some persons perhaps, crushed by the burden of medical expenses, had no objection to a cold - war garrison state as such, yet they could wonder about a nation that spent far more on weapons than on health coverage.

Why does our government spend billions on weapons of war while so many go homeless and without the bare essentials of life?

The MP explained that he was on the side of the «innocent» people being caught up in the violence and encouraged a response that would show the UK's intolerance of such behaviour: «The only way of stopping someone who continues to be violent, destructive, murderous and surgical in the way that they carry out their actions against innocent people is to stop them being able to have the capabilities to be able to do it and I think that's what we're targeting and I would hope that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States will be targeting the weapons of war and by doing so taking away the ability to wage war.»

In the case of the Maryland ban on assault rifles the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that «we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war».

If Iran relent on the agreement within the timeframe and / or if they decide after having peace for 10 - 15 years after the agreement is over to pursue weapon of mass destruction, we still be able to deal with them the same if we decide today not to give peace a chance and engage in a war with them right now.

On December 7th the Saïd Business School's Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation hosted a seminar entitled «Protecting Civilians: Oxford and Oxfam working together on the ethics of war, weapons and humanitarian aid.&raquOn December 7th the Saïd Business School's Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation hosted a seminar entitled «Protecting Civilians: Oxford and Oxfam working together on the ethics of war, weapons and humanitarian aid.&raquon the ethics of war, weapons and humanitarian aid.»

Political communism failed due to the policy of encirclement by the Western powers, a war of attrition fought through proxy wars - otherwise known as the Cold War - a hot war between the two main powers would have been simply too dangerous given the preponderance of nuclear weapon technology on both sidwar of attrition fought through proxy wars - otherwise known as the Cold War - a hot war between the two main powers would have been simply too dangerous given the preponderance of nuclear weapon technology on both sidWar - a hot war between the two main powers would have been simply too dangerous given the preponderance of nuclear weapon technology on both sidwar between the two main powers would have been simply too dangerous given the preponderance of nuclear weapon technology on both sides.

While we can talk in the abstract about «weapons» and «war,» focusing only on the logic of the argument, we often fail to begin from the correct assumptions about how war is presently fought.

Whatever you might choose to spend the money on instead, it is hardly treasonous to suggest that Britain's security would be better served by addressing contemporary security threats like cyber warfare, terrorism and climate change, none of which can be met with Cold War weapons of mass destruction.

A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times — perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.

Ntaganda, who has been charged with war crimes for conscripting children under the age of 15 as child soldiers, is reliant on Rwanda for weapons, ammunition and young Rwandan recruits.

Drawing a stark contrast between herself and Trump and renewing her calls for stricter gun control in the aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton declared that «weapons of war have no place on our streets.»

«This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets,» Clinton said.

«It's a weapon of war and should stay on the battlefield,» said Buffalo Assemblyman Sean Ryan, a co-sponsor of the legislation.

But there is a need for a party more radical than Labour, a party that says no to war and no to wasting billions on new nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors, that dares to talk of the greed of the rich, of boardroom kleptocracy and the duty of top earners to shoulder a fairer share.

Back when we fought Worl War II, our workers were the best and most productive workers on the planet, our planes were the best, our weapons were the best, and products were made with pride and were the envy of the world.

As they spread online and on television, the images of a small girl losing control of a powerful war weapon during a family vacation created a worldwide spectacle, prompting some commentators to castigate parents who would put a submachine gun in the hands of a child.

«Now you've got people out there — in my case we litigated for two years with the NRA — but who are unapologetic about saying that weapons of war don't belong on city streets.»

«And I believe the nominee that comes out of this primary must be a champion for gun safety and for a ban on weapons of war.»

If Britain does remain in the EU, Labour's divisions will be exposed once again over the summer: the Conservatives will twist the knife over the Chilcot report on the Iraq war, due to be published early next month, and the future of the Trident nuclear weapons system, on which the government has said it will call a vote soon.

Malicious code exploits are the new weapons of war, but can we ever reach international agreement on how they should be used and who gets to control them?