Would a restriction on weapons for civilians help the USA?
336776
Like the old bumper sticker said,"If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns."
226033
No, we had to pay for it through wars. And it is still restricted. If we threaten with the signs of intent to do so... we can get in trouble for just talking about doing it.
1075875
No they don't function the same!!! You can buy fully automatic weapons in the US, with an extremely invasive background check that exceeds what it takes to work in nuclear weapons labs & signing a consent for federal agents to search any property in your name or that they can associate with you in order to inspect storage conditions of any weapon you may own, plus of course a significant fee. \n\nThe weapons you saw LOOK LIKE m16s or AK47s. The M16 actually would be the civilian AR15 version, and the AK47 typically available in the US is imported & significantly modified so that it is semi-automatic & difficult (not to mention highly illegal) to modify back to fully automatic. \n\nThat said, you don't need weapons like this for home defense or hunting, and generally they are not very good for either one. However, a lot of people like to see what the weapons used by soldiers are like. That's fine, if they want to spend 2500-3000 dollars to shoot what aren't the best guns available anyway then what do you care?\n\nAs far as WHY guns should be available, you do have to understand WHY that clause is in the constitution. The founders had just been thru a war where it was necessary for the population to rise up & overthrow an oppressive govt by violent means. They wanted the public to own weapons as a check/balance against the US govt becoming the oppressive thing the British had been. Now obviously the world has changed somewhat & I'd be fairly worried if you could go out & buy anti-tank missles, but the point of the constitutional provision still prevents swift police state like tyranny by the govt, and that's a good thing.
972475
The 9mm will take about anyone. It is very effective here in Afghanistan and was effective in Iraq too. I prefer the M4 and M24 more. Being able to reach out and touch someone before they can fire back is the safest way to go.
1117644
Guns serve the people who have them in the hands of terrorist they serve terror in the hands of free Americans they deter crime and terror...So no....
820174
That would be the appropriate time for Americans to exercise their right to bear arms.  That is the reason that amendment exists - to allow the citizens of the country the right to take up arms against their government when the government is usurping the rights of its citizens.  I would say the scenario you propose is not likely to happen, but the last six years have gotten us pretty darned close!
523938
YES\n\nHonorable everyday people with gun are not a problem. As a matter of fact, it gives criminals something to think about. Legally obtained weaponry is not the problem. It is the criminal THUGS who illegally obtain weapons for the purpose of commiting crimes that is a problem.\n\nI am all for background checks and all for gun owners. But you do not take the weapons away from the law abiding to give the criminal element an advantage, because the criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get them.
847646
They did it in new orleans last year after katrina..the national guard went door to door(poor and rich) confescating guns from people.  If you didnt give up your weapons you had some real problems on your hands.  The media didnt even cover this.  So dont think it cant happen.  Let something pop off and they declare martial law..what are you going to do when 200+ national guardsmen with m-16's are standing at your door telling you to hand over your weapons.  Are you going to die for what you believe is your right?  I dont think i would.  I dont know too many americans that would either.  Things are going on around us that we seem to be blind to..uh, guess what, its coming and there aint nothing you can do about it.
232308
A better question would be to ask why the government of the United States sends the US military into other countries in peacekeeping roles (Bosnia, for example) while the countries in the area - who's own best interests would be served by not having their neighbor self-destruct - do nothing.
773016
No, the only chance it would work is if the militia had enough sympathy from the Federal forces and they refused to fight their own citizens. God help us all if we ever deteriorate to that end.
1134141
I feel they have every right to self defense just as any other country in the world.  Remember, the US isn't one to police the world in terms of nukes.  The US is the only country that has ever used it as a weapon in war time. No other country has.  The US is just another landmass on the map.  If one country can have mass killing weapons, then everyone else has the right to defend themselves as well.
227101
The United States military does not target civilians intentionally. Thats what the terrorist do! And yes there was terrorists there before we took Iraq. To be an "Insurgent" you must be a member of a political party. What political party do the so called "Insurgents" belong to? Answer, none! The terrorist hide behind the innocent! If you cant figure that out, your in need of an EDUCATION DEVOID OF LIBERALISM! Would I send my son there? If he wanted to go then I would support him. I can't force him to do anything. He will have to make that choice on his own.
1021052
They do not necessarily have to spend less on military in order to spend more on helping the poor & disadvantaged. However for countries who are not as developed like Iran, they should spend a lot less on weapons to help their own poor people. For advanced countries like America, they have the right to spend more on weapons as their needy people are already being taken care of.
423300
Absolutly not. And futhermore, increasing the omnipotent powers of the U.S through arms loans is not worth it either. Human lives are not worth it. Speaking of which, the lastest count on the number killed in the war in Iraq is horrible. But that number is infanitly smaller than the number of unreported deaths of Iraqi CIVILIANS. The U.S went to war to fight terrorism. This is hypocritical because the U.S supports and trains terrorists. Its used to be called the School of Americas and is now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation and its located in Fort Benning, Georgia. The school actually distributes manuals and textbooks on torture and violence. SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people including the majority of the dictators of South America including Pinochet. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.
269661
being armed in Iraq is a crime, since the days of saddam Hussien. civilians cannot have weapons at all. but at the end of the previous regiem, the people there armed them selves with the weapons left by the army, some were being ready under the past government to protect Bagdad when the american forces enter. thousands of iraqis are illegally armed.
779860
This is guided by Arms Act in which categories of weapons have been identified requiring licence from govt.Some weapons such as .38, 9mm revolvers/pistols can not be possessed by citizens except members of Armed Force and Police.Air guns(both pistols and guns) do not come under this category.You are free to buy and use it for peaceful purpose.But you cant intimidate others by this.Also hunting by any means is a penal offence.
412560
i think it depends on the case.  i think we should focus on more humanitarian aid rather than military intervention or military aid.  its probably fair to say every country has enough guns without us sending them some more for their cause.\n\nthe idea too that we are world's police implies that we are always fighting the good fight and, just ask south america, we are more often than not fighting for what we think will work out best for us in the short term.  there are numerous cases of over-throwing democracies either directly with our  military or through funding and channeling of arms, and setting up dictators in their place.  it would be much harder to say we shouldn't be policing the world if in fact we were fighting for what was best for the people of those countries instead.\n\nin cases of genocide i think we should be stepping in, and much faster than we have in the past, and doing whatever needs to be done to bring a stop to it.