2007-04-16 20:43:17 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no..its pretty cool
2007-04-16 20:46:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The exact opposite. It shows that the Iraqis and Afghans were mature people with sufficient self control to avoid turning an argument into a homicide. Having had their countries pillaged and destroyed by the Americans, there obviously turn their guns on the occupying forces.
2007-04-16 21:44:57 · answer #2 · answered by Clive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the over abundance of machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, mines, etc is part of the reason so many people are dying in Iraq.
I think it is safe to assume every generation had its share of wackos, but I think it would be pretty hard to kill 30 people with a sword. Semi-automatic rifles make this sort of thing much more common.
2007-04-16 21:02:50 · answer #3 · answered by trovalta_stinks_2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There culture dictates that religion is the be all and end all. All this business of firing AK 47's in the street and stuff, can't ever see that in Oxford Steet somehow. Scrap there religious non sensical views and see common sense. Then i will take them more seriously.
2007-04-16 21:02:48 · answer #4 · answered by JOHN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The American constitution allows its citizens to own and to bare arms.. I wouldn't say America is primitive or backward.
2007-04-16 23:12:46 · answer #5 · answered by robert x 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have the same rights in America....children can have pellot guns............unfortunately it is education that is the difference...........killing for killing's sake is wrong in our culture. We believe in discussing things, diplomacy. Of course, that is hard to say that just after the shooting at Va Tech............so sad.....we have our own ignorant, lack of morals people living among us here.
2007-04-16 21:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by Kathryn O 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no...but they should learn to have an adult attitude and respect for the fire arms instead of using as a tool of power...look at America...hunters us fire arms as a tool for hunting they aren't arrogant about owning a gun...yet on the other hand the rap culture looks at guns as power...that is primitive and backwards...
2007-04-16 20:50:27 · answer #7 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm no longer a conservative, yet i'm going to respond to your question besides. My answer on your first question may be "particular". they have the right to submit to hands, yet no longer by way of fact of our shape. they have that correct by way of fact this is THEIR united states . . . no longer George W. Bush's. however the respond on your 2nd question is "no", the founding fathers did no longer supply the implication that the rights interior the bill of Rights have been inalienable. the only elucidated "inalienable" rights have been "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The rights defined interior the bill of Rights have been placed as "amendments" by way of fact they have been the effect of compromises that have been necessary to get the form ratified. the very actuality that they have been tacked on on the tip, especially much as an afterthought, belies any insinuation that they are "inalienable".
2016-12-26 10:59:42 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because even those who are incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with gun ownership are still given the right to own firearms.
Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.
2007-04-16 20:56:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if you think it's primitive and backward to own a shotgun in the UK.
2007-04-16 20:56:50 · answer #10 · answered by tttplttttt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it works for the US.
2007-04-16 22:26:28 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋