Weapons Control Quotes

I fully share the Congress's objective of promoting nonproliferation and combating Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile delivery systems. This issue remains at the top of the agenda with Russia as well as with other countries whose companies may be providing such assistance to Iran. In the case of Russian entities' cooperation with Iran, we have imposed penalties ten times in the past and stand ready to apply them again whenever necessary.

The overriding element of American security interest is to keep weapons of mass destruction under responsible control.

Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

It is hard to put a price on some things. What is the value of having prevented nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein - or of Gadhafi?

I mean, when you get down to very low numbers of nuclear weapons, and you contemplate going to zero, how do you deal with the reality of that technology being available to almost any country that seeks to pursue it? And what conditions do you put in place?

One of the most important post-9/11 efforts made to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction is President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

We need the UN, to deal with the threats to our common security from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, not only in the case of Iraq. They must be tackled by the international community together, by strengthening conventions, treaties and agreements.

It is important to signal that opposition to the use of any weapon of mass destruction is both deep and broad.

Not acting to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction is neither politically nor morally acceptable.

We must take steps to prevent further nuclear weapons development or modernization.

The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Above all else, we need a reaffirmation of political commitment at the highest levels to reducing the dangers that arise both from existing nuclear weapons and from further proliferation.

The resistance does not mean that everyone can carry a weapon. The weapon is only for the people of the weapons.

We should seek international support for our mutual objectives abroad, in promoting freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and also the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, a safer world presupposes the revival of the virtuous circle of non-proliferation of weapons and disarmament.

People are hurting out there, perhaps they are ready to start a conversation about whether an AR-15 belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able 6,000 rounds on the internet.

There is an urgent need for disarmament of all kinds, but especially nuclear disarmament.

We can prevent fighting by limiting weapons or finding nonviolent ways to end disputes.

Semi-automatic weapons have no socially redeeming purpose.

Let me be crystal clear: There is no such thing as 'limited use' nuclear weapons, and for a Pentagon advisory board to promote their development is absolutely unacceptable.

But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons.

I wonder what I can do about war. Is it the destiny of human kind to eventually wipe ourselves out with these weapons of mass destruction? Are we stupid to think that we can control them?

I respect the second amendment and the right of individuals to own firearms. But I think that we all agree that there are some people who should not be able just to walk in and buy weapons of war.

If a law could keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be virtually no gun crime at all.

Show me a man who doesn't want his gun registered and I'll show you a man ought not to have a gun.