gun rights in Iraq

[chucK]

A question mostly for those gun-rights advocates out there.

 

--------------------------------------

From today's Washington Post

 

According to wire service reports, Maliki issued a statement giving gunmen in Basra three days to give up their weapons and renounce further violence.

 

The operation in Basra won praise Tuesday from the White House, where spokeswoman Dana Perino referred to it as a "brave decision" by Maliki to assert Iraqi government control over an important port city that serves as the country's gateway to the Persian Gulf.

 

------------------------------------

 

Do Iraqi's have the inalienable right to bear arms? Or is it only US citizens?

 

I'd think, if anyone, someone in Iraq would have way more reason to own a gun (for self defense) than anybody in the United States (except for maybe a convenience store clerk ).

 

Do you think Maliki's deal is a lawful order that Bush should support? Do you think Bush should push for an item in the Iraqi constitution similar to our second amendment?

 

Interested to hear what you think about this one, and how it applies/doesn't apply to our situation in the USA.

 

To me it would seem inconsistent to support virtually unrestricted rights to own guns in the US, but think it's OK to support a government restricting their own citizens. Especially in a place where self-protection is so much more a part of daily life. Gun advocates seem to imbue the second amendment with much more credence than mere words on an important piece of paper. To me it seems they value gun ownership as an important part of life, what makes this country, in particular, great, and basically an inalienable right bestowed by God.

 

That's my thinking on this. What's yours?

[archenemy]

Why would I give a shit about Iraqi's and their guns?

 

Our constitution says we can have guns. It does not mention Iraqis. It also does not mention that our gov't is responsible for pushing our gun rights onto other countries.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Why would I give a shit about Iraqi's and their guns?

 

Our constitution says we can have guns. It does not mention Iraqis.

 

sometimes you crack me up

 

[olyclimber]

Chuck people who live in Iraq gave up their rights when they moved there. That was their choice. If they want guns they can move to America.

[chucK]

So you think the only reason we should be able to have fairly unrestricted gun rights is because we got lucky that 225 years ago some good 'ol boys decided to enshrine gun ownership?

 

Is that all gun ownership rights are to you? I get 'em, that's all I care about? No guiding moral principle. Just, cool, I get to shoot stuff?

[archenemy]

So you think the only reason we should be able to have fairly unrestricted gun rights is because we got lucky that 225 years ago some good 'ol boys decided to enshrine gun ownership?

 

Is that all gun ownership rights are to you? I get 'em, that's all I care about? No guiding moral principle. Just, cool, I get to shoot stuff?

That's not what I think at all. But you didn't ask my about my own gun ownership rights, you asked me if we were responsible for backing Iraqi gun ownership. I answered your question. If you want to drag this out into another gun ownership discussion, I'd be happy to go the rounds with you. But you at least need to make it clear that you'd like that rather than ask one question, get my answer to that question, then make a ridiculous assumption that I have not thought through my own stance on my right to own a gun.

[olyclimber]

the rules in Iraq (and Cuba) are different. since we won the war there in Iraq we can prop up whatever rules we want. installing peace in the middle east is tough work, and you need contractor grade tools to get the job done right.

 

[chucK]

Sorry. Your answer was flip and contained virtually no content. My ridiculous assumptions were what I thought logically followed from your statements.

 

I'll restate: is it reasonable to support virtually unrestricted gun rights in the USA while supporting a crackdown on gun rights in Basra?

 

 

 

(and just to speed things up a bit: should you counter with some form, of "duh, there's an active rebellion going on in Basra", my follow-up would be something of the form of a) isn't that what our constitution framers intended for us to do with our gun rights? Keep the government scared. And b) is there a clear dividing line between Basra and say D.C. with it's rampant violent crime?)

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's not what I think at all. But you didn't ask my about my own gun ownership rights, you asked me if we were responsible for backing Iraqi gun ownership. I answered your question. If you want to drag this out into another gun ownership discussion, I'd be happy to go the rounds with you.

 

Pun intended?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sorry. Your answer was flip and contained virtually no content. My ridiculous assumptions were what I thought logically followed from your statements.

 

I'll restate: is it reasonable to support virtually unrestricted gun rights in the USA while supporting a crackdown on gun rights in Basra?

 

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts.

 

[chucK]

Surely you don't think there's nobody in Basra that just wants to defend themselves from roving bands of thieves. Nobody who endured the repression of Sadam that wants to be able to protect themselves from the next despots?

[archenemy]

A question mostly for those gun-rights advocates out there.

 

--------------------------------------

From today's Washington Post

 

According to wire service reports, Maliki issued a statement giving gunmen in Basra three days to give up their weapons and renounce further violence.

 

The operation in Basra won praise Tuesday from the White House, where spokeswoman Dana Perino referred to it as a "brave decision" by Maliki to assert Iraqi government control over an important port city that serves as the country's gateway to the Persian Gulf.

 

------------------------------------

 

Do Iraqi's have the inalienable right to bear arms? Or is it only US citizens?

The Iraqi's have whatever rights that they or their gov't has designated for them.

I'd think, if anyone, someone in Iraq would have way more reason to own a gun (for self defense) than anybody in the United States (except for maybe a convenience store clerk ).

I don't know if assessing individual "need" is the way to back up an argument for the "inalienable right" to own a gun. That puts the onus on the prospective owner to prove that he needs the gun. Either gun ownership is legal or it isn't.

Do you think Maliki's deal is a lawful order that Bush should support? Do you think Bush should push for an item in the Iraqi constitution similar to our second amendment?

If Maliki is a political figure who has control over the legal status of gun ownership, then his order is lawful. If he ain't, then it ain't.

Bush has enough to work with at home, why would he fuss with gun ownership rights overseas? Focus, Commander in Chief, focus.

Interested to hear what you think about this one, and how it applies/doesn't apply to our situation in the USA.

I can see no application of overseas gun rules to our own. We have our own legal system and it should not be influenced by what other people are doing. I don't give a shit what other countries are doing about gun ownership laws, our laws must reflect the rights and desires of people here.

To me it would seem inconsistent to support virtually unrestricted rights to own guns in the US, but think it's OK to support a government restricting their own citizens.

We need neither support nor fight against any gun rights in any other country. If anything, it goes against our notion of democracy to push any country into doing anything (that does not directly impact us)

 

Especially in a place where self-protection is so much more a part of daily life. Gun advocates seem to imbue the second amendment with much more credence than mere words on an important piece of paper.

The piece of paper is not the important part--the words are. And these words are not "mere words"; they are law.

To me it seems they value gun ownership as an important part of life, what makes this country, in particular, great, and basically an inalienable right bestowed by God.

What the fuck are you talking about? It is my right by law to own a gun. If gun owners were, as you say, to believe that this is a right bestowed by God, then every gun owner would have to believe in God. That is a strange line of thinking. And yes, gun ownership is an important part of my life. I enjoy shooting and hunting just as much if not more than I enjoy climbing. Imagine if someone decided that climbing gear was suddenly considered illegal. Your life would change and you would derive less pleasure from it.

That's my thinking on this. What's yours?

[archenemy]

That's not what I think at all. But you didn't ask my about my own gun ownership rights, you asked me if we were responsible for backing Iraqi gun ownership. I answered your question. If you want to drag this out into another gun ownership discussion, I'd be happy to go the rounds with you.

 

Pun intended?

Absolutely.

 

and Chuck--my answer was not flip and w/o content. It was my opinion, pure and clear.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Surely you don't think there's nobody in Basra that just wants to defend themselves from roving bands of thieves. Nobody who endured the repression of Sadam that wants to be able to protect themselves from the next despots?

 

I can't even possibly claim to claim that I comprehend the complexities of the factions, in-fighting, and chaos in Iraq.

[glassgowkiss]

Sorry. Your answer was flip and contained virtually no content. My ridiculous assumptions were what I thought logically followed from your statements.

 

I'll restate: is it reasonable to support virtually unrestricted gun rights in the USA while supporting a crackdown on gun rights in Basra?

 

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts.

and you'd know, since you are a middle east expert. weren't you for the war in the first place? since you knew that Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds (there is no such thing as Iraqis) are "insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts"- why are you surprised at the current state of the affairs there?

[glassgowkiss]

Surely you don't think there's nobody in Basra that just wants to defend themselves from roving bands of thieves. Nobody who endured the repression of Sadam that wants to be able to protect themselves from the next despots?

 

I can't even possibly claim to claim that I comprehend the complexities of the factions, in-fighting, and chaos in Iraq.

so shut the fuck up.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

and you'd know, since you are a middle east expert. weren't you for the war in the first place? since you knew that Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds (there is no such thing as Iraqis) are "insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts"- why are you surprised at the current state of the affairs there?

 

pishov ty na try veseli litery

 

 

[chucK]

Your answers all seem to come down to "it's the law". The "law" is merely words unless there's something to back it up. Possible foundations could be: a) hey, it works! b) it's a good way to prevent abuses of power, c) it will grease the wheels of commerce, d) it will keep people from dying...etc.

 

Saying, "it's the law", "Sucks to be them if their govt. doen't want a law like that", and "I enjoy shooting" all seem to say to me that you enjoy our law, are thankful that it is what it is, but you don't see any more significance to it, especially not enough to want to meddle in other people's affairs about it.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand your reasonings, but just summarizing my take.

 

And thanks for responding.

[kevbone]

 

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts.

 

So the ganster down the street who shot the little girl and owns a gun is a "law-abiding citizen?

[archenemy]

Your answers all seem to come down to "it's the law". The "law" is merely words unless there's something to back it up. Possible foundations could be: a) hey, it works! b) it's a good way to prevent abuses of power, c) it will grease the wheels of commerce, d) it will keep people from dying...etc.

 

Saying, "it's the law". Sucks to be them if their govt. doen't want a law like that. And "I enjoy shooting" all seem to say to me that you enjoy our law, are thankful that it is what it is, but you don't see any more significance to it, especially not enough to want to meddle in other people's affairs about it.

Apparently, your experience with and knowledge of our legal system is distinctly different from mine.

In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

 

I don't "enjoy our law" as you say. As a matter of fact, I don't even notice a law until I come up against it. And that is as it should be.

 

So the significance I see in our law is great. Not only those which I live under today, but the whole history of it (which I have studied for years and am greatly interested in learning the evolving system and codes by which we live). So rather than some blind allegiance to law which you imply that I have, I take great interest in what our society has deemed legal and why. And although I accept your simplistic reasoning for why a person should be able to own a gun, I personally believe that there is a lot to it and that one should have a full understanding not only of their own beliefs but of their society's beliefs for it is these by which we must abide.

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

 

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts.

 

So the ganster down the street who shot the little girl and owns a gun is a "law-abiding citizen?

 

so is the guy who goes on a shooting spree in your local mall or a post office......

[archenemy]

Oh, and to your statement that it sucks for them if their government doesn't want the gun law then we should back them up to change that law. I disagree. If their government isn't doing what they want, they need to change their government. That is their responsibility, not ours. And although I heartily agree with stepping into a country to help stop ruthless slaughter of people, I do not agree with influencing their gov't beyond that. They must do that for themselves.

[glassgowkiss]

 

Apparently, your experience with and knowledge of our legal system is distinctly different from mine.

In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language.

 

 

i am sure the same due process exists in a country called Iraq.

[archenemy]

 

Yes, because our gunowners are law-abiding citizens and the Iraqis are insane, hot-blooded, trigger-happy nuts.

 

So the ganster down the street who shot the little girl and owns a gun is a "law-abiding citizen?

 

so is the guy who goes on a shooting spree in your local mall or a post office......

Let it go--he was being facetious.

[chucK]

You certainly are keeping your cards close to the vest. If you think the right to own guns goes deeper than mere words on paper, you haven't given any justification, besides "I personally believe".