gun rights in Iraq

[Peter_Puget]

I wonder if Peter's question is answered yet?

 

Chuck (as Archy says) it's your responsibility to learn!

 

[chucK]

Man, we must just be on totally different wavelengths. Carry on!

[billcoe]

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?

 

I think this is a great question Chuck. I do not know what the Iraqis decided to put into their constitution. However, it seems that before the constitution was enacted, plenty of guns, ropes remember them hanging the contractors off a bridge?), knives and roadside bombs had sadly been used to kill plenty of people.

 

Hitler and Stalin had both successfully restricted firearms in their countries and as we didn't object then I guess we supported them then on it....so I don't know why we cannot support Maliki on this one as we're trying to get this wrapped up and get the f* out of there. I hope you find some happiness in that this is an Iraqi operation, something Americans have been complaining about.

 

Although I do not know if they supported the right of a free militia in Iraq, we have it here. We have that for political freedom. See, I believe that the founders knew what we knew: that power comes from a barrel of a gun (ask any Iraqi), and that if you want to power to rest with the people, they get guns.

 

Frankly, I trust all of the people I know more than I'd ever trust any politician. There is something strange in the personas of people who get drawn towards power, and I like the restraint they must show do to an armed populace.

 

Think of Cheney, Bush, the Clintons...now think of your friends and people you know. You know this is true. An armed populas is the best and final defense for our constitution, as it keeps us all honest. I do not know what the Iraqis decided to put into their constitution. Maybe they put that it was illegal to drop poison gas from airplanes to wipe out entire cities, killing men, women and dogs: like the last ruler did more than once. I can't say. I do know about this country though.

 

But thats me.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

An armed populas is the best and final defense for our constitution, as it keeps us all honest.

 

I don't buy this. Unless people are gonna be allowed to buy M-1 tanks, RPG's, and shoulder-launched SAM's, the US populace has no hope in hell if the government actually decided to turn against its own people militarily. Even armed to the teeth with .357's and hunting rifles as we are, there'd be no prayer.

 

As for self-defense and hunting - that's a different story of course.

[Fairweather]

Your question is comparing apples to oranges. A roving gang of thugs terrorizing an American city with guns in the form of an illegal militia would not be protected in this country any more than it is in Iraq. Personally, I think it was a mistake to allow long guns to remain in private hands in Iraq post-invasion. Until our troops withdraw, it seems that handguns should suffice for the average Iraqi family to protect itself from thugs balanced against the security needs of American soldiers and legitimate Iraqi security forces. Too late now, I guess.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Fairweather

[billcoe]

I don't buy this. Unless people are gonna be allowed to buy M-1 tanks, RPG's, and shoulder-launched SAM's, the US populace has no hope in hell if the government actually decided to turn against its own people militarily. Even armed to the teeth with .357's and hunting rifles as we are, there'd be no prayer.

 

Disagree all you want you're still wrong if you think that isn't in the back of say: Richard Nixon's mind when he's thinking of not following a judges order stipulating that he cannot act like a King, but must also follow the laws as all citizens do. Furthermore, I do not believe that the National guard and the Army would be un-conflicted if they had to start shooting back at their brothers, sisters moms and dads.

 

As for self-defense and hunting - that's a different story of course.

 

That has nothing to do with the constitution or the reason for arms to be included therein.

[Jim]

An armed populas is the best and final defense for our constitution, as it keeps us all honest.

 

I don't buy this. Unless people are gonna be allowed to buy M-1 tanks, RPG's, and shoulder-launched SAM's, the US populace has no hope in hell if the government actually decided to turn against its own people militarily. Even armed to the teeth with .357's and hunting rifles as we are, there'd be no prayer.

 

I don't buy it either - but for other reasons. Having guns hasn't helped much while the Idiot has instituted illegal wiretaps, extrodinary rendition, torture, GITMO, etc. It's a quaint idea, but having guns is not what will stop tyranny.

[Peter_Puget]

Man, we must just be on totally different wavelengths.

 

I guess so. To be honest I thought you were just being "over the top" and posting as a joke. Perhaps not. My responses were serious however - even if I was quoting Archie's nonsense at times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2008 by Peter_Puget

[Fairweather]

Huh??

[Peter_Puget]

FW - Chuck's question(s) is so ridiculous I did not think he was being serious.

[Fairweather]

Gotcha.