Should the new Iraq Gov have a 2nd Amendment?


March 20, 2003, 09:12 PM
...It's only a matter of time before Iraq will have a new government. If you were in charge of laying the ground work for a Constitution would it include a "2nd Amemendment"? Remember how the new constitutions of Japan and Germany were set up after WWII by the allies?....

If you enjoyed reading about "Should the new Iraq Gov have a 2nd Amendment?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Al Thompson
March 20, 2003, 09:15 PM
If you believe in the one we have, it should appy to "all men".... Or all people....

March 20, 2003, 09:19 PM
It absloutely should.
The real question is will it?

March 20, 2003, 09:48 PM
Yes. It will whether it is written or not. Thanks

March 20, 2003, 10:31 PM
First order of business in Afghanistan after the taliban was overthrown was to sieze personal weapons...

Raymond VanDerLinden
March 20, 2003, 10:42 PM
Beck is right, Goverment don't grant Rights God Grants rights to all men. Goverments the wise ones at least don't violate those right, even if they don't enumerate them.

How ever the NWO types say that for the peace and safety of the Sheeple, weapons should only be held by the Goverment.

We know the the safety of the Sheeple means nothing to the Goverment only the safety and peace of the Goverment agents.

Standing Wolf
March 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
I believe each member of Homo sapiens is born with the right to fight back against tyrants, criminals, and terrorists.

If I were to write a constitution for Iraq, the right to keep and bear arms would be the first defined civil right; such a document would also include immediate, mandatory hanging for any crime committed with a firearm. Rights include responsibilities.

March 20, 2003, 10:54 PM
such a document would also include immediate, mandatory hanging for any crime committed with a firearm.


March 20, 2003, 10:58 PM
Standing Wolf

"If I were to write a constitution for Iraq, the right to keep and bear arms would be the first defined civil right; such a document would also include immediate, mandatory hanging for any crime committed with a firearm. Rights include responsibilities"

So if driving a car and you speed while carrying a gun you get hung by neck until dead? How about person who sneaks in can of pop/candy to movie and carrys a gun? Dead?
Say a person actually forgets to pay for gas after filling car with gas. Hang him high?

March 20, 2003, 11:04 PM
It should but I really don't think it will.

March 20, 2003, 11:10 PM
Well, we'll have to write it such that they aren't allowed to have the arms that we're invading to take away...:rolleyes:

March 20, 2003, 11:48 PM
Yes, indeedy!

March 21, 2003, 12:45 AM
such a document would also include immediate, mandatory hanging for any crime committed with a firearm.
Because murder committed with a knife just isn't THAT bad?

Bruce H
March 21, 2003, 12:47 AM
Well it really should but since the United States doesn't seem to understand it's own 2nd I doubt it.

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 12:53 AM
Don't count on it. We are already taking the personal arms from our "liberated" peoples of Afghanistan. I doubt we are going to allow the "liberated" Iraqis to possess weapons either.

What is truly ironic, is that both Afghanistan under the Taliban and Saddam's Iraq both allowed citizens to own military weaponry which is strictly forbidden for Americans to own.

March 21, 2003, 01:20 AM
only the 'approved' ones. Kurds caught with weapons by Saddam were executed. As were any members of the militias which opposed the Taliban in Afghanistan:rolleyes:

March 21, 2003, 01:31 AM
If we truely beleive that we are in the right and somehow have managed to have a better government, then we should set them up with what we started with; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If they want to make changes, it can be done. They could add universal sufferage, the IRS, etc if they really want to.
I doubt it will happen. If the UN is involved, I know it won't happen.

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 01:32 AM
I never said the system was perfect, but for the vast majority of the countries, they can possess weapons we can only dream about.

Now, when the people are "liberated" we are disarming ALL of them, not just the anti-government forces.

March 21, 2003, 01:55 AM
The 'approved' ones did not/do not form a 'vast majority' in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Saddam's Baath party is comprised of the minority Sunni population centered around Baghdad- the Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north are forbidden military arms, at least in areas still under Baath's control (shrinking momentarily, I believe). The Afghans were in a situation of near anarchy outside the warlords groups. It would be a good idea to rearm them, I think, otherwise we would be destroying a valid means of protection in an area of the world known for 'higk risk' personal encounters.:)

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 01:56 AM
Unless I am mistaken, Baghdad contains most of the population, and I know at least that arms are available to civilians in Baghdad.

March 21, 2003, 02:10 AM
Interesting posit & one which we'd be wise to take a real hard, close look at how we do it.

We will attempt to "establish a democracy," right?

Why is it we won't attempt to establsih a "constitutional form of democratic representatives?" & that with a solid constitutional basis for basic human rights?

Any takers on how we'd set up a new constitution, if at all?

May be that that would remind too many of our own of of history - maybe to rekindle some sort of .... nah! nevermind.

In every instance we yak the talk about "reconstituting anything," we yammer about "democracy."

Too many astute quotes why democracy can never work.

What we will attempt to do is emplace an acceptable "puppet" who will be "acceptable enough" for our current means.

Likely, "our puppet" will turn on us later unless we are now more astute than in the past.

If no other time, we have an absolute "time-in-place" to ensure a possitive wedge in the middle-east.

We will blow the chance.

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 02:38 AM
True. In many of the middle eastern countries democracy would harm us more than certain despotic regimes.

For example, Saddam's rather secular regime could be replaced with a theocratic government which supports militant Islam.

Simple majority rule in many areas, means majority anti-American rule, as most of the people are either anti-American or at best, apathetic towards American interests.

Thus I believe the puppet state will be what we ultimately have, much like in Afghanistan. And of course, US troops will be needed to stabilize and protect this new state from both domestic and foreign threats..

March 21, 2003, 03:05 AM

To segue, or to debut - I am that sleepy now (two months of insomnia plays its own games ... ) .... but.

There is absolutely NO reason we would want anything other than our own established form of government (i.e. - a constitutional form of democratically respresentative government), unless we have some idea of a play on what we'd want it to become down the road.

Setting any country up for a democratic form of government is a known entity for failure. We knew it 00+ years ago, no?

"Failure" is a perfect excuse to beome entwined with that country's "furtherance."


We could have done it straight off & bailed, watched them do as we have not, with zero interference.

Nope. We'll meddle, we'll play, & we'll get to eat it later on - just as we here will get to eat to make sure we are all "safe for democracy."

"Welcome, my friends, to T... the Machine."

March 21, 2003, 03:14 AM
In any event, I'd betcha that one of the first things The USA - Oops. "coaltion-folk" does, is deprive the "besetted-folk" their right to possess arms.

Read my lips!

One of their first edicts will be to deprive the Irqui citizen their roght to "keep & bear arms."

& this to "preserve their right to ... " ?

Yeah, I know, they aren't "capabe to govern" ... yet.


The same excuse they will (have) used against us - here.

Jim March
March 21, 2003, 04:10 AM
First off:


Absolutely not. We've been leaving them personal rifles, including the AKs that are as common as fleas, and handguns, unless they're proven ONGOING enemy combatants or the hardline "Tourists" (Afghani mocking term for the various Arabs/Checkens/etc maniacs that followed Osama Yo Mama to Afghanistan). We're even leaving former Taliban native Afghanis their personal arms.

Our guys *have* been running around grabbing mines, rocket launchers/RPGs and the like, and any crew-served weapons. But not personal arms! If we were stupid enough to try and apply NYC-level gun control to Afghanistan, it would mean an immediate mass uprising by ALL parties!

Second, re Iraq:

If we disarmed any Iraqis, we'd have to disarm all. And we *can't* disarm the Kurds or Shi'ites because in both cases, they have cousins/buddies right across the border in Iran and will sneak in whatever the hell they want.

I suspect we'll see the Afghani policy (loosely similar to the policies of the better US states) replicated in Iraq.

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 04:12 AM

I am supposed to feel better because we only have partial gun control?

Sort of like California. I suppose we should be happy because they only take away the assault rifles, and leave the hunting rifles and shotguns.

It is all incremental, they start with some weapons, and go from there. Any gun control is bad.

March 21, 2003, 07:40 AM
It's a moot discussion, since Vlad is right. We'll install a puppet who will be a Sunni very much like our former puppet, Saddam.

But, entertaining the subject question for a moment, I'd just say that if we were to give them a 2nd amendment, it sure as heck shouldn't have any extraneous militia clause. Just look at the trouble that's caused (! ;)

J Miller
March 21, 2003, 09:01 AM
I totally agree that there should be some sort of constitutional protectection to the Iraqi citizens possession of firearms. But it is doubtfull that will happen.

I would like to make a motion of who to use as our new head of the American occupation government. I volenteer Richard Daley, and Rod Blagoyavitch as the new puppet dictator and governor of the new U.S. Territory of Iraq. One of these guys is as power mad as Sadam, so the hard line Iraqi's will love him, the other is a puppet, who would be easy to manipulate and control.

As for us in IL, that would be a win win situation. :D

March 21, 2003, 02:05 PM
Those people of Iraq have had tribal type rule for thousands of years. They DO NOT want a democratic type government same as Russians DO NOT want a democratic type of government.

I know, I know....we have the greatest form of government on the planet. I agree totally. But that does not mean that all other cultures agree.

March 21, 2003, 05:51 PM
...that may be, but remember that Japan had centuries of Warlord rule and changed their way of life almost overnight....

Vladimir Berkov
March 21, 2003, 05:54 PM
Err, no. Japan had many political movements from the late 19th century to the start of the 1930's which laid the foundations for the postwar government.

March 30, 2003, 07:19 AM

In any democratic nation, the Government should always fear the people.:cuss:

Tommy Gunn
March 31, 2003, 02:26 AM
We all know about the "Arab Street". They were celebrating when they saw the 911 attacks on their television sets.

I do not trust these people with weapons that might be used against Americans.

BTW, I nominate Chucky Schumer to be the new govenor of Iraq. he might live for a week or two, then I nominate Diane Feinstein....

If you enjoyed reading about "Should the new Iraq Gov have a 2nd Amendment?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!