New Baghdad security policy: "ban on personal weapons"


PDA






K-Romulus
June 13, 2006, 12:15 PM
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/13/ap2811752.html

75,000 Forces to Be Deployed in Baghdad
By KIM GAMEL , 06.13.2006, 09:47 AM

Iraq's new prime minister promised Tuesday to show "no mercy" to terrorists and said before President Bush arrived for a surprise visit that a long-awaited security plan for Baghdad will include a curfew and a ban on personal weapons.
- - -
Maj. Gen. Mahdi al-Gharrawi, the commander of public order forces under the Interior Ministry, said al-Maliki's plan includes securing roads in and out of Baghdad, banning personal weapons and implementing a 9 p.m.-6 a.m. curfew.

Al-Gharrawi told The Associated Press that the plan to be launched at 6 a.m. Wednesday would be the biggest operation of its kind in Baghdad since the U.S. handed over sovereignty to Iraq in 2004.
- - -
Al-Maliki said the plan "will provide security and confront the terrorism and ... enable Iraqis to live in peace in Baghdad." (more)


All of the news articles describing this security operation seem to be reprints of this AP article.

I can't tell if the "ban" is for "weapons" carried in the street, or if it is AUS/UK-style confiscation from owners.

If confiscation, then the gun-ban crowd will be happy since they never cared for the "one AK47 allowed in every home" policy that was in place since the fall of Saddam, and they will point to Iraq as exhibit #1 for "proof" that guns "cause" civil strife...

If you enjoyed reading about "New Baghdad security policy: "ban on personal weapons"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
progunner1957
June 13, 2006, 12:21 PM
Hopefully it will be just a ban on carrying weapons in the street. If it is a total ban/confiscation, God help the citizens of Iraq. Murders and viloence will skyrocket because like street thugs here in the U.S., terrorists don't obey laws.

Henry Bowman
June 13, 2006, 12:27 PM
Why not a "ban on personal bombs." Would be just as effective against terrorists. :rolleyes:

progunner1957
June 13, 2006, 12:39 PM
Why not a "ban on personal bombs." Would be just as effective against terrorists.+1! It might be more effective - seems that bombs are the weapon of choice for the scumbag terrorists in Iraq. Oh, gee - I almost forgot: Terrorists don't obey laws.

Bombs are already outlawed in Iraq and we see how effective that law is - why do they think outlawing guns is going to be any more effective??

It would seem that laws don't do squat in a war zone.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2006, 12:51 PM
Hmmm, given some of the stuff that is happening there with guys in Iraqi National Police uniforms executing people in the streets, I think I would be a little nervous about how a ban on personal weapons was going to be enforced if I were Sunni. I think I might be a little suspicious that it wasn't going to be enforced equally.

MrTuffPaws
June 13, 2006, 01:44 PM
"one AK47 allowed in every home" policy that was in place since the fall of Saddam,

Funny, but Saddam allowed for far more private ownership of personal weapons. I don't think there was any regulations on fire arms under Saddam

Biker
June 13, 2006, 01:50 PM
And this is the Democracy we helped install. Disarm a citizen and he becomes a....what? I can't remember. Anyone help me?

Biker

GTSteve03
June 13, 2006, 02:37 PM
And this is the Democracy we helped install. Disarm a citizen and he becomes a....what? I can't remember. Anyone help me?

Democrat? ;)

Headless Thompson Gunner
June 13, 2006, 02:53 PM
And this is the Democracy we helped install. Disarm a citizen and he becomes a....what? I can't remember. Anyone help me?Yeah, I mean, how dare we allow those backwards A-rabs make these decisions for themselves and generally enjoy true self rule?

HankB
June 13, 2006, 02:55 PM
that bombs are the weapon of choice for the scumbag terrorists in Iraq. Oh, gee - I almost forgot: Terrorists don't obey lawsWhat Iraq needs to do is impose heavy fines and jail time on anyone who sets off a suicide bomb . . . maybe they can even create a special "bomb court" to expedite these cases. :rolleyes:

Biker
June 13, 2006, 03:07 PM
HTG...

Seems to me that we are supposed to be spreading "Freedom", according to this Administration. How can a disarmed people be free? They didn't vote to be disarmed, I'm sure. Where is the outrage? Where is *your* outrage? What happened to the people in NOLA after the 'cane was unforgiveable but it pales in comparison to the danger Iraqis are in if disarmed.
We're spreading Freedom by disarming free people?

Explain if you would.

Biker

longeyes
June 13, 2006, 03:50 PM
Ah, shucks, one more reason not to live in Baghdad...

Headless Thompson Gunner
June 13, 2006, 03:57 PM
We're spreading freedom by removing dictatorial autocratic rule and replacing it with democratic self rule.

If they feel it is appropriate to disarm themselves, such is their pregative. They made this choice, through their duly elected leaders, according to their laws and their constitution. I question their choice, but not their freedom to choose for themselves.

You must have a strange definition of "freedom" if you think it means forcing others to conform to your (our) personal viewpoints.

longeyes
June 13, 2006, 04:36 PM
They made this choice? You're really sure of that?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2006, 04:39 PM
What if the Shia and Kurds made the choice (democratically of course, since they represent about 80% of the vote), knowing it would only be enforced against the Sunni and would make whatever grudges they had held all these years that much easier to settle?

seeker_two
June 13, 2006, 05:18 PM
They made this choice? You're really sure of that?

As sure as they held their own constitutional convention and drafted the document from scratch instead of the US forcing a UN-one-size-fits-all-socialist constitution on them.... :rolleyes:

Arms & self-defense are a HUMAN right...no vote can ever change that.

Things are about to heat up in the desert.... :uhoh:

odysseus
June 13, 2006, 06:00 PM
A sad testament to the fact at how fragile human rights are, especially one of the most important - and that our country cares not for this in other countries.

Biker
June 13, 2006, 07:05 PM
The Palestinians made a choice - democratically elected a government that we don't agree with and now we're attempting to force our will upon them as a consequence. What's the difference?

A People cannot control their own destiny when disarmed, history has proven this. We ostentatiously came to free the people of Iraq and we are at least indirectly responsible for disarming them. Where's the logic? It appears that they enjoyed more freedoms under Hussein.

Biker

Koobuh
June 13, 2006, 07:13 PM
"What if the Shia and Kurds made the choice (democratically of course, since they represent about 80% of the vote), knowing it would only be enforced against the Sunni and would make whatever grudges they had held all these years that much easier to settle?"

This is why democracy doesn't work.
Hopefully they have a Republic rather than a Democracy.
I'm fairly sure it's a ban on carrying personal weapons in public, though it's still onerous. People will just stay home, where it's safe, and the Baghdad economy will suffer. People will begin to leave the city in droves if they aren't allowed self-defense. This is a very poor idea.

RealGun
June 13, 2006, 08:18 PM
The Iraq Constitution says that a citizen may own a gun with government permission. That was the provisional Constitution. I'm not sure what is currently in effect.

Cosmoline
June 13, 2006, 08:19 PM
A gun ban in Iraq? Good luck with that! :D :D

longeyes
June 13, 2006, 08:53 PM
I'm trying to imagine the one-AK-per-household rule in **********!:D

armoredman
June 13, 2006, 09:00 PM
Hussien gave away boatloads of firearms...to his own party, nobody else. It looked like free guns for all, but from what I was told, they were all Hussein loyalists. After all, wouldn't the Kurds have fought back, if arms were freely available?

Pilgrim
June 13, 2006, 09:56 PM
I notice there is nothing in the news about the Iraq parliament approving these measures. This could very well be a case of the prime minister and his minister of interior feeling their oats and running their mouths before getting the parliament go along.

Pilgrim

Trip20
June 14, 2006, 10:52 AM
It appears that they enjoyed more freedoms under Hussein.

Gentlemen, start your rhetoric engines! Vvvvrrooooooooom!

buzz_knox
June 14, 2006, 10:56 AM
A gun ban in Iraq? Good luck with that!

I'm waiting for the following newstory:

"Iraq has declared a ban on civilian ownership of weapons. In a related development, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is offering to deploy officers to Iraq to help with confiscation. Given their experience in New Orleans during the Katrina Crisis, the CHP is considered the optimum group for disarming civilians, at least if they consist of elderly women."

Texas9
June 14, 2006, 11:16 AM
GUN BANS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.

seeker_two
June 14, 2006, 01:04 PM
Iraq's new prime minister promised Tuesday to show "no mercy" to terrorists and said before President Bush arrived for a surprise visit that a long-awaited security plan for Baghdad will include a curfew and a ban on personal weapons.


...and all this happens just in time for Bush's arrival and oversight... :scrutiny:


If that doesn't speak volumes about this administration's RKBA position, I don't know what does... :cuss:

buzz_knox
June 14, 2006, 01:09 PM
It happened before Bush got there, and is probably in response to Zarqawi's death as anything. It doesn't say anything about Bush.

If one of the points of the war was to set up a democratically elected gov't in Iraq, then we have to accept that what their representatives choose to do may not reflect what we would do. If you want them to think/act like us, then you want them as a puppet, and all the anti-American/anti-imperialist arguments are spot on.

RealGun
June 14, 2006, 02:04 PM
If one of the points of the war was to set up a democratically elected gov't in Iraq, then we have to accept that what their representatives choose to do may not reflect what we would do.

Maybe so, but I believe the Constitution boilerplate handed to them by the UN included gun restrictions. They simply never took it out or focused on it..

If you enjoyed reading about "New Baghdad security policy: "ban on personal weapons"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!