[2dogs]

They aren't bound to, but I'd like to see NRA (or others) give an answer.




http://slate.msn.com/id/2083734/

NRA Weasel Watch, Day 7
Does it favor the weapons ban in Iraq?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 3:12 PM PT


On May 21, the front page of the New York Times announced that the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq would no longer permit Iraqi civilians to own "automatic weapons and heavy weapons." Starting June 15, it will be illegal in Iraq to own privately any of the following:

automatic firearms firing ammunition larger than 7.62mm; machine guns or crew-served weapons; anti-tank weapons; anti-aircraft weapons; indirect fire weapons; all armored vehicles or self-propelled weapons; and high explosives and explosive devices.


This ban is more permissive than the federal gun-control laws in the United States. In Iraq, it appears one may still own an AK-47, whereas in the United States ownership of an AK-47, or one of several other kinds of semiautomatic weapons, is against the law under the 1994 assault weapons ban. The National Rifle Association is currently urging Congress to let this ban lapse when it expires next year. Chatterbox wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA argue that if our government will let an Islamist fanatic own an AK-47 in wild and woolly Iraq, it should give that same right to Americans. Gun-control groups might counter this by noting that our federal gun laws at home go largely unenforced.

But all this begs the more interesting question: Does the NRA favor the Coalition Provisional Authority's ban on ownership of large automatic firearms, machine guns, etc., in Iraq? A ban that, to Chatterbox's mind, doesn't really go far enough? (Thinking that AK-47s would be included in the ban—as perhaps they were in an early draft of the proclamation—the Times pointed out that they are frequently used by "criminal gangs, paramilitary groups, and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.")

It's fun to imagine how the NRA would sweat its way through this question. If it supported the Iraq ban, it would win points for supporting our troops overseas but lose a lot more by creating an impression that it had gone soft. If the NRA opposed the Iraq ban, it would be give greater weight to the rights of gun owners than to the lives of American soldiers, not to mention all Iraqis who aspire to a form of government more exalted than mere anarchy. Bonus political science question: Can the NRA explain how Iraq became a dictatorship in the first place when its citizenry was armed to the teeth?

Chatterbox has been phoning the NRA press office for a week, seeking comment on the weapons ban in Iraq. Every time he calls, a cheerful NRA employee promises a response. Every time, Chatterbox never gets one. Starting today, Chatterbox inaugurates the NRA Weasel Watch, which will document the NRA's ongoing efforts to duck Chatterbox's simple question. Today is Day 7.

[Hal]

I'll take a shot at it ;)

1.) "Does the NRA favor the Coalition Provisional Authority's ban on ownership of large automatic firearms, machine guns, etc., in Iraq? "

What the US military does in a war zone (Iraq) has nothing to do with the NRA.

2.) "Can the NRA explain how Iraq became a dictatorship in the first place when its citizenry was armed to the teeth?"

Beats me. Why should they? Better yet, why should anyone expect them to?

[Blackcloud6]

Hal thank you.

Timothy Noah is trying to bring together two issues that have nothing to do with each other. The NRA is smart not to get invovlved with what is going on in Iraq, it has nothing to do with our situation over hear.

[2dogs]

Aw, c'mon. Couldn't they at least muster a "drop dead"? :neener:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Look at Timothy Noah's past columns. He has always hated the NRA and always done his best to drag them through the dirt at any opportunity.

When somebody with the media, who can print anything they like virtually unedited and who hates your guts calls you, you say "Thank you for calling" and hang up - because anything you say can and will be used against you.

Look at the Michael Moore interview with Charles Heston where he did some creative editing. If you have good cause to suspect they are going to burn you regardless of what you say, the smartest course of action is to say nothing.

[clange]

Can the NRA explain how Iraq became a dictatorship in the first place when its citizenry was armed to the teeth?
IIRC, they werent. I thought if you weren't a supporter or member of the party and you were caught armed you were in for a world of hurt.

[Battler]

Err. . . Saddam Hussein's supporters were allowed to be armed. Other folk most certainly were not.

Saddam Hussein didn't control all of Iraq entirely either. Something to that?

[Preacherman]

From the Opinion website of the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003564):

BY JAMES TARANTO
Friday, May 30, 2003 1:14 p.m. EDT

Crank Yankers

Just about anyone whose job touches on politics has had the experience of fielding telephone calls from kooks. Example: In the summer of 1988, we were a junior employee at a Washington policy shop when the switchboard operator inexplicably transferred to our desk a phone call from a woman distraught over the pounding Dan Quayle, Vice President Bush's running mate, was receiving in the media. We listened patiently and commiserated, but then the conversation took a really strange turn, as the woman explained to us how concerned she was that Jews were buying up all the real estate in Northern Virginia.

Fielding a call like this is awkward. One doesn't want to be rude--you're representing your organization, after all--but on the other hand one doesn't want to encourage such lunacy. We cut off the conversation as politely as we could.

The folks at the National Rifle Association have been dealing with a persistent kook of late, or at any rate so says the kook, a guy who bizarrely calls himself "Chatterbox" and refers to himself in the third person but whose actual name appears to be Timothy Noah:

Chatterbox has been phoning the NRA press office for a week, seeking comment on the weapons ban in Iraq. Every time he calls, a cheerful NRA employee promises a response. Every time, Chatterbox never gets one. Starting today, Chatterbox inaugurates the NRA Weasel Watch, which will document the NRA's ongoing efforts to duck Chatterbox's simple question. Today is Day 7.

Oh dear, the Internet is a mixed blessing, isn't it? If our caller 15 years ago had had a Web site on which to hold forth, we imagine this would only have fueled the flames of her craziness.

One wonders how far things will go with this poor confused "Chatterbox" fellow, who thinks it odd that the National Rifle Association, which advocates Americans' gun rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, would demur from taking a position on the confiscation of firearms in a foreign war zone. Will he start calling the American Civil Liberties Union every day to ask if they think de-Baathification is a violation of the First Amendment, or if they're campaigning against school prayer in Iraq?

On second thought, forget we said anything. We'd hate to give him any ideas.

[Pat S]

This is a bizzare posting! To even think that the NRA should take some kind of stand on this? Really! This guy needs to get a life!

[Sir Galahad]

Slate is mere pablum that has an "answer" for all of the world's problems in three paragraphs or less. "Chatterbox" is probably some geeky little 38 year-old virgin with no life who never leaves his cramped little studio apartment, spends is days banging away on his keyboard, eating organic black-bean burritos, blaming everyone but himself for the fact that his only real friends in the world are his two cats and a fern named "Bill".

[deanf]

Well it is and interesting question. I personally think the ban on some guns in Iraq is an affront to the rights of those people, and I think the NRA should hold the same opinion.

[HBK]

I'm all for our military being as protected as it can be. However, that being said, if I was Joe Iraqi, no way do I turn in my guns that I use for self-defense. ESPECIALLY since that country is experiencing some extreme looting. A man should have a right to protect himself and his family, no matter what country he lives in. Of course, the US is the only country with that right explicitly stated in its constitution. (At least, I think it is the only one, I could be wrong) The right to bear arms is a cornerstone of freedom.

[clange]

Well i dont think it's necessarily an unfair question of the NRA. Yeah you can sit here and say they are focused on the 2nd amendment and it's implications here, but the fact is they often cite the laws and happenings in other nations to make their point.

Now, that being said, its IS still an occupied war zone, not another nations laws being covered, so in that respect they have nothing to comment on i guess. Now when iraq comes up with it's own laws concerning the issue, i would think it not unreasonable to wonder what their opinion is.

[Gary H]

When the Iraqis put together a constitution they can decide which rights they hold dear. Having guns alone does not create a free society. The "N" in NRA is in reference to the word "National" and we are not talking the Iraqi war zone. I personally believe that only a fool believes that chances are good that Iraq will have a fully democratic government any time soon. It seems to me that the people of a country earn their rights through action and I haven't noticed much positive action on the part of the Iraqi people.. ah..except for the Iranian instigated political rumblings...but that certainly isn't "positive."

[org]

The Iraqi's are a conquered people. As such they have no rights until they form their own government. At present they are under martial law, no matter what you may call it. A pretty lenient martial law, at that.

Having said that, the US isn't confiscating all weapons. They are allowed to keep arms of 7.62 and smaller. This probably isn't because of the benevolence of the US administration; it's probably because somebody is smart enough to realize a ban on all weapons isn't workable. Kinda like here.

Having said ALL that, what does the NRA have to do with protecting the rights of a foreign people? Absurd.