[teppo-shu]

Ok, let's stir our own pot a little bit...

What do ya'll think about the latest "effort to disarm" in Iraq?

According to today's USA fishwrap (page 4A), VERY few folks turned in their full auto AK's on Sunday, the first day of a two-week "amnesty."

"Under the new policy, machine guns and other heavy weapons will be banned. Rifles and pistols will be allowed in homes and businesses, but Iraqis will need a permit if they want to carry weapons. Those who fail to turn in banned guns by June 14 face a year in jail and a $1,000 fine."

"Few people say they will comply with the ban, mainly out of fear they won't be able to protect themselves from criminals. Even police say they are not inclined to turn over their personal weapons. 'Give up my guns? Never,' said Falah Hassan, a police officer... 'It is better to be safe than dead.'"

"U.S. military authorities said that despite the slow start, they expect more guns to be turned over in the days ahead."

Now don't get me wrong, I'm personally 110% behind our military men and women, in fact I have several friends and neighbors who are active duty USAF right now. Including one A-10 pilot who's now home.

But DAMN!! Who's running the show over there? Did Feinstein and Schumer jet over to take charge and no one told us about it??

I would have to say, were I an average citizen in that situation, and a foreign army comes over and destroys my country's army, establishes what amounts to and actually is by its own admission an occupation of my country, and then proceeds to start telling me and my fellow citizens to begin handing over our weapons, I would have just two words for em: MOLON LABE!!!

Now I'd like to hear someone say "such weapons have no place on the streets of a 'free' Iraq," and really mean it and be able to explain why and convince me of what purpose it would serve.

But I'd also like to know why, if ordinary citizens had such weapons to begin with, they didn't use 'em on The Butcher and his cronies already? I mean, that's why WE have the Second Amendment, right? To keep our government truly ours and from becoming tyrants and despots and overlords?

What do y'all think?

[Pilgrim]

I guess it is really up to the Iraqis to decide what they want to do. It sounds like it would be in their best interests to quit screwing around and form a government we can get along with. Then they can decide if the common man should be armed or not.

Pilgrim

[Bravo11]

Right now it's still a war zone and they are still the enemy.
Until a true gov't is established they shouldn't have ANY weapons.
They don't have a 2nd amendment, they don't even have a constitution.

[Gordon Fink]

But DAMN!! Who’s running the show over there? Did Feinstein and Schumer jet over to take charge and no one told us about it??

Ha-ha-ha! The general consternation among pro-war gun owners over gun confiscation in occupied Iraq is highly amusing. After all, what else should we expect from a war nominally about arms control?

~G. Fink

[Mark Tyson]

They should be allowed AK-47's and other small arms. Those are self defense weapons. The presence of an armed population ought to keep the new government on the straight and narrow.

[Andrew Wyatt]

hrrm. if iraq turns into a non american hating democracy, and the new government isn't hardnose about owning guns, it might be a decent place to live.

[mons meg]

Anyone care to lay odds on whether Iraq's "new constitution" has the equivalent of our 2nd Amendment, or anything close to our Bill of Rights? :rolleyes:

[El Rojo]

If it were me, I would stash any large weapons I had and keep the rest low key. I don't want to give up my guns here and I don't think they should have to give up their guns there. Now the interesting thing is that everyone there was armed, yet Saddam still ruled. They didn't need a 2nd Amendment, they had what they wanted. So how do we explain that a well armed society like Iraq still allowed an oppressive ruler? Interesting.

[Marko Kloos]

Until a true gov't is established they shouldn't have ANY weapons.
They don't have a 2nd amendment, they don't even have a constitution.

I suggest you read up on the nature of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment does not "give" the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one's person and community, it merely recognizes it. Furthermore, it recognizes that right as inherent to all humans, not just Americans.

[mons meg]

IIRC, didn't Saddam hand out weapons like candy in the days leading up to the war, so the the people of Baghdad would be able to resist the Anglo hordes?

[lapidator]

Those who fail to turn in banned guns by June 14 face a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

$1000??? doesn't that seem a touch expensive? Where is the average Iraqi going to get $1000?

lapidator

[Standing Wolf]

If I lived in Iraq, I wouldn't even consider turning in my guns. I live in the United States, and wouldn't even consider turning in my guns.

[Lone_Gunman]

If it were up to me,

I would pull the US Army out now, let them have all the small arms they wanted, and leave them to their own devices...

The ensuing blood bath would assure the world that there would be no Iraqi problem for a few generations.

[Croyance]

I guess it is really up to the Iraqis to decide what they want to do. It sounds like it would be in their best interests to quit screwing around and form a government we can get along with. I thought we were interested in promoting democracy around the world? It may be that the majority of the people in Iraq have no interests in us liking them.

[Monkeyleg]

This was my tri-annual letter to the editor on the subject:

To the editors:

A June 1st Associated Press article published in the Journal Sentinel may have left some readers confused on an issue that is once again becoming topical: assault weapons.

The article reported that our military is allowing Iraqi civilians to keep their AK-47 "assault rifles." By Department of Defense definitions, the rifles that the Iraqi's are allowed to possess are indeed true assault rifles: capable of both full-automatic ("machine gun") fire as well as semi-automatic fire (one shot per pull of the trigger).

Here in the US, ownership of fully-automatic weapons has been almost entirely prohibited since 1934. The 1994 "Assault Weapons" law merely banned guns that looked like their full-auto counterparts, and proposed legislation to extend that ban will similarly concentrate on a gun's appearance rather than function.

It's ironic that, at least with regard to firearms, the people that we are liberating have more freedom than the citizens of the country doing the liberating.

[Mark Tyson]

Yes, Iraqis had guns while Saddam still ruled. But in Kurdistan, they DID use their guns (and heavier weapons too) to fight Saddam's forces and establish a semi-free autonomous zone.

[WonderNine]

I don't agree with what we are doing at all. It's contradictory to our own constitution and basic human rights. Completely ridiculous to have the people of Iraq surrender their guns. Who's bright idea was it anyways?

[Monkeyleg]

Well, this is nothing short of a miracle. The paper actually printed my letter (I thought I was blacklisted). Of course, the editors had to do a little tweaking but, compared to past letters that they butchered, this wasn't bad.

**********

ASSAULT WEAPONS

We're granting Iraqis freedom we don't have

A June 1 Associated Press article in the Journal Sentinel may have left some readers confused on an issue that is once again becoming topical: assault weapons ("Assault rifles won't be seized").

The article reported that our military is allowing Iraqi civilians to keep their AK-47 "assault rifles." By Department of Defense definitions, the rifles that the Iraqis are allowed to possess are indeed true assault rifles: capable of full-automatic fire as well as semiautomatic fire.

Here in the United States, ownership of fully automatic weapons has been almost entirely prohibited since 1934. A 1994 assault weapons law merely banned guns that looked like their full-auto counterparts, and proposed legislation to extend that ban will similarly concentrate on a gun's appearance rather than function.

It's ironic that, at least with regard to firearms, the people we are liberating have more freedom than the citizens of the country doing the liberating.