1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Mad Man, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Mad Man

    Mad Man Well-Known Member


  2. KriegHund

    KriegHund Well-Known Member

    Youve GOT to be kidding? Right? You ARE kidding? Please say this is a joke. If it isnt, then i hope to god something happens thats like an iraqi revolution, and that they are smart enough to make a REAL ocnstitution.

    Not like it matrters anyways with so many guns over there, but that makes me sick anyways.
  3. This document contains words to the effect of,

    CONSTITUTION?! :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :barf:

  4. bigun15

    bigun15 Well-Known Member

    That's disgusting. If they don't do something about that everything we've done is going to get reversed.
  5. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    Let's wait and see if its real.
  6. ...I was just sayin'... :rolleyes:

  7. Taurus 66

    Taurus 66 Well-Known Member

    Yeah, so far, close to 2,000 of our brave soldiers died so that a communistic law could prevail over the citizens there?? We fought and died for communism! Now there's a slap in the face.
  8. RevDisk

    RevDisk Well-Known Member

    The section in question.

    I'd like to see how they intend to implement Number 3. Seeing as all households have at least one AK47. Currently, Iraq has RKBA rights than the US.

    Keep in mind, this is a work in progress. It's not a finished product. Matter of fact, it's a LONG way from finished. Interesting read, not too shabby of a Constitution all and all. I think editting out the healthcare stuff would be a wise move.

    As for the people screaming about "Leftist socialist commie liberals", I quote Article 13.

    Sounds more like something a rabid Right-wing moral-fascist authoritarian type would toss in the Constitution.

    There's some wack job stuff in there.
  9. dasmi

    dasmi Well-Known Member

    Reads like a first draft of "American Constitution, Part 2."
  10. c_yeager

    c_yeager Well-Known Member

    First of all THAT is just about the most backwards "constitution" i could imagine. Really, its just a list of what the PEOPLE can or cant do, rather than placing any limitation whatsoever on the government.

    Secondly, this particular portion could be twisted to mean ANYTHING AT ALL. Maybe there is a language issue here, but in English "deviancy" means anything outside of "normal". Notice that "normal" is not defined, which means that it can be defined at the governments leisure. Non-violent protesting is deviant, reading the "wrong" sort of books is deviant, engaging in the wrong sports is deviant, hell, voting for the losing candidate in an election fits the definition of deviant. Thats an awefully non-specific term, and a damn scary thing to have in a document that is supposed to guarantee someone's rights.
  11. dasmi

    dasmi Well-Known Member

  12. I'd like to know how they expect Iraqi citizens to uphold their duty under #1 given the restriction of #3. :banghead:

    And since when does a proper Constitution impose DUTIES on the CITIZENS?!

    WHY would you be an apologist for this tripe? Can you not see as the rest of us can that this thing is ALREADY a disaster? The only thing that could save this "work in progress" is to scrap it and start over with something that makes sense.

    Well, isn't that exact what Islam is about? Governing authority (religious governing authority) dictating what is and is not tolerated "morally"? That qualifies as "rabid Right-wing moral-fascist," to be sure. But please don't confuse it with "rational, reasonable right-wing American." Are you implying a connection there or am I imagining it?

    Let's consider the source. Who's it being written BY, and FOR?
    These are people USED to DEMANDING that their religious-political leaders enforce draconian "moral standards." This crap comes as no surprise to me.

  13. Taurus 66

    Taurus 66 Well-Known Member

    What constitution tells someone the "don'ts" rather than the "do's"??

    "Article 23, Clause 3 - Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law."

    How would it look in our Bill of Rights?

    Amendment I:

    Congress shall make laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

    Amendment II:

    A well regulated militia will not be tolerated, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed upon in a heartbeat.
  14. This is so poorly worded, on first reading I took it to mean that the lives of citizens are to be guaranteed protection.

    "Citizens' private lives" is too colloquial an idiom to be included in the text of a State document. How about, "The privacy of citizens"?

  15. dasmi

    dasmi Well-Known Member

    The problem with this document, is that it is being written by the spineless, corrupt, disgusting politicians of today, not the revolutionaries who wrote ours.
  16. Sindawe

    Sindawe Well-Known Member

    Well, one plus. It is shorter than the EU's Constitution. One thing that struck me while reading through this document....

    Article 6 clause 4: There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law.

    Okay... :scrutiny:

    Note the use of "...except by law." throughout the document. Looks like an easy "out" for the statists in the bunch drafting this. And I have to ask, just WHO is drafing this?
  17. RevDisk

    RevDisk Well-Known Member

    The drafting committee of the National Assembly. Sound vague? That's intentional. "For security reasons." ;)
  18. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    Don't read too much into it. Outside the US, "constitutions" are rarely worth more than TP. They have no teeth.
  19. ZeroX

    ZeroX Well-Known Member

    I suppose it depends on what goes into getting a permit.

    But I'm not holding my breath.
  20. RevDisk

    RevDisk Well-Known Member

    You never skimmed the EU Constitution, did ya? If you had to compare the two Constitutions... The draft of the Iraqi Constitution is a Ferrari, the EU Constitution is a rusted out Pinto. Yea, that bad.

    My counterinsurgency instructor beat a phrase into my skull. "If the people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, their neither deserve freedom nor will they keep it."

    I swear, he seems brighter by the day. Gods, that's annoying. I can hear that "I told you so!" line in the back of my mind all the time.

    Because Iraq has had a messed up government for a long time. They're just figuring out this democracy thing. I'm watching it the way I've been watching this entire 'liberation' to date. Cynical resignation. They gotta do it themselves. To write their Constitution for them would be uh, "profoundly unwise". To have them write a Constitution, and then forcibly scrap it would be even more unwise. Let them figure it out themselves.

    The US Constitution was not the first formation of government in the US. "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" ring a bell? The US didn't adopt the Constitution until May 23, 1788. You're talking a lot of smack on the Iraqi govt without reflecting on our own struggle for democracy.

    *I* saw it was gonna be a disaster before the first boot touched the ground. I said so too, repeatedly. I was flamed to a crisp by many folks. If you wanna know why I thought so, see the above quote about freedom. It hadn't a thing to do with the abilities, skill or any other attributes of the US military.

    I think you're referring to Sharia? Oh boy. Now there is a can of worms.

    Each branch of Islam has its own version of the Sharia, kinda. The Sunni take into account the Qur'an (their holy book), the Hadith (Muhammad's sayings), and ijma (kinda a group meeting, where everyone has a say). The Shiites go by the Qur'an, Muhammad's anecdotes, a group of high ranking clergy and a group of scholars/intellectuals. Toss in local customs for good measure. The Sharia covers to two major groups. Worship and social interaction. If you wanted a more in-depth discussion, PM's would probably be better.

    And Islam is not the only religion to establish theocracies, BTW. Most theocracies, of every religion, eventually turn rather nasty at some point(s) in their lifespan.

    And yes, you are imagining a connection.

    Good question. No one in the public fully knows. The process is rather shrouded in secrecy, for 'security concerns'.

    And BTW, Iraq was VERY secular under the Ba'athists. So the 'moral standards' stuff SHOULD be a surprise to you. I think you have the Iraqis confused with more theocratic countries like Saudi Arabia.

    Edit : "People demanding that their political leaders enforce draconian moral standards" Heck, that's the good ol' USA.

    Whatcha expect from a Constitutional process shrouded in secrecy?

Share This Page