Gun rights in the new Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonder if GWB read that part and approved? Probably did? Or doesn't pay attention?

You will also note that the new constituion is trying to take away women's rights. Glad we went there for democracy. Thank you Rummy and Chaney!
 
Not to mention that it says something like "There shall be no censorship unless censorship by law" Talk about leaving it open for the government to abuse its people.
 
This is yet more evidence for how incredible our Constitution is, and our founding fathers were. Our Constitution was penned by men of principle, who (by and large) wrote it without respect to how they, personally, might stand to gain from arrogating to themselves authority.

The proposed Iraqi constitution, much like the proposed EU constitution, are very different beasts. The former is a conssitution as designed by people who see themselves being the government, the latter is a constitution as designed by governments.

It is the difference between a man gaining his independence because he has reached a point where he is willing to take up arms against his oppressor, and gaining his independence because someone else told him to.
 
I wasn't aware GWB had approval over the Iraqi constitution. I thought it was being drawn up by Iraqis.

- Yep, they are all falling over themselves for freedom. It is already becoming a mess with reference to Islamic law taking precedent over what we think are basic rights.

That's why it is a concern. If the constitution had something really antithetical to our interests, we would probably say something. However, an antifreedom part like that on guns is just fine and dandy.
 
Article 17.

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
Click to expand...

In their model for new democracies, I'll bet they figure that they finally got it right, with government having complete discretion. :what:

Unfortunately, another article states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person". I would say that's hard to reconcile. It doesn't mean privacy, because that is stated separately.
 
Bartholemew, I know Bush doesn't have control over what the Iraqis put in their Constitution, but it is hard for me to believe that since we have thousands of troops there, and are pouring millions of dollars into the country, that we don't have some influence.

Are you saying that we really could not have influenced them on this issue if we had wanted to?

If we are in the business of nation building in Iraq (which obviously we are), and our goal is to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq (which has been stated), then how do we accomplish these goals by allowing a constitution to be written that runs contrary to freedom?

I just don't see the point of the whole war if we don't really create a free society there. Is all the talk about creating a mid east democracy just a lie? Do we really just want a puppet state that we can loosely call a democracy, that we can use militarily to control the mid east? If thats what we want thats fine by me, but lets be honest about it.
 
Because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so eighteenth century.

Control Group said:

This is yet more evidence for how incredible our Constitution is, and our founding fathers were. Our Constitution was penned by men of principle, who (by and large) wrote it without respect to how they, personally, might stand to gain from arrogating to themselves authority.

The proposed Iraqi constitution, much like the proposed EU constitution, are very different beasts. The former is a conssitution as designed by people who see themselves being the government, the latter is a constitution as designed by governments.
Click to expand...
Well said. Imagine the moral and legal clusterfunk to which we would be subjected if our own current government wrote us a new Constitution. What immutable rights would it guarantee? The right to Happy Meals and cable teevee?
 
It took a very long time for our Government to work around our Constitution and rights. This way Iraq is caught up with current times.

Doesn't make you proud to know that all the lives we sacrificed from our military and all the countless billions we spent to over throw an evil dictator and spread freedom across Iraq is going to help them adopt this authoritarian style Constitution? :barf:
 
The papers yesterday had a story about how the US was intervening in the constitution process because of the insertion of religious issues and the attack on women's rights in the new document.

Obviously, then we pay attention to some issues. Clearly the RKBA is not.

It is also farcical as if one thinks that in a country awash in guns and suspicions, anyone will get a permit from the new Iraqi government. Thus, we will criminalize so many in Iraq.

I'm sorry, I know Bush can do no wrong to some folks but guys he just doesn't get the RKBA beyond some cliches. He certainly has no driving motivation to pursue the issue. Yes, yawn, he is better than Kerry would have been or Hillary will be. :eek:
 
I'm sorry, I know Bush can do no wrong to some folks but guys he just doesn't get the RKBA beyond some cliches. He certainly has no driving motivation to pursue the issue. Yes, yawn, he is better than Kerry would have been or Hillary will be.
Click to expand...

The interim constitution for Iraq has been in place for over a year. It says that the Muslim faith will be the official state religion and will be the basis of Iraqi law. It says that a license is required to own firearms. As I understand it, that document was put together as a UN endorsed effort. It was not written by the White House, but I am certain the State Department would have been involved.

While outrageous on its face, the religion thing simply preempts civil war or endless resistance as an initial part of the process of establishing a new government even approximating a democracy. To extend the restriction of firearms, martial law would have to be in effect to coexist with a permanent constitution. No other circumstance would be justified and in any way comparable with the US notion of democracy and freedom.

It should not go without notice that there is no apparent plan to establish a republic of states, but I see them headed in that direction. The government would have to be designed, at least to some degree, to suit the prevailing culture.
 
If we were to ever convene a constitutional convention among the states, I wouldn't be surprised to see a EU-style or UN-style constitution where Rights are granted by the government, instead of being protected by the government.
 
Last edited:
AZRickD, bullseye. And if a constitutional convention were held today in the US, we could undoubtedly expect the looters to demand the right to free food, housing, shelter, medical care, clothing, annual two-week vacations, free daycare, free color television, "the right to feel safe," the right to self-esteem, yadda yadda yadda. The Bill of Rights would end up even more eviscerated than it is now.

The First Am would read: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of speech except in cases involving national security, the drug war, or in such other emergencies as the Congress may from time to time direct."

"The right of the people to peaceably assemble, keep and bear arms, keep and read books, operate printing presses and websites, and practice their religion shall not be infringed except as provided by law."

And hawks would want to add "the right of the president to declare and wage wars (whether secret or open) shall not be infringed under any circumstances."

"The right of the US fedgov to dominate the rest of the world in the name of freedom and democracy shall not be questioned."
 
We were really amazingly lucky to have an honest-to-Plato Philosopher King in the form of George Washington at the head of the American Revolution. There are very few other examples in history of revolutions that didn't end in dictatorships or bloodbaths. Alas for Iraq that it has no one of such stature.
 
And hawks would want to add "the right of the president to declare and wage wars (whether secret or open) shall not be infringed under any circumstances."
Click to expand...

The Iraq thing was approved by Congress, and they have not withdrawn that support. Until you remove the politics, they are all in it together. You might be against the war, but you aren't implying facts, only your sentiments. Presidents do not, in fact, declare and wage wars unilaterally. However, I would agree that there is a gaming element to it. Nothing is straightforward, it would seem.

I think most anti-war sentiments are disingenuous, because they tend to come from the opposing political party and tend not to come from the administration's party. Of course, that can be disingenuous too, perhaps moreso, since Democrats would rather spend the money on their socialist agenda, and can genuinely oppose spending it on the military. Instead of talking about how good or bad the war is, they should be admitting to their real priorities. Hillary will do that actually, since health care is at the top of her list. Any isolationist is probably very similar in wanting to spend money at home making citizens more dependent upon and controlled by the government.
 
When a country is starting over like this, The UN sends them copies of other countries Constitutions,along with a "sample" Constitution. basically a form document were the Iraq committee fills in the blanks.

I don't know if Iraq started with that Constitution model,but you can bet they got a UN packet.
 
Too bad we don't bring these back and put them up for bid.

051904_guns.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top