Stand_Watie
Member
I think I'm probably with a majority here in that I'd like to see a 2nd amendment added to the new Iraq constitution. That said, I also recognize that there are realities of protecting troops in a martial law situation.
So, just as a general sort of question, do any forum members have any suggestions regarding gun limitations in particular parts of Iraq for particular time periods that would both allow "Joe six-pack" Iraqi to defend his home and person from ordinary (non-military) thieves, robbers and murderers and still provide some protection to US, Coalition government, and other coalition troops?
Would allowing posession of only shotguns and pistols in "martial law" neighborhoods allow for reasonable self-defense or would the bad guys just wear body armor?
I'm not proposing gun laws as a permanent proposition, just a question if there is any reasonable temporary restriction that might have a positive effect regarding loss of friendly lives, without an overall cost in life.
p.s. I know that laws won't prevent the 'bad guys' from possessing weapons that can be used against friendly forces, just a hypothetical if there is a weapon that we could leave in the hands of someone of whom we have broken down their door in the search of IED's which as we leave, would be reasonable to think it unlikely to be effective against friendly forces and would still be effective against your run of the mill criminals.
So, just as a general sort of question, do any forum members have any suggestions regarding gun limitations in particular parts of Iraq for particular time periods that would both allow "Joe six-pack" Iraqi to defend his home and person from ordinary (non-military) thieves, robbers and murderers and still provide some protection to US, Coalition government, and other coalition troops?
Would allowing posession of only shotguns and pistols in "martial law" neighborhoods allow for reasonable self-defense or would the bad guys just wear body armor?
I'm not proposing gun laws as a permanent proposition, just a question if there is any reasonable temporary restriction that might have a positive effect regarding loss of friendly lives, without an overall cost in life.
p.s. I know that laws won't prevent the 'bad guys' from possessing weapons that can be used against friendly forces, just a hypothetical if there is a weapon that we could leave in the hands of someone of whom we have broken down their door in the search of IED's which as we leave, would be reasonable to think it unlikely to be effective against friendly forces and would still be effective against your run of the mill criminals.