Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mad Man

    Mad Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    USA
    http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/07/iraqi_bill_of_r.html

     
  2. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    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. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    This document contains words to the effect of,
    CITIZENS MAY NOT

    AND THESE PUKES HAVE THE UNMITIGATED AUDACITY TO CALL THAT A
    CONSTITUTION?! :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :barf:



    -Jeffrey
     
  4. bigun15

    bigun15 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    California
    That's disgusting. If they don't do something about that everything we've done is going to get reversed.
     
  5. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Let's wait and see if its real.
     
  6. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    ...I was just sayin'... :rolleyes:


    -Jeffrey
     
  7. Taurus 66

    Taurus 66 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,485
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    *sigh*
    Reads like a first draft of "American Constitution, Part 2."
     
  10. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
  12. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    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.

    -Jeffrey
     
  13. Taurus 66

    Taurus 66 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,485
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    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. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    West Palm Beach, FL
    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"?

    -Jeffrey
     
  15. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The drafting committee of the National Assembly. Sound vague? That's intentional. "For security reasons." ;)
     
  18. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Don't read too much into it. Outside the US, "constitutions" are rarely worth more than TP. They have no teeth.
     
  19. ZeroX

    ZeroX Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Bloomington, IN
    I suppose it depends on what goes into getting a permit.

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

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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?
     
  21. MasterPiece Arms.com

    MasterPiece Arms.com member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    s9.invisionfree.com/MasterPiece_Arms_MAC
    That is partially untrue. The people writing the Iraqi constitution are NOT spineless. They ARE corrupt and disgusting, because of the main issue you left out: those writing it ARE GLOBALISTS, and are connected to the same system of power that wrote the U.N. charter. Common knowledge of the power structure, agenda, and motivations of the new world order is dissappearing and it is quite troubling.

    When Woodrow Wilson was giving speeches about the new world order, thankfully, an educated Senate threw the "league of nations" in the dumpster where it belonged. Fast forward to today, where we have gunowners, who all over the 1st world are being put on the trains to the ovens (fine, only the gun goes to the oven, but the man he was dies nonetheless), yet are forgetting everything the new world order did to them for 100 years. IT WASN'T "JUST A BUNCH OF LIBERALS" that did it. There is a long term agenda at work, and a bona fide conspiracy.

    It is not just a coincidence that the federal corporation went bankrupt and went into receivership in 1933, and then poof one year later came the "National Firearms Act" of 1934 which killed the local militia by establishing federal registration of real weapons, PLUS a gigantic tax (they had REAL dollars back then, so the $200 transfer tax, to them was equivalent to at least $20,000 of our bogus, mostly worthless, "Federal Reserve" credits.)

    The translation is this: the Iraqi constitution is being written BY the new world order globalists. It's scary how many GUNOWNERS I meet now who dismiss that like it doesn't matter.

    Since Americans have forgotten how to speak globalist, I have to translate the intent of clauses 1 and 3. It's not gibberish. It's not "wack job" stuff. It is very well written by incredibly EVIL people who are part of the globalist system that has totally controlled our national government since 1933.

    FIRST, clause 1 translated from globalist into what we speak means this: PERMANENT NATIONAL DRAFT AND PERMANENT FEDERAL STANDING ARMY.
    Clause 3 not only sets that in stone, but clause 3 is actually a constitutional BAN on the local militia. What is really, really scary, is that clause 3 and the NFA of 1934, in the end, accomplish the SAME EXACT THING, just by a different route.

    By the way, clause 4 is beyond disturbing because it is actually a constitutional and permenent BAN on ANYONE blowing the whistle on future high level government corruption. The "protecting state secrets" line will be used to destroy, threaten, and prevent honest government employees from going public about, well, anything. In this country, the reason we're seeing such a scary DROP in the number of federal whistleblowers, is because they're purging the daylights out of the CIA and the other systematically corrupt appendages to the federal control system. That, and the fact that they've been quietly putting hundreds of whistleblowers in the federal gulags with the help of compliant (actually corrupt) judges which infest the federal judiciary to the point of being nearly universal. The dark side of government is involved in SO MUCH illegal activity, that if someone has an attack of conscience and wants to do the right thing by going public, the federal government will actually prosecute them for the illegal things they (and dozens of others who kept their mouths shut) were probably doing for YEARS with high level approval.
     
  22. odysseus

    odysseus Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    946
    Location:
    US Citizen
    MasterpieceArms...

    ...nice breakdown. However I am not a fan of the tinhat feeling of infowars.com myself.

    Having 3 and 4 right next to each other pretty much sums it up. I hope the citizens puke all over it and throw it back. BTW - are they going to be able to vote on whatever document becomes their constitution?

    Anyway currently as I see it, I don't see how the majority of anything moves along in Iraq currently...
     
  23. peeniewallie

    peeniewallie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Iraq's new constitution

    This constitution is so watered down because it's not being written by patriots that wrested control of their country from a hostile regime, but instead is written by the government to assert power over the pigs under their control. It is a furtive, abortion of a constitution that will leave the people of Iraq worse off than they were under Saddam. At least under Saddam, they were allowed to own weapons. So, in theory, they could have overthrown him at any time they chose by rising up. That they didn't do this is an interesting observation.

    Be that as it may, after this horrific constitution is enacted, the globalists and New World Order apologists will have exactly what they want. A disarmed populace stewing in the desert, no better off than the Palestinians.

    This constitution will actually serve to increase terrorism, as terrorism is the only recourse of a disarmed populace. When they don't have weapons at their disposal necessary to retake their country by force, they will inevitably resort to terrorism to attact attention to their cause, as it is their only option in the face of an omnipotent state.
     
  24. mfree

    mfree Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,079
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    "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."

    I'd have my druthers comparing the EU constitution to... hrmm. let's use a rotten 1982 Oldsmobile 88 diesel with no floorboards.
     
  25. Khaotic

    Khaotic Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    212
    +1 Peenie, very smart assessment of the situation.

    As to why they didn't rise up and throw Saddam out.

    Sure he was a bad man, but he was a strong leader, and by maintaining a secular gov managed to avoid so-severely offending religious entities that none of them would call jihad(or lesser equivalent) on him.

    He also, like Castro and other dictators we've hassled, had a "threat" to unify his people against, which we thoughtfully provided with our constant harrassment of his nation, which he took personal grudge against since we're the tools who propped him up (to fight khomeni, cause we propped up the shah and the iranians DID rise up and throw HIM out, replacing him with khomeni) in the first place.

    I notice the iranians are running their own affairs right now, and have ever since they chucked the shah, no matter what we think of how they do so, they have kept the government THEY wanted, because of the simple fact that enough of them got pissed off at the old one to forcibly give it the old heave-ho.

    The iraqis didn't do that - they were not convinced that saddam needed to go, and would have rather handled it themselves if they did feel it had to be done.. they didn't care for him, some of them in fact passionately hated him, but they respected him as a strong leader, and again, he had an 'outside threat' (us) to unify his people against, which we stupidly provided.

    Had we left him to his own devices after his disastrous foray into kuwait, his head would have likely been on a stake outside the palace courtesy of his own citizens, and we'd be dealing with whomever they saw fit to replace him.

    You cannot force "freedom" down peoples throats, if they want it badly enough, they will TAKE it - and the brand of "freedom" we're pushing at em right now is something that turns my stomach, and will likely offend more of them, resulting in more headaches.

    I swear, every time we meddle over there we just make things worse....
    Can I borrow the CLUE by four ? I need to talk to some of our foreign policy folks.... :cuss:
    It's like a monkey hand trap, with a monkey too stupid to let go of the pretty rock so he can pull his hand out of the jar :banghead:

    -K
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page