Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- Thread starter Mad Man
- Start date
- Status
XavierBreath
Member
There is a fundamental difference between our Country and the democracy that is evolving in Iraq.
In the U.S. men who desired to be free took up arms and defeated an army of a king. They wanted to insure they could repeat this if necessary. They knew that arms was the only means to defeat tyranny.
In Iraq, another country sent troops to liberate the people. The people were sheep who obeyed or were led to slaughter. They have no conception of what it means to free themselves, and thus will never be free regardless of any constitution.
I'm not surprised in the least. Free men appreciate guns and the freedom they preserve. Sheep have no idea how to become a sheepdog.
In the U.S. men who desired to be free took up arms and defeated an army of a king. They wanted to insure they could repeat this if necessary. They knew that arms was the only means to defeat tyranny.
In Iraq, another country sent troops to liberate the people. The people were sheep who obeyed or were led to slaughter. They have no conception of what it means to free themselves, and thus will never be free regardless of any constitution.
I'm not surprised in the least. Free men appreciate guns and the freedom they preserve. Sheep have no idea how to become a sheepdog.
peeniewallie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 8
democracy?
Hmm. You mentioned the word "democracy". Just for the record, our government is (thankfully) not a democracy, regardless of what the talking heads on TV would have us believe. We are a Constitutional Republic, and not by accident. Our founding fathers had the foresight to guard against the idiocy of "majority rules". Otherwise, all the idiots would say "why do we need guns?" and it would be over.
Hmm. You mentioned the word "democracy". Just for the record, our government is (thankfully) not a democracy, regardless of what the talking heads on TV would have us believe. We are a Constitutional Republic, and not by accident. Our founding fathers had the foresight to guard against the idiocy of "majority rules". Otherwise, all the idiots would say "why do we need guns?" and it would be over.
Good post peeniewallie.
How hard is it for someone to run off a copy of our constitution and change a few names? The fact that it's never been done makes me take masterpiecearms.com a little more seriously (a little).
The only problem with that analogy is that Olds 88s actually work (and do so for quite some time).mfree said:
How hard is it for someone to run off a copy of our constitution and change a few names? The fact that it's never been done makes me take masterpiecearms.com a little more seriously (a little).
Taurus 66
Member
I'm going to rewrite the Bill of No Rights so that we can be more like Iraq.
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.
Amendment III:
All soldiers shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, and forgetabout consent of the owner, just move right in, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV:
It's not the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no warrants shall be needed, the police can just bust right in, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and all their goodies to be seized.
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.
Amendment III:
All soldiers shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, and forgetabout consent of the owner, just move right in, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV:
It's not the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no warrants shall be needed, the police can just bust right in, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and all their goodies to be seized.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Empires can't be built without invasions. That said, I think Bush really thought he was going to help the Iraqis become free.
However, unless the Iraqi's are guaranteed the right to bear arms, so they can protect themselves from tyrants in the future, I don't see what good we will have done them in the long run by deposing Saddam.
TheGoodLife
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 122
A Constitution in Iraq? or a Shi'ite regime? Torture?
All of this talk about a 'constitution' in Iraq is a pathetic joke.
There are some tragic and twisted consequences of the war unfolding in Iraq, not the least of which is a recent agreement between Iraq's Shi'ite regime and Iran's Shi'ite regime.
I guess our brilliant foreign policy strategists in Washington didn't plan for this one.
Yes, that is what we are helping to establish in Iraq, a Shi'ite regime that is aligning itself with Iran, a regime that Bush considers part of the 'axis of evil'.
We, the USA, are training Iraqi forces and providing security so that the country can align itself with Iran? What kind of foreign policy is that?
And not only that, apparently the new Shi'ite government hasn't learned any lessons from its past under Saddam Hussein.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html
All of this talk about a 'constitution' in Iraq is a pathetic joke.
There are some tragic and twisted consequences of the war unfolding in Iraq, not the least of which is a recent agreement between Iraq's Shi'ite regime and Iran's Shi'ite regime.
I guess our brilliant foreign policy strategists in Washington didn't plan for this one.
Yes, that is what we are helping to establish in Iraq, a Shi'ite regime that is aligning itself with Iran, a regime that Bush considers part of the 'axis of evil'.
We, the USA, are training Iraqi forces and providing security so that the country can align itself with Iran? What kind of foreign policy is that?
And not only that, apparently the new Shi'ite government hasn't learned any lessons from its past under Saddam Hussein.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html
1 old 0311
member
They sure ain't going to run out of guns. Oliver North said "Iraq is the worlds largest ammo dump and armory"
Kevin
Kevin
brian roberts
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 153
Iraq......
Hmmmmm.....Ollie North.....the guy who gave us the FEMA mandate for the "....redistribution of foodstuffs, shelter & clothing in an "emergency...." just like the canadians who seized the generator of some people who were using theirs during a blizzard-induced blackout. But, everyone regards ol' Ollie as a hero, yeah, the "hero" of Mena.
as for Iraq, aren't you guys coming to the conclusion YET that our socialistic "DEMOCRACY" (not a republic anymore, not since 1861) & the favorite word of Lenin & Trotsky, is the anathema of FREEdom. we go all around the world, conquering anything in the name of corporate greed, & the IMF, then wonder why nobody likes us????('...'cuz we're only tryin' to hep' out....")
NEW BOOK OUT: Dying To Win, by Robert Pape, looks like it may be interesting...... 
Hmmmmm.....Ollie North.....the guy who gave us the FEMA mandate for the "....redistribution of foodstuffs, shelter & clothing in an "emergency...." just like the canadians who seized the generator of some people who were using theirs during a blizzard-induced blackout. But, everyone regards ol' Ollie as a hero, yeah, the "hero" of Mena.
as for Iraq, aren't you guys coming to the conclusion YET that our socialistic "DEMOCRACY" (not a republic anymore, not since 1861) & the favorite word of Lenin & Trotsky, is the anathema of FREEdom. we go all around the world, conquering anything in the name of corporate greed, & the IMF, then wonder why nobody likes us????('...'cuz we're only tryin' to hep' out....")
NEW BOOK OUT: Dying To Win, by Robert Pape, looks like it may be interesting...... Iraq can not be compared to the USA....in ANY way shape of form.... as for their Constitution...its their paper, and their flea nest country. If the total population lacks the focus and the grit to fight for THEIR future.... then why should we ? We did what we set out to do, and that was to get rid...of "gopher man".. their future is their choice alone. We alone made a LARGE investment into their future....now its time for them to stand up to the plate.... And how ever it goes....we will be dealing with this again. same dance different song.
What a farce! GWB really pays attention to jack squat and cares nothing about the 2nd Amend. If he spent five seconds on the details and cared about the 2nd he would be up in arms, so to speak.
Here's another delight from Iraqi democracy:
Iraqi Constitution May Curb Women's Rights
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.
The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.
The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.
The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.
The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.
One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.
Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.
Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.
If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.
By rough count, nearly 200 women and men showed up in the fiery heat to hand out fliers and wave white banners in a throng of traffic. "We want to be equal to everybody - we want human rights for everybody," read one slogan. The demonstration came hours before two Sunni Arabs involved in writing the constitution were fatally shot near a Baghdad restaurant, threatening to throw the drafting process into turmoil.
"We want a guarantee of women's rights in the new constitution," said Hannah Edwar, an organizer of the protest. "We're going to meet with the constitutional committee and make our thoughts known."
A dozen women, some sheathed in full-length black robes, showed up to denounce Ms. Edwar's protest. They said they were followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shiite cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans.
American and Iraqi officials say that several draft chapters of the constitution are floating around Baghdad and that no final language has been agreed on. Changes can still be made before Aug. 15, the deadline for the National Assembly to approve a draft. Protests by women and relatively secular blocs on the constitutional committee, like the Kurds, may force Shiite members to tone down the religious language.
"Some of the points regarding women's rights in this chapter are still to be reviewed," said Mariam Arayess, a religious Shiite on the committee.
Ms. Arayess said she believed that the draft was the most recent working version, and that it had fairly generous provisions for equal rights. She is one of fewer than 10 women on the 71-member drafting committee.
The chapter has 27 articles, most of which have relatively liberal provisions aimed at ensuring various civil rights. The first says that "all Iraqis are equal before the law" and that "equal opportunities are guaranteed for all citizens according to the law." The final article forbids censorship of the press.
References to Islam and Shariah appear in a few places. One clause says Iraqis will enjoy all rights stated in "international treaties and conventions as long as they do not contradict Islam." Such language is accepted by many Iraqis, including moderates, who say Islam is a vital foundation for the country.
But women's groups are incensed by Article 14, which would repeal a relatively liberal personal status law enacted in 1959 after the British-backed monarchy was overthrown by secular military officers. That law remained in effect through the decades of Mr. Hussein's rule.
The law used Shariah to adjudicate personal and family matters, but did it in as secular a manner as possible, pulling together the most liberal interpretations of Koranic law from the main Shiite and Sunni sects and stitching them together into one code.
Critics of the draft proposal say that in addition to restricting women's rights, it could also deepen the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The draft also does not make clear what would happen in cases where the husband is from one sect and the wife from another.
Religious Shiite politicians tried once before, in December 2003, to abolish the 1959 law. As is happening now, women's groups and secular female politicians took to the streets.
Faced with the mini-rebellion, L. Paul Bremer III, then the effective American proconsul of Iraq, rebuffed the move, to the anger and dismay of many religious Shiites.
"We don't want to use separate Sunni or Shiite laws," said Dohar Rouhi, president of the Association of Women Entrepreneurs. "We want a law that can be applied to everyone. We want justice for women."
A Westerner familiar with the writing of the constitution said that when he saw a draft of the civil rights section less than a week ago, it did not contain the sweeping language on personal status law. In that version, he said, most measures - even those citing Shariah - were not as severe as they could have been.
"Compared to what some of the conservative Shiites were pushing, the glass is half full," said the Westerner, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because he did not want to appear to be interfering in a sovereign Iraqi process.
He said there was some cause for alarm, though, pointing to a proposal to phase out a measure in the interim constitution requiring that a quarter of parliamentary seats go to women.
Ms. Arayess, the Shiite drafter, said some of the writers were considering keeping the quota for the next two terms of the parliament before allowing it to lapse. After that, she said, women should be able to stand on their own.
____________
Can anyone really think we have a real handle on this place. I am strongly in favor of fighting our enemies but the ill conceived WOT in Iraq just gets worse. Left to their own choice, the democracy will become an Islamic tyranny as did Iran.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it.
Here's another delight from Iraqi democracy:
Iraqi Constitution May Curb Women's Rights
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.
The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.
The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.
The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.
The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.
One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.
Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.
Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.
If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.
By rough count, nearly 200 women and men showed up in the fiery heat to hand out fliers and wave white banners in a throng of traffic. "We want to be equal to everybody - we want human rights for everybody," read one slogan. The demonstration came hours before two Sunni Arabs involved in writing the constitution were fatally shot near a Baghdad restaurant, threatening to throw the drafting process into turmoil.
"We want a guarantee of women's rights in the new constitution," said Hannah Edwar, an organizer of the protest. "We're going to meet with the constitutional committee and make our thoughts known."
A dozen women, some sheathed in full-length black robes, showed up to denounce Ms. Edwar's protest. They said they were followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shiite cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans.
American and Iraqi officials say that several draft chapters of the constitution are floating around Baghdad and that no final language has been agreed on. Changes can still be made before Aug. 15, the deadline for the National Assembly to approve a draft. Protests by women and relatively secular blocs on the constitutional committee, like the Kurds, may force Shiite members to tone down the religious language.
"Some of the points regarding women's rights in this chapter are still to be reviewed," said Mariam Arayess, a religious Shiite on the committee.
Ms. Arayess said she believed that the draft was the most recent working version, and that it had fairly generous provisions for equal rights. She is one of fewer than 10 women on the 71-member drafting committee.
The chapter has 27 articles, most of which have relatively liberal provisions aimed at ensuring various civil rights. The first says that "all Iraqis are equal before the law" and that "equal opportunities are guaranteed for all citizens according to the law." The final article forbids censorship of the press.
References to Islam and Shariah appear in a few places. One clause says Iraqis will enjoy all rights stated in "international treaties and conventions as long as they do not contradict Islam." Such language is accepted by many Iraqis, including moderates, who say Islam is a vital foundation for the country.
But women's groups are incensed by Article 14, which would repeal a relatively liberal personal status law enacted in 1959 after the British-backed monarchy was overthrown by secular military officers. That law remained in effect through the decades of Mr. Hussein's rule.
The law used Shariah to adjudicate personal and family matters, but did it in as secular a manner as possible, pulling together the most liberal interpretations of Koranic law from the main Shiite and Sunni sects and stitching them together into one code.
Critics of the draft proposal say that in addition to restricting women's rights, it could also deepen the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The draft also does not make clear what would happen in cases where the husband is from one sect and the wife from another.
Religious Shiite politicians tried once before, in December 2003, to abolish the 1959 law. As is happening now, women's groups and secular female politicians took to the streets.
Faced with the mini-rebellion, L. Paul Bremer III, then the effective American proconsul of Iraq, rebuffed the move, to the anger and dismay of many religious Shiites.
"We don't want to use separate Sunni or Shiite laws," said Dohar Rouhi, president of the Association of Women Entrepreneurs. "We want a law that can be applied to everyone. We want justice for women."
A Westerner familiar with the writing of the constitution said that when he saw a draft of the civil rights section less than a week ago, it did not contain the sweeping language on personal status law. In that version, he said, most measures - even those citing Shariah - were not as severe as they could have been.
"Compared to what some of the conservative Shiites were pushing, the glass is half full," said the Westerner, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because he did not want to appear to be interfering in a sovereign Iraqi process.
He said there was some cause for alarm, though, pointing to a proposal to phase out a measure in the interim constitution requiring that a quarter of parliamentary seats go to women.
Ms. Arayess, the Shiite drafter, said some of the writers were considering keeping the quota for the next two terms of the parliament before allowing it to lapse. After that, she said, women should be able to stand on their own.
____________
Can anyone really think we have a real handle on this place. I am strongly in favor of fighting our enemies but the ill conceived WOT in Iraq just gets worse. Left to their own choice, the democracy will become an Islamic tyranny as did Iran.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it.
stevelyn
Member
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The same people who helped draft the Iraqi Consitution are the same ones trying to dismantle ours.
As a previous poster stated, the Iraqi war wasn't about liberatiing anyone. It was designed to make it easier for us to control the region.
I would also add that it was also to short-circuit Saddam's plan of fixing the price of oil on the Euro rather than the Almighty Greenback Dollar.
As a previous poster stated, the Iraqi war wasn't about liberatiing anyone. It was designed to make it easier for us to control the region.
I would also add that it was also to short-circuit Saddam's plan of fixing the price of oil on the Euro rather than the Almighty Greenback Dollar.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Land wars in Asia never seem to turn out right.
Pilgrim
Member
It appears this is an attempt to make all citizens accountable for passively supporting anti-government terrorists. If it turns out they knew their next door neighbor was an anti-government type and did nothing about it, they can be prosecuted.
Pilgrim
Gordon Fink
Member
Is anyone honestly surprised? Is anyone really that ignorant? Does anyone really believe the war is about Iraqi freedom?
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
HankB
Member
This could be construed as prohibiting dissent and political opposition, as these would not "preserve unity."
yet again
I could be totally off base here but didn’t the United States do this to most of Europe after WWII? Didn’t we "help" Japan in not having a standing army or 2A Rights? I thought a read somewhere that the model they used in rebuilding Europe was a socialist model and we help with the reconstruction. I could be very wrong here.
How can a people truly be free when you just re-established Govt rule via an unarmed public?
its about trust.
I could be totally off base here but didn’t the United States do this to most of Europe after WWII? Didn’t we "help" Japan in not having a standing army or 2A Rights? I thought a read somewhere that the model they used in rebuilding Europe was a socialist model and we help with the reconstruction. I could be very wrong here.
How can a people truly be free when you just re-established Govt rule via an unarmed public?
its about trust.
I have to agree that the nation is doomed, unfortunately.
I certainly could not conceive of calling anything a "Bill of Rights" that said that its nation's citizens were disallowed something.
Our Constitution has Article I, Section 9, which is full of "shall not"s, but they apply to Congress.
I certainly could not conceive of calling anything a "Bill of Rights" that said that its nation's citizens were disallowed something.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
And here I thought we'd just let them have our Bill of Rights. It's not like we were using it anyway.
RevDisk
Member
Unfortunately, it was doomed from the start. Handing people freedom is at best unwise. If they aren't willing to fight for it themselves... They do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it. It is not possible to hand freedom to someone. Freedom must be earned.
It disturbs me that people want to amend the US Constitution with Shall not's. Constitutional amendments banning gay marriages, flag burnings, etc. The last Constitutional amendment to limit the rights of citizens was Prohibition. Oh yea, that worked out REAL well. Thankfully that travesty was gutted and thrown into the wastecan like it deserved.
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the govt and protect the citizens. If the purpose of the Constitution is altered to limit the citizenry and protect the govt, even for the "noblest" of reasons, we are well down a dark path.
I must respectfully disagree RevDisk. I have always found your post very well reasoned and very insightful, but here I disagree to some degree. You are right to that if someone fights for freedom that it will be more probable that a government will succeed. This is not always true however. What about Afghanistan, Germany or Japan? All are cases where the U.S. imposed some form of government. Stating that one has to earn freedom does not sit well with me ethically; there are far too many negative externalities to such a view. There is no doubt from where I sit that the road to democracy for Iraq will be very difficult, but it can be done. The key is to understand that this will take a very long time. If the Bush administration is to be faulted for anything, it should be for overestimating the ease by which democracy would be implemented in Iraq. At this point, I would say that it is still far too early judge whether or not Iraq will become a thriving democracy, or a failed state.
One thing I would caution those who want to opine on the Iraq case is to very careful on how they draw parallels from the American experience with the Iraqi experience. When the first 13 states ratified the constitution it did not contain the Bill of Rights, those came after the initial ratification of the constitution. It took time and a whole lot of political wrangling to get a more substantial listing of rights that what is listed in the constitution. Also, just to get the constitution ratified by all 13 states the other 12 states had to place troops on the border of Road Island, which doesn't exactly scream consensus. Let's not be too romantic about the nature of the founders as well. The Declaration of Independence refers to, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is a variation on Locke's, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The founders were uncomfortable granting in principle property rights to everyone. I am not trying to defame the founders, I think they were an extraordinary group of people, but I also want to be realistic about what the founders actually believed as well.
In the same way that guns do not equal violence, guns do not equal freedom. There is a lot more to establishing freedom than that. I strongly believe that the Iraq constitution should guarantee the right for its citizens to bear arms, but I also realize that governments and constitutions evolve over time, and need time to develop. Remember, our constitution was written at a time where monarchs were on the wane, and the limiting of government, and its reach were on a different level than what we experience. The historical circumstances have changed however. Making a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution would be a mistake. Iraq has a different historical pedigree and a different culture, thus their system of government should reflect those differences, where reasonable. Let's not write off Iraq yet, but instead provide the guidance that is needed for a state in transition. Just my 2 cents.
If this surprises anybody, then people are a whole lot dumber than I thought. If you thought it would resemble anything like our own Constitution and Bill of Rights that puts limits on government, I have to wonder if you've been living under a rock.
As evidenced by what our federal government has done to our own Constitution, I have no doubt that Iraq will be a 'socialist utopia' very soon.
And to think that Iraqi's were one of the few people left that still had a right to bear arms. But no longer, thanks to us.
As evidenced by what our federal government has done to our own Constitution, I have no doubt that Iraq will be a 'socialist utopia' very soon.
And to think that Iraqi's were one of the few people left that still had a right to bear arms. But no longer, thanks to us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked