Iraqi civilian right to bear arms

A sincere question for Tigerman, Blueface and MaPoDoFu, though naturally anyone is welcome to respond: Do you believe that Iraqi civilians, right now, should have the right to own and use automatic weapons?

From what I can tell, this is clearly a conundrum for NRA members and/or certain interpreters of your 2nd Amendment. If you say yes, the result would certainly be chaos, and the aims of the invasion would be lost.

To say no would be either hypocrisy of the highest order or a tacit admission that civilian ownership of automatic weapons is not always a good idea, thus putting a huge hole in the NRA’s platform.

I myself haven’t fully formed an opinion on this issue. What say you?

Yesterday’s Doonesbury:

You’ve caught me out. I admit that that was the inspiration for the question.

The cartoon is a hoot. I guess the politicians will tote the standard line of different situations calling for different rules.

That would seem quite logical, to me.

Or do you deny that there are different situations in the US and in Iraq?

well, my fellow americans. this is not a difficult question. The Iraqi person in Iraq, my fellow americans, do not have the benefit of our constitution, and more importantly, the second amendment which allows them to arm bears, I mean bear arms, my fellow americans. that and they weren’t invaded by the british, i mean the british red-coats led by George III and crazy hussars, those damned dirty germans.
That is also why we don’t have to give them any due process rights, any search and seizure rights. Simply, because my fellow americans, they have no constitutional rights protecting them like ours protect us. Heck, those desert people over there whose oil we covet, but whom we otherwise hate and despise shouldn’t even have rights, I mean who can trust some folks living in the desert bowing and praying and walking around with guns and explosives strapped to them, hell we might as well take out the nevadans too.
What I mean is that the american people… [mumbling to intern… ‘don’t stop baby’] can have all the guns their purty hearts desire, but these damned dirty apes over there, no. Anyways, they are shooting at us, putting in harm’s way young american men and women in uniform who shouldn’t have to be in that damned dirty desert, but no… that dirty Saddam, he made us have to go over there and kick some ass.
Thank you my fellow americans.

Now that les enfants have had their say, I’d be interested in a serious response to my original question, as I personally have yet to hear of a satisfactory solution.

Actually, Porc, the U.S. military does consider it permissible for Iraqis to keep their small-arms. If you would quit reading the jokes being made by the anti-Bush fruitcakes (Trudeau, Dowd, anything in the NYT, etc.) and actually bother to read some honest reporting for once, you might learn that the U.S. military has been allowing Iraqis to keep pistols and rifles, up to and including full-auto (“real”) AK-47’s, for personal defense. This is actually more than many American states allow U.S. citizens.

I think the U.S. military was requiring registration of small arms that were kept, but I’m not positive. The news reports were ambiguous about it. Although I am opposed to registration, it is an easy enough thing to work around with a little effort, and the U.S. military hasn’t been using their lists to confiscate registered weapons (as California has done, and I am fairly sure Canada also has done).

What the U.S. military is confiscating are RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), HMGs (heavy machine guns), other heavy weapons (mortars, explosives, artillery – you people probably think I’m joking, but yes, they really are finding these in Iraqi “personal” caches), and any small arms that were kept alongside caches of those heavy weapons.

Although the line between personal defensive weapons and purely offensive (in the tactical sense, not the emotional sense) weapons is pretty broad, the U.S. military is erring on the side of forbearance, which I personally find rather nice of them.


All that aside, however, there was never an RKBA provision written into the Iraqi Constitution, and Saddam used to execute civilians caught with weapons. So I don’t see what point you’re trying to make, other than whether those of us whom you named individually feel that people everywhere have a right to self-defense.

Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply in Iraq – yet, anyway, although there’s always hope – and since the security situation in Iraq isn’t the same as in the U.S., I don’t really see that there is any way to compare the NRA’s stand on Americans bearing arms to the post-liberation mess currently in Iraq.

Hey, I even think that Canadians should have the right to free speech, although the Canadian government doesn’t. (Let’s not forget the books and magazines that Canada has refused to allow to be published or distributed because someone objects to their content.) No doubt you will expect a statement from the ACLU condemning this practice.


Found an article explaining the policy. Since the article is about to expire (Yahoo only keeps them for about two weeks), I have copied the most relevant paragraphs below.
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … iraq_dc_18

[quote=“Andrew Marshall, reporter for Reuters”]
U.S. Hunts for Weapons in Iraq After Amnesty Ends
Sun Jun 15, 5:06 AM ET
By Andrew Marshall

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces hunted for heavy weapons Sunday in towns bristling with guns after a two-week arms amnesty that yielded scant response from Iraqis still anxious about postwar lawlessness.

“Those who carry weapons in public without a temporary permit will be detained, their weapons confiscated, and subject to imprisonment for up to one year and fines,” the U.S. army said in a statement. “Coalition forces will aggressively enforce the weapons control policy.”

The U.S. army said that during the amnesty period, Iraqis handed in 123 pistols, 76 semi-automatic rifles, 435 automatic rifles, 46 machineguns, 11 anti-aircraft weapons and 381 grenades and bombs – a drop in Iraq’s ocean of weaponry.

Under the new rules, Iraqis may not keep anything more formidable than a Kalashnikov assault rifle in their houses and businesses, and may not carry unlicensed guns.[/quote]
Note that the Iraqis are allowed to both keep and carry small arms, including fully-automatic AK47s. This is more than even Washington state allows; I can carry my Bushmaster Armpistol if I can conceal it, but Allah help me if I’m caught with a machine gun – that’s a ten-year prison sentence here.

Just to be clear: yes, I’m in favor of letting Iraqis keep their guns for self-defense. Including AK-47s, since they obviously need them against the gangs running around that are also armed with those.

Oh, and thank you, “registered user”, for rating my post negatively. Let’s see you post a little note saying who you are, or don’t you have the courage of your convictions? “Show a little backbone, will ya?” I won’t shoot.

IN BAGHDAD, July 4, 2006.

The unanimous Declaration of the Iraqi People,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these deserts (OIL WELLS). To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these deserts; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these deserts:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our American brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Iraqi People, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Deserts are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the American corporate Machine, and that all political connection between them and the United States of America, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[color=red]So given Tigerman’s reasons, see below, why private citizens should be allowed to own guns, don’t Iraqis, as private people, have the RIGHT to put into effect, by forming an armed militia, their constitution?

Is their present circumstance that different from that of the people of the 13 colonies?[/color]

PP, I’d like to give you a long answer, but I’m skipping town in a few days and have loads of work I want to finish before then.

So, here’s my brief but sincere reply.

First let’s look at reasons the right to bear arms is protected in the US:

a) Protect US citizens from US government (or any other government)
b) Protect US citizens from those intent on doing harm
c) Sport

I believe all three of the above are valid reasons for bearing arms. The problem I have with arguments such as fredericka bimmel’s (she asks if I think I need a gun to protect myself from the noodle vendors) is that they purposely disregard the above “good” reasons for owning firearms.

In a perfect world, I suppose there would be no people intent on doing others harm. But unlike fredericka bimmel, I know that even though most noodle venders out there are not intent on harming anyone… there indeed are bad people in this world.

I attempt to perform a cost-benefit analysis with issues such as the present one.

According to the facts that I am aware of, gun ownership provides more good than harm. Yes, some crimes are committed with and some tragedies occur involving guns… but many crimes are prevented with guns too. And I know the nature of the predator. Look at the great white shark… he seeks the young or wounded, i.e., the weak. So do lions and all other predators. Human predators are no different. A good man with a gun possesses an equalizer when confronted by the bad man with a gun (and I assure you, the bad men have guns, legally or otherwise). And being able to confront the bad man, the good man can defend against and even overcome the bad man… or, like the shark and the lion, the bad man will not even attempt to prey on the good man who carries a gun, or who is suspected of carrying a gun. I really do not think this deterrent effect can be denied.

Now, moving on to Iraq… as I indicated in a different post, the situations in Iraq and the US most certainly do differ. Thus, there is no reason that the same rules should apply to the US and Iraq, at least currently.

In the US, gun ownership protects US citizens from their (or other governments). In Iraq, however, there currently exists no government… and thus there is a certain state of chaos. Unrestricted gun ownership is, IMO, not a good idea in a society in a state of chaos. Some may respond… “but the US is another government that the Iraqis need protection from”… however, this disregards all of the reasons that the US is currently in Iraq.

In the US, gun ownership deters crime. This might be a valid reason for Iraqi citizens now to own guns.

In the US, gun ownership is often used for sport. I don’t think the Iraqis presently have sporting use for guns.

Now, doing a simple cost-benefit analysis, it seems obvious to me that despite the possible crime deterring benefit gun ownership could bring to the Iraqi citizens, that possible benefit is heavily outweighed by the possible cost in terms of increased public risk/danger due to the state of chaos that presently exists in Iraqi society.

Different situations… different rules.

[quote=“Alleycat”]
The unanimous Declaration of the Iraqi People,

When in the Course of human events…[/quote]
Very clever. And here I thought all along that the Iraqis were being oppressed by Saddam! Silly me. Of course it was the U.S. military-industrial complex that was to blame all along. To think I’d actually been under the impression that the Kurds in the north, under the same economic sanctions, have survived, enjoying free elections and relative prosperity for a decade thanks to the no-fly zones imposed by the self-same military-industrial complex while Saddam built dozens of mansions decorated in a manner that would have made Liberace blush! How could I have been so mistaken? I’m never going to talk to those lying Kurds down at the kebab shop again!

Lousy Kurds.

Moving on…

We now have contradictory information, on this forum anyway. MaPoDoFu cites sources claiming that Iraqis are indeed allowed to possess small weaponry up to and including automatic firearms, which would pre-empt Tigerman’s thoughtful explication of why restricting their possession would be reasonable.

I’ll wait and see what else transpires here.

[quote=“tigerman”]In the US, gun ownership is often used for sport. I don’t think the Iraqis presently have sporting use for guns.

[/quote]

I saw a captured family video of Saddam’s son Uday goat hunting in the desert with an AK-47.

[quote=“Alleycat”][color=red]So given Tigerman’s reasons, see below, why private citizens should be allowed to own guns, don’t Iraqis, as private people, have the RIGHT to put into effect, by forming an armed militia, their constitution?

Is their present circumstance that different from that of the people of the 13 colonies?[/color][/quote]

Let’s not forget that the current USA is actually the second manifestation of the ideals America’s forefathers imagined. From 1781 until 1789, the US was run under the Articles of Confederation and from 1789 on, the US has been run as a federal constitutional republic. In 1789, the US adopted the current Constitution (OK, absent later amendments). This Constitution was almost not ratified by all of the states (and commonweatlths)… it was only agreed upon after the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10) were included. Of course, the 2nd amandment right to bear arms was one of the rights enumerated therein.

My point… the [color=red]present[/color] circumstances in Iraq are substantially different from the situation in the USA in 1789. The USA had 8 years to settle (establish some law and order) after the Revolutionary War. Iraq is basically still in a state of chaos.

If anyone has the right to own weapons in self-defense the Iraqi people do. It’s hell on earth over there right now, especially if you’re a women. If you’re not armed, your life and your family members lives are in mortal danger on a daily basis.

I was pleased at the fact that the US Army allowed ordinary Iraqis to keep their small arms for self-defense, even allowing an additional margin by allowing possession of AK-47’s. That was entirely consistent with American principles concerning the right of self defense and even more than a little magnanimous because it increased the exposure of American troops to sniper fire.

I don’t think this is the truly important question right now though. The real unaddressed issue at the moment which will determine how everything else flows (including Iraqi bullets) is what the US’s true strategic intentions in Iraq are.

Once the dust settles in Iraq and the presence of this 800 pound gorilla becomes clear a lot people are going to be very interested in the answer.

If the US government’s notion is to set up a non-Islamic government it feels entirely comfortably with then that will unavoidably be seen as a puppet government by the people of Iraq akin to the Pahlavi regime in Iran before the Islamic revolution there.

There’s no way in hell the Iraqi people are going to be transformed into the Middle East’s version of good republicans in this lifetime. Which means an inevitable major collision is coming between the Islamic/nationalist aspirations of the majority of Iraqi people and the notion of any even remotely stable, pro-American government taking root in Iraqi society.

A pro-US government in Iraq would be great, IMO. But, really, I’d settle for one that simply regarded the US with apathy.

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Alleycat”][color=red]So given Tigerman’s reasons, see below, why private citizens should be allowed to own guns, don’t Iraqis, as private people, have the RIGHT to put into effect, by forming an armed militia, their constitution?

Is their present circumstance that different from that of the people of the 13 colonies?[/color][/quote]

Let’s not forget that the current USA is actually the second manifestation of the ideals America’s forefathers imagined. From 1781 until 1789, the US was run under the Articles of Confederation and from 1789 on, the US has been run as a federal constitutional republic. In 1789, the US adopted the current Constitution (OK, absent later amendments). This Constitution was almost not ratified by all of the states (and commonweatlths)… it was only agreed upon after the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10) were included. Of course, the 2nd amandment right to bear arms was one of the rights enumerated therein.

My point… the [color=red]present[/color] circumstances in Iraq are substantially different from the situation in the USA in 1789. The USA had 8 years to settle (establish some law and order) after the Revolutionary War. Iraq is basically still in a state of chaos.[/quote]

If I follow correctly, the 2nd amendment is just that–an amendment. It is not a primary truth, according to your argument, that is “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” so eloquently stated in the DOI.
The “right to bear arms” is a secondary right, a right to establish or protect “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” then. Isn’t it?

Do the Iraqis not too have these rights? Are they in limbo while the US establishes a government for them?

But still there is a “which came first” argument, and it is this: Did the happiness come first or did the right to arm oneself to fight for that happiness?

I think the fight’s first. Your explanation and events around the time of independence prove that. The right to fight is only guaranteed later by the BOR. This “right” is nothing more than a necessary evil. It is also seemingly “inalienable” as noone grants anyone the right to fight, while there is a fight; it’s understood. It’s expected that in a fight, fighters will do their best to protect their interests. Moreover, no State grants anyone the “right” to fight it. Though, if your argument for guns is correct, it does appear that the US Constitution grants the people the right to fight their own government. But still, isn’t there a word for this? Sedition? A quick search reveals that there are many synonyms for what the American Constitution, according to Tigerman, has built into it–And there are many: alienation, disaffection, estrangement; action, protest, strike; coup, coup d’etat, putsch; insurrection, mutiny, rebellion, revolt, revolution, uprising; quislingism.

How patriotic would it be to fight against ones government? Not very! Isn’t what’s his name is being or has been tried for this, after fighting for Al-Quaeda.

And to help make my point, consider this: That although, I understand your argument that “it just happens that what is in US interests is also in the interests of Iraq,” I cannot, given that is not only condescending and also hard to prove, as similar “benevolence” has proven, Britain and the Colonies being especially revelvant to our discussion, see that you not think that the occupier always acts in its own interest first. And that the “rights” of those being “administered” are little more than a cursory concern?

It follows then that the Iraqs are in a similar situation to any vanquished people since the beginning of society, that to pursue happiness, a fight is necessary and all fights are made easier with arms similar to those of ones opposition.

Do they Iraqis have a right to bear arms? Yes, of course they do. They are the enemy of the United States, and although Bush claims differently, my earlier post, the DOI one in which Jefferson outlines the US’ reasons for fighting the British, disproves this, and, in fact, makes much of what GW says fiction.

Therefore, the US, although guaranteeing this right to its own people, will not grant it to the enemy. This would be foolhardy indeed!

Step back for one moment, and look at what we’re doing.

We are arguing about the rights of the Iraqi people.

In spite of the current hardships, I think the vast majority of Iraqis would agree that that is a pretty cool concept!

Some arguments put forward here state that one needs a gun to protect oneself from others and that guns prevent crime. The West maintains a nuclear arsenal for the very same reasons: to protect themselves and because they say they deter aggression. Unfortunately, on the last, what is good for the goose is not for the gander when the US states to others thou shall not have nuclear weapons for thy own security.

[quote=“Alleycat”]The 2nd amendment is just that–an amendment. It is not a truth that is “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

The “right to bear arms” is a secondary right, a right to establish or protect “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, do the Iraqis not too have these rights? Are they in limbo while the US establishes a government for them?

My “which came first” argument is this: Did the happiness come first or did the right to arm oneself to fight for that happiness?

Evidently not! The fight’s first.[/quote]

No. The right to happiness… came first… Its inalienable. Only when that right was threatened did it become necessary to establish secondary rights, such as the right to bear arms.

Which fight? The one in Iraq? I honestly don’t think so.

I have no problem acknowledging that the rights of the occupier come first (to the occupier), just as everyone’s rights come first to him/herself.

However, as indicated above, I do not think that the US initiated the current fight. As part of the overall war on terrorism, this fight was started on 911, not by the US. But I could make an even better argument that this fight was started by Iraq in 1990 when it invaded Kuwait, and that the US action now is merely the efforts to conclude that war started by Iraq.

Anyway, it just so happens that helping to establish a good government in Iraq is in fact in the interests of the US (in fact, its a vital concern). Thus, while the US “administers” Iraq temporarily, some rights will be restricted… but given that the goal is the establishment of a free and tolerant and law-abiding government in Iraq, I think it is clear that Iraqi rights are more than a mere “cursory” concern for the US.

Tiger, I edited the post. Have another look.