Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraqis can keep their assault rifles
Orange County Register ^ | June 1, 2003 | Edmund L. Andrews

Posted on 06/01/2003 12:51:56 PM PDT by fightinJAG

Edited on 04/14/2004 10:06:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

U.S. retreats from previous policy. Military officials have said it's hard to disarm people who fear for their safety.

BAGHDAD, IRAQ In a significant retreat from U.S. efforts to seize weapons held by Iraqi citizens, U.S. and British officials said Saturday that Iraqis would be allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes and businesses.


(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arms; bang; banglist; iraq; lpaulbremer; postwariraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 06/01/2003 12:51:56 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
I got as far as:
"...what had been a much tougher plan to rid postwar Iraq of heavy weapons..." when refering to allowing Iraqi's to keep their AK's.

Gotta hate the left-wing radical extremists ... who haven't the slightest idea of reality - nor of what constitutes "Heavy Weapons"

An AK-47 is NOT.
2 posted on 06/01/2003 1:02:44 PM PDT by steplock ( http://www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
U.S. retreats from previous policy. Military officials have said it's hard to disarm people who fear for their safety.

This is as far as I got. Wish they would apply this in the United States. Seems Iraq is more free now.

3 posted on 06/01/2003 1:04:26 PM PDT by American in Israel (Right beats wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
4 posted on 06/01/2003 1:05:56 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (NEO-COMmunistS should be identified as such.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
Dontcha just love irony?

L

5 posted on 06/01/2003 1:06:44 PM PDT by Lurker ("One man of reason and goodwill is worth more, actually and potentially, than a million fools" AR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
In a significant retreat from U.S. efforts to seize weapons held by Iraqi citizens, U.S. and British officials said Saturday that Iraqis would be allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes and businesses.

Nice to know the Second Amendment is alive and well somewhere.

6 posted on 06/01/2003 1:08:53 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Iraqis will still be allowed to keep handguns, rifles and shotguns. But the new instructions contain a lengthy list of much heavier weapons that would be prohibited to most people: machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, antiaircraft guns, mortars, land mines and grenades.

Start 'em on that slippery slope early on eh?

7 posted on 06/01/2003 1:10:00 PM PDT by tet68 (Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Most people I have found seem to believe that any automatic weapons are "Heavy". This I believe is due to their unavailability to the general US public, and the under education about firearms by most US citizens.

I believe this move is merely to save face. An AK47 can be purchased for about $20 American in that area, and a complete ban would be completely uninforcable.
8 posted on 06/01/2003 1:10:19 PM PDT by Epasonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
BUMP
9 posted on 06/01/2003 1:14:29 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
But Citizens of the State of California can't. How interesting.
10 posted on 06/01/2003 1:15:32 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker; yall
Iraqi irony.

-- Ali the goatherder can now possess a rifle absolutely prohibited to any of the citizens of the late great state of CA..
11 posted on 06/01/2003 1:21:16 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
In a significant retreat from U.S. efforts to seize weapons held by Iraqi citizens, U.S. and British officials said Saturday that Iraqis would be allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes and businesses.

It's only a "retreat" from what the media reported, not from what CENTCOM announced over a week ago two days after the announcement in "general terms" and well before any "heavy criticism from many Iraqis", not to mention more important criticism by American citizens/voters, could possibly have built up and been communicated back to CENTCOM.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20030587.txt

The New York Slimes again.

12 posted on 06/01/2003 1:27:14 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yes, but in CA they have transgender toilets.

Just a case of different priorities, I guess.

13 posted on 06/01/2003 1:28:09 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
It's interesting that the people of Iraq have more second amendment rights than Americans. The AK-47's that they get to keep are FULL AUTOMATIC while we poor Americans can only own SEMI-AUTO rifles.
14 posted on 06/01/2003 1:47:04 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (When someone burns a cross on your property the best firehose is an AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
BTTT
15 posted on 06/01/2003 1:49:07 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
How encouraging that Iraqis will be spared from the tyranny that has been visited upon Americans.

God bless Iraq.

16 posted on 06/01/2003 1:58:15 PM PDT by Imal (Don't believe anything you read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Gotta tow the party line... "rights" are GRANTED by the gov, doncha know! "Scary" arms are excluded from "shall not be infringed". (/sarcasm) It's interesting to note, that Iraqui's are only "allowed" to KEEP (some) arms under this scheme, not to BEAR them.

The saddest part is that many so called "Second Amendment supporters" beleive in "reasonable restrictions", and that only (certain) "guns" are covered under the Second Amendment. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed" do they not understand?


Militia - Got Liberty?

17 posted on 06/01/2003 2:31:22 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR (Don't tread on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
*BUMP*
18 posted on 06/01/2003 2:38:18 PM PDT by frosty snowman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Good info.
19 posted on 06/01/2003 2:43:22 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
That's just great! The Iraqis get to keep their assult weapons,but we don't. The Iraqis get to be more free than we here in the land of the free. Write President Bush,and tell him what you think about his support for the assult weapons ban.
20 posted on 06/01/2003 3:04:09 PM PDT by voteconstitutionparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
GOOD.
Now, let's see if we can arrange to renew our own rights to keep such weapons.
21 posted on 06/01/2003 3:04:57 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (If *I* can afford $5/month to support FR: SO CAN YOU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Powel lost again.
22 posted on 06/01/2003 6:18:12 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Great Graphic
The New Minuteman
23 posted on 06/01/2003 6:23:55 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (http://www.ourgangnet.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
And they are full automatic. Interesting they probably would need new one like ak74?
24 posted on 06/01/2003 7:00:52 PM PDT by RusIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
This is a major victory for the Iraqi people and for us.

I don't know if you read the articles about the Assault Weapons ban but the libs were saying, why were we disarming the Iraqis if we were not going to continue the AWB. They said we were being hypocrites.
25 posted on 06/01/2003 7:24:45 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
< tard >

Asked Saturday whether Iraqis would be allowed to keep assault rifles in their homes, a spokesman for Bremer said, "Yes, they will be allowed to keep their AK-47s."  "It is not a program for the disarmament of the Iraqi people," added the spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is a weapons-control program."

? HUH ?

At the time, the list of automatic weapons to be banned specifically included AK-47 Kalashnikovs, the Russian assault rifles that are nearly ubiquitous in Iraq. But that approach came under heavy criticism from many Iraqis, who argued that families and business owners badly needed the weapons to defend themselves from looters and organized criminal gangs.

OH, now I understand!  I compleatly forgot . . .   there are no criminals or gangs here in the u.S.!

The new weapons policy appears to be the outcome of a debate among top military officials in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of U.S. and British land forces in Iraq, told reporters two weeks ago that he was skeptical about simply trying to disarm Iraqi civilians.  "For one thing, I don't think it would be enforceable," McKiernan said at the time.

Well now,, DAVE,  take a W A G what is not enforcable here in America either.

< / tard >

 

26 posted on 06/01/2003 7:51:07 PM PDT by TLI ( RKBA in the USA, hey! . . . . RKBA in the USA, hey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
If I had the choice between a semi-automatic AK-47 or a fully automatic, I would take the semi-automatic. Full auto just sprays bullets and wastes ammunition.

I am not against private ownership of automatic firearms. I personally would not own any because I do not like firearms that waste ammunition.


27 posted on 06/01/2003 8:01:55 PM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Just yesterday, we had a coyote invasion, & I went next door to my dad's pasture with my select fire (supressed) FN FAL, & I gave my sister my select fire AK 47, & my niece my M2 carbine, & we got 5 of those bastards!!

OK, it's just barely legal because I have a manufacturer's license, (we are in Illinois) but noone came to take our guns. (& If they tried they wouldn't have left)

I cannot even begin to understand how we can refuse rights to the newly liberated Iraqui people that our constitution allows us!!

28 posted on 06/01/2003 8:11:33 PM PDT by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
It would be our patriotic duty to assist in helping the Iraqi's economy. They should allow us to buy some of the AK's.
29 posted on 06/01/2003 9:34:30 PM PDT by JSteff (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
Yeah but 7.62 X 39 is SO cheap. I do agree though that full auto is a waste, but three burst limiters are just about right.
30 posted on 06/01/2003 9:42:30 PM PDT by JSteff (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
This is a very good (and not unexpected) change. It was a very stupid idea to try to take rifles from the people.
31 posted on 06/01/2003 9:53:00 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
" It's interesting that the people of Iraq have more second amendment rights than Americans. The AK-47's that they get to keep are FULL AUTOMATIC while we poor Americans can only own SEMI-AUTO rifles."

I really don't want a Full-Auto firearm. Semi-auto teaches you to be better at shot placement and ammo conservation.

Notice how most of the middle east and african nations where the poor man has a full-auto they usually tend to spray bullets all over without aiming.

32 posted on 06/01/2003 10:11:50 PM PDT by Chewbacca (My life is a Dilbert cartoon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed" do they not understand? "

Sadly the line is not that distinct. The wording is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation. Some view this as a statement that only military personel should have this right. Also under the other interpretation, the ammendment states nothing about ammunition. The government could legally ban ammunition, without infringing upon constitutional rights.
33 posted on 06/01/2003 10:51:36 PM PDT by Epasonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Iraqis can keep their assault rifles

What about the children!!! Won't somebody please think of the children!!! < /Sarah Brady bleating >

34 posted on 06/02/2003 4:46:18 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation.

A little background reading about the Founders and their attitude about an armed populace makes it very clear what they intended. Very little interpretation on our part is required. In their writings and statements, they have already gone trhough the trouble of interpreting it for us.

Some view this as a statement that only military personel should have this right.

Those people are wrong. The only way for someone to hold that opinion is out of political bias or historical ignorance. Unfortunately, our court system often adopts the former and our populace is often mired in the latter.

35 posted on 06/02/2003 4:50:58 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: steplock
"I got as far as: "...what had been a much tougher plan to rid postwar Iraq of heavy weapons..." when refering to allowing Iraqi's to keep their AK's.

Gotta hate the left-wing radical extremists ... who haven't the slightest idea of reality - nor of what constitutes "Heavy Weapons"

An AK-47 is NOT."

It is if the only thing YOU have in your hands is a pencil or a word-processor!

But seriously, this is good news: when personal freedoms are under assault anywhere, they are under assault everywhere.
And especially, when the U.S. government is the perpetrator of such an assault, then all Americans have cause for concern.

It does look like that uncommon commodity, common-sense, is winning out.

36 posted on 06/02/2003 6:31:54 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
"It's interesting that the people of Iraq have more second amendment rights than Americans. The AK-47's that they get to keep are FULL AUTOMATIC while we poor Americans can only own SEMI-AUTO rifles."

We're working on, we're working on it...

These laws we have weren't passed in a single day, and it'll certainly take more than a single Administration to dismantle them.

"Assault weapons" and high-cap magazine ban is first.

37 posted on 06/02/2003 6:35:16 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Wal how do ya say "yee-haw" in Arabic?
38 posted on 06/02/2003 6:38:17 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Working on? You mean by renewing the ban on the import of semi-autos?

I suspect that this move was dictated more by prudent realism rather love of the right ot keep and bear arms. Even so, by takling this action, the occupation authorities showed some rare good sense.

39 posted on 06/02/2003 6:50:39 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
GOOD.
Now, let's see if we can arrange to renew our own rights to keep such weapons.

We'll just have to see that what happened to befall their dictator also comes to pass for some of ours. Some photographs of a few of the most notorious on a deck of cards seems like a good start.

-archy-/-

40 posted on 06/02/2003 3:00:51 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
If gun owners ever got organized and quit expecting others to take care of problems for them, they could eliminate anti- gun laws.
41 posted on 06/02/2003 3:20:47 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Lucky pups..
42 posted on 06/02/2003 3:42:52 PM PDT by eyes_only
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
These laws we have weren't passed in a single day, and it'll certainly take more than a single Administration to dismantle them. "Assault weapons" and high-cap magazine ban is first.

What you say is true, .... but.. One supreme court decision could begin the unraveling of the entire scheme of gun control. And it wouldn't take long once an unambiguous Supreme Court decision was in place. With such a precident it would be much harder to re-impose any sort of gun control on the general populace. Absent such a decision, what one adminstration tears down, another can build up, and they won't wait 10 years to do it either.

That said, what does "the adminstration" have to do with it, their unchallenged official possition is that the President will sign the renewal bill if it comes to his desk. It's up to Congress to see that it never makes it there, but the statements of his spokespersons won't make that any easier.

43 posted on 06/03/2003 4:09:26 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
If I had the choice between a semi-automatic AK-47 or a fully automatic, I would take the semi-automatic. Full auto just sprays bullets and wastes ammunition.

I do believe they have a selector switch. Nice to have the full auto in those rare instances when you need it, but you have to discipline yourself not to use it when you don't need it. Besides rock and roll is fun! If a bit expensive.

44 posted on 06/03/2003 4:17:23 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation.

Bull$hit.

Read This from the Second Amendment Sisters web site and come back and try to sell that liberal lie.


Eaker

45 posted on 06/03/2003 4:28:37 PM PDT by Eaker (84,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday. Somehow, it didn't make the news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
that our constitution allows us!!

But not our government.

46 posted on 06/03/2003 4:36:21 PM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
Sadly the line is not that distinct. The wording is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation. Some view this as a statement that only military personel should have this right. Also under the other interpretation, the ammendment states nothing about ammunition. The government could legally ban ammunition, without infringing upon constitutional rights.

Absolutely nothing ambigous about "right of the people" nor "keep and bear arms", the rest is merely introdution and justification, not any limitation, if you follow standard English grammer rules. It does not say "right of the state", nor even "right of the militia". Ammunition is part of arms, just as knives and swords are. Or did you think arms==guns? Guns are included in "arms" but "arms" include much more. Like cannon for instance, and ships to mount them on.

The version you've quoted probably has too many commas, there really should be only the one between "state" and "the". Copies of the BoR sent to the states had only the one comma, as did the version sent to the "printer" to be printed, but somewhere along the line the extra commas were added. The 3 comma version was rarely seen, except in that printed version which still exists, until about the time some people wanted to make it subject to "interpretation"

Epasonic
Since Jun 1, 2003

Go away troll.

47 posted on 06/03/2003 4:42:30 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
What part of "the people" don't you understand?

The moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's your English lesson for today.
48 posted on 06/03/2003 4:46:21 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper
But not our government.

I wish enough of us would get p!$$ed off enough to do something about that

49 posted on 06/03/2003 7:37:19 PM PDT by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Epasonic
The Second Amendment is crystal clear. The only thing left open to interpertation is if, (a)you're a moron, (b)you're ignorant, (c)you have an (NWO?) disarmamnet agenda, or (d)all of the above.
50 posted on 06/09/2003 11:47:56 AM PDT by TERMINATTOR (Don't tread on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson