Marines Battle Enemy Fighters in Fallujah [Marines "control significant portion"]

Washington Post ^ | 4/6/04 | Pamela Constable

[WOSG]

dittos and bump for our brave soldiers.

[lugsoul]

And I didn't say that it did. Reading is fundamental.

[Skywalk]

That's not fair. Hollywood was only asking a philosophical question about how we go about disarming the people in Fallujah and to what extent we do that.

If he were a left-winger would he have even brought up the 2nd Amendment, come on now.

[jimbo123]

A 2nd Ammendment discussion surrounding any "right" for Arab fanatics to own guns is ludicrous. Give us all a break.

[hollywood]

Thanks for your support. I confessed my sins in #38.

[Turbo Pig]

And I didn't say that it did. Reading is fundamental.

By bringing the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution in a discussion about fighting in Iraq, you most certainly did. It's apples and oranges. All that you accomplish by doing such is to muddy the waters and make it harder to gain a clear understanding of the situation.

Understanding what you write is fundamental.

[SandRat]

Do you support disarming a population?

Just as we did with Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan. Same deal here no exceptions!

Is everyone in this town guilty?

Just as every German was and every Japanese was!

Should they have a 2nd amendment? When they earn it under a written constitution, after the area has been pacified. Just like Germany and Japan under their own concepts and Constitution.

When does the US cross over from liberators to oppressors?

When a constitution is approved, a voted in governing body is in place, in a pacified country, and after being asked to leave we don't. Not until then despite what the LIBERALs and Ted Kennedy scream.

[lugsoul]

Okay, I'll go slow so you can understand. We repeatedly crow about how we are bringing "freedom" to the Iraqis. But a fundamental aspect of what we consider to be "freedom," for ourselves, is the RKBA. Yet we seek to deny that right to the Iraqis, push a constitution that allows complete government control of firearms, and we have posters here advocating the destruction of any home with a firearm in it. In my view, that is far from "freedom." It is quite a bit less than the "freedom" we require for ourselves. You may think they don't deserve or require that level of "freedom," but if so, we need to define what we have "given" them as something less than "freedom."

[Turbo Pig]

Now, I will type slow so you can understand. You are STILL writing like Iraq is a free country, not an occupied one. The Iraqis can have the RKBA, as soon as we give them their complete freedom. You are the one who originally brought up the 2nd Amendment, and are now pushing a generic gun rights argument. If the US planned on occupying the country indefinitely, then your argument would hold water. It doesn't so you are way off base.

The Iraqis were liberated from Saddam and the Baathists, and have much more freedom, especially the freedom to choose their own future. The right to bear arms should have been suspended from the get go, after the take over of the country. The past weeks events are proof of that statement. The Iraqis can decide to reinstate it, after we hand control over. You are correct in that they do not have total freedom. Your are wrong in that at no time has anyone said that the Iraqis have total freedom.

There is no redefinition that needs to be done of the Iraqi people's current freedoms, as you suggest. What needs to be done is for people in the US to understand the nature of the situation. Throwing out the 2nd Amendment, like you did, or presenting a generic gun ownership rights issue is something that only plays into the hands of those who are against Coalition efforts in Iraq. The reason being is that it unduly paints our efforts in a bad light; the hypocritical Americans won't let those poor Iraqis own guns. This potentially erodes public support at home, and worsens our image abroad. Additionally, it puts our forces in danger, because it does not enable our politicians and commanders to make the hard decisions (i.e. denying someone's perceived "rights") that would keep our forces safe; for fear of public outcry.

Once the Iraqis are in control, and assuming we have done our job in teaching the lessons of representative democracy, the Iraqis can make the changes they want. Until then they should, and do, have LIMITED rights.

[lugsoul]

You are almost there.

Now, you should be able to understand the reason I bring up the 2nd. Apparently, you believe that RKBA is something that is to be granted by the government, and that does not exist in the absence of "permission" from the government. I'm sure you will dispute that characterization, but you yourself have stated that the Iraqis do not have such a right, and won't until either we let them have it or a new Iraqi government lets them have it.

Is it a freedom if you have to rely on the government to grant it to you?

BTW, I doubt that "public outcry" about the right of Iraqis to self-defense is something that you have to worry about.

The bottom line on this issue is that we are not talking about disarmament. Some people in Iraq will be armed, many of them heavily. We clearly will not change that before June 30. What we are talking about, however, is dictating that individuals will not have the means to protect themselves from criminals or militia thugs. In a context where we do not provide such protection, that is simply wrong.