OK you criminals, hand em over and nobody gets hurt.
Posted on 05/25/2003 7:58:40 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
U.S. administrators in Baghdad have ordered Iraqis to turn over their weapons by mid-June, as part of an effort to return public security to cities under American occupation.
Unauthorized people found trading, selling or concealing automatic or heavy weapons will face criminal charges.
The U.S. civil administration ordered a two-week amnesty period, beginning June 1st, for the surrender of unauthorized firearms. Weapons turned in will be destroyed, or set aside for use by police or soldiers in a future army.
Possession of small arms will be allowed for some Iraqis for self-defense. Lieutenant General David McKiernan, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, says Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq will also be allowed to remain armed in some areas. Leaders of Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim groups are sharply critical of the exceptions in the disarmament plan.
U.S. Army officials say there will also be a dramatic increase of patrols in Baghdad by coalition forces and Iraqi police charged with fighting crime and lawlessness.
In another development, post-war Iraq's acting oil minister says he expects the country to resume oil exports in two to three weeks. Oil revenues will be used to rebuild the country.
It is it right for American Citizens to be armed. A bedrock Citizen right the American government, the UN, the EU and any and all authority on Earth hates.
Our government is dares to attempt to do in Iraq the same thing it assisted in doing in Australia, when that government disarmed its Citizens.
The government of Japan has plowed a good deal of money into underwriting the UN's plan to disarm the world's citizens.
This is the NWO being created through American payroll taxes.
In the not so distant future we will be the last nation in the world where private ownership of guns exist. THEN it will be our turn to our weapons over to an American soldier wearing a blue beret.
I think there is a difference between an AK-47 and the kind of weapons we would like them to turn in, RPGs and SA-7s comes to mind.
No .mnatter what we call it, Iraq is a conquered country and partisans of the former regime remain armed and hostile. Disarming the citizenry of major weapons (small arms are permitted to be retained for family defense) is imperative. It removes weapons from partisans among the local population and makes it more difficult for them to move weapons near our troops. It reduces the sources of arms for partisans.
Having said that, I don't like the citizen diarmament occurring in the occupied areas of the U.S. ('rat/RINO zones) any better than you do. It is wrong, and it is an outrage.
It's a bit early to speak of democracy in Iraq anyway, albeit not to early to speak of it here. I'd enjoy seeing Iraq (and Iran, for that matter) get a representative republic with a constitutionally guaranteed bill of rights including the right to keep and bear arms (sort of like the kind we have except when we don't). Alas, circumstances have given the people of Iraq the presence of U.S. troops who don't appreciate being shot at, and thus all things are equivocal.
Actually, the old regime strictly controlled arms, and only gave them to loyal Baathists. Our enemies in Iraq will rejoice, as this will make their job all the easier: the populace will be easier to cower, and they will be able to show that the U.S. does not trust them.
Unauthorized people found trading, selling or concealing automatic or heavy weapons will face criminal charges.
Notice that this includes the AK47, the most ubiquitous firearm in Iraq, and that "some" people will be allowed to keep them. I also notice that this occured after the socialists in the state department were put in charge.
Condoleeza Rice is supposed to be a 2nd Amendment fundamentalist. Perhaps we could write her and suggest that such a policy is folly.
Indeed, they are keeping their AK-47s, their pistols and other rifles. They are having to turn in their heavier machine guns, their motars, their RPGs, and heavier stuff like artillery, both tube and rocket.
I guess I can understand the Shiite's displeasure if they aren't allowed that stuff, but the Kurds are. The differnece is that the Kurds are organized and answerable to a local "government of a sort". Much like the colonial militias of our own revolutionary period, and quite awhile before and after. Of course the other differnance it that the Kurds helped us, while the Shiites were at best neutral and in many cases it could be better described as a "hostile" neutrality, at least in so far as their "leadership", such as it is, was concerned. Disarming the supporters, or former supporters of Saddam is no different than disarming gang bangers convicted of murder, rape, assault, etc.
This only makes sense, as these are the people we just defeated. What I would like to see is work on a constitution and what rights the iraqis would like as a culture. If they establish the principle of guns ownership rights for self defense I would think it would be very wise to let them have it. They may one day use those guns to stop a fundamentalist government from taking over.
OK you criminals, hand em over and nobody gets hurt.
This is typical doublespeak. The implication here is that without a constitution, there are no rights. Hogwash.
The right to defend one's life, and to acquire (and use when necessary) the tools to do so, exists outside of any majority's wishes, regardless of nationality. With or without a constitution, Americans have the right to self-defense and the tools to do so, as do the Iraqis. Are some of them going to kill each other and American soldiers? Sure, but that is no different from people here who kill each other and policemen every day. Would you advocate disarming everyone here, or "selectively" disarming without due process, simply because some people violate another's right to life? People bitch about that every day, but then see nothing wrong with actions such as this.
As for people here saying they were "conquered", I thought we were "liberating" them? Hell, if that's what liberation looks like I would hate to see what being conquered looks like.
Col Sanders
You're exactly right, IMO....
No it does not. From the CENCOM release on the subject:
Unauthorized weapons are defined as: automatic firearms firing ammunition larger than 7.62mm; machine guns or crew-served weapons; anti-tank weapons; anti-aircraft weapons; indirect fire weapons; all armored vehicles or self-propelled weapons; and high explosives and explosive devices.
...
Small arms--including automatic rifles firing ammunition up to 7.62mm, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols--may be possessed in homes and in a place of business. Small arms must remain at these sites and may not be taken out in public.
Only authorized persons may possess small arms in public places and those authorized persons will be issued a temporary weapons card (TWC) by Coalition Commanders.
So as usual the media, including VOA has distorted the details considerably. Via the usual method of selective quotes and parahrasing, and in some cases lack of knowledge of terms. "Automatic Weapons" in this case does include "assault RIFLES", nor even battle rifles, if the Iraqies had any of those. It also does not include the semi-automatic Soviet design sniper rifle, which I've seen photos of in the hands of Kurds, so I suspect they are well distributed amoung the populace after "looting" of Iraqi army depots and from individual Iraqi Army types.
The article says:
"Possession of small arms will be allowed for some Iraqis for self-defense.
Try getting a conceal and carry permit in the USA. They (the government funded by the American taxpayer) are talking about stripping the Iraqi Citizens of all arms.
Where did you read that????
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.