Plan to confiscate Iraqi weapons may victimize innocent civilians,

libertarian party ^ | 5.23.03 | libertarian party

[freepatriot32]

WASHINGTON, DC -- An allied military plan to confiscate weapons in Iraq may destabilize the nation further by giving the green light to street thugs and Baath Party loyalists who are terrorizing innocent civilians, says the Libertarian Party.

"Imposing this gun grab is like declaring war on Iraq for a second time," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "How many innocent men, women and children will be kidnapped, robbed or murdered because their U.S. 'protectors' turned self-defense into a crime?"

Iraqi citizens will be forced to surrender their heavy weapons under a proclamation expected this week from U.S. and British forces.

The goal, allied commanders say, is to stabilize the war-torn nation by confiscating arms such as AK-47s, grenades and machine guns wielded by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of Saddam Hussein's government.

The demand for gun confiscation rests on the breathtakingly naïve belief that criminals -- whether in Iraq, the United States or anywhere else -- will obediently turn in their weapons, Neale added.

"If Saddam's henchmen wanted to surrender their guns to an occupying army they would have done so already," he said. "And if criminal gangs don't comply with laws against looting, murder and kidnapping they certainly won't comply with a new gun regulation.

"This weapons ban will just make all of their jobs easier by disarming their potential victims."

Though Iraqis will be permitted to keep small arms at home for protection, the heavier, soon-to-be-banned weapons may also be necessary for self-defense in the postwar mayhem, Libertarians point out.

"Why should Iraqi civilians have less of a right to choose their weapons than allied troops have to choose their weapons?" Neale asked.

"To the authorities who arrogantly claim that Iraqis don't 'need' an assault gun or a grenade, we say: Why don't you surrender your assault guns and grenades? If you really believe Iraqi citizens will be safer living under this gun control edict, set an example by complying with your own law."

The demand for the gun ban is actually a stark admission that occupation forces have failed in their most important, post-war mission of protecting the population, Neale said.

"Let's not punish innocent men, women and children for the U.S. military's inability to secure the peace," he said. "Wouldn't it be a tragedy if Iraqis who survived the horrors of Saddam Hussein became casualties of the U.S. government's gun grab?"

[McGavin999]

That's just about the funniest rant I've ever heard. With thinking like that I certainly hope you don't have access to heavy weaponry.

Iraq is a war zone, it's not Idaho. The Iraqi people are a people who have been held hostage for 30 years and have no weapons training. They weren't brought up hunting or being given gun safety training by very competent dads. Saddam never even allowed the people to have access to weapons because he feared they would overthrow him. The only reason they have access to them now is because they're laying all over the street.

[gcruse]

:)

[carenot]

If you are interested in the LP and guns....

I am.
Thanks.

[Criminal Number 18F]

he libertarian party can drive the convoys

I see two problems with that:

1. The Army requires drivers to have a current licence (actually two, a civilian and a military one).
2. There aren't enough Libertarians.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

"... no weapons training"
Um, but didn't Iraq have mandatory military service and a bunch of wars? Thier military training may not be as good as an American safty course, but many of them probably know how to fight.

"Iraq is a war zone, it's not Idaho."
If Idaho got invaded (theoretically ok :-)), those militia groups better fight to defend the country, instead of just handing over their arms.

Let's hope it doesn't happen, but if we screw up, and Iraqis decide they don't want us there and it turns into a war of occupation, we'll find out if the right to bear arms really means anything with today's military techonology.

What do you think? If a significant portion of the population wanted to shoot at allied troops and the rest of the Iraqis sat on thier hands, would the US stick around? This is all hypothetical of course.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

My understanding is the Iraqi people will be allowed to keep personal weapons for protection. This effort is to stop machine guns and grenade launchers (*etc) from being used against the Iraqi peoples LIBERATORS, OUR TROOPS AND THOSE OF OUR ALLIES!!

"COMMON SENSE" is required here, and the author of this article "lacks it"!!

Personally, I think we should have enacted MARSHALL LAW. I also hope we do so, and very soon. It is the ONLY way to speed up securing innocent peoples lives, and restoring normalcy to the lives of the population overall.

It would also help to bring back those "in country" who are needed to restore the country to some simulance of normalcy. People would return to work without fear of their lives. People like Doctors, nurses, policemen and a multitude of other people needed to run Iraq by Iraqi's.

Those who think this is such a "bad idea" ought to donate their time, go OVER TO IRAQ and try being TRAFFIC COPS for a week or two. Just read an article TODAY.. that described how dangerous even THAT profession has become in post war Iraq.

In order to have a QUICK resolution to the problems over there,.. we need to crack down on things for a bit. Once law and order are restored, a new constitution is drawn up and put in place by law abiding Iraqi patriots.. then we can pull back from Marshall Law. But for now.. we both feel it is imperative that law and order be totally restored (along with basic services like electricity, water and food, jobs and salaries, etc).

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The goal, allied commanders say, is to stabilize the war-torn nation by confiscating arms such as AK-47s, grenades and machine guns wielded by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of Saddam Hussein's government.

Who in heck is drafting the proclamation? Donna Dees-Thomases? Do you think they'll give them up willingly???

[armed_in_sydney]

'Saddam never even allowed the people to have access to weapons because he feared they would overthrow him.'

Private Iraqi gun ownership was unrestricted and almost 90% of the adult population were armed.They had zero gun control and were,per capita,the most armed populace in the world.Some people here say it only extended to Baathists...well i suppose 90% of the population were Baathists then.

[Beenliedto]

A fine statement, until the last line where he starts taking potshots at the military.

Here's the last line:

"Let's not punish innocent men, women and children for the U.S. military's inability to secure the peace," he said. "Wouldn't it be a tragedy if Iraqis who survived the horrors of Saddam Hussein became casualties of the U.S. government's gun grab?"

How in Heaven's name do you read that as taking potshots at the military?

It's now widely reported that the U. S. military is not properly trained or equipped to manage a peacekeeping chore of this magnitude....

Nor are there enough of them...

This ain't a shot at the military, it's a shot at the people who are planning this thing.

[webbb]

I thought that libs were against guns and their being owned by privet citizens, and now he is complaining that guns are being taken away from Iraqis. I thought that libs wanted all guns to be taken away, or do they just wish that AMERICANS have their guns taken away.

[Publius6961]

When I saw the title of this article I asked myself, "What kind of a nut would write an article like that?".
I should have seen it coming.

Oh well.