Posted on 01/20/2002 12:24:02 PM PST by knighthawk
BAGHDAD: Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa said in Baghdad yesterday that all Arab countries would oppose an eventual US military strike on Iraq.
“There is an Arab consensus on opposing any strike against any Arab country,” Mussa told reporters after arriving here on the first official visit to Iraq by a head of the pan-Arab body since 1990.
“The Arab League, the Arab Ministerial Council and the Arab summit, all were very clear in (upholding) the security, safety and territorial integrity of all Arab countries, including Iraq,” he said at the airport when asked about the possibility of a US military offensive against Iraq.
Mussa said he would discuss various aspects of the situation in Iraq with officials here, including President Saddam Hussein, during his 24-hour visit.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri was on hand at the airport to greet Mussa, who arrived to sanctions-hit Iraq on a special flight authorised by the UN.
“Iraq opens its arms to its Arab brethren, chief among them the man who leads the mechanism of joint Arab action,” Sabri said in a reference to the Arab League chief.
Mussa’s visit comes ahead of an Arab summit due March in Beirut. “I am visiting Iraq at a critical time for the Arab world and the Middle East region,” Mussa said.
“The talks I will hold here are important in the context of reviving Arab solidarity,” he added.
I have no sympathy for a family who uses the government to steal money for their livelihood rather than getting a job and abating their procreative tendencies.
I am likewise unsympathetic with a family who uses a family member to steal for their livelihood.
For example, a law-abiding person (with NO children) makes the wrong decision and discharges a firearm at someone (killing him/her or not is irrelevant.) This person was not leaching off of the government, as you envision, but made a bad choice. Now, that person is sentenced, does the time, goes through counselling/courses, etc., and is determined to have paid his/her debt and is FREE to go. Should that person be forced to flee for the phone, and call 911, while an intruder is in his/her home? Is the natural right to defend one's self, family, or property completely gone?
Why didn't Iraq stop the slant drilling instead of invade?
No where did I accuse individuals who are "leaching" off the government" of being any more likely to commit a crime than any one else. Try a reread.
I think buck is not wanting to debate whether laws are "good" or "bad", but rather whether they actually do any good.
Does a law that says "convicted felons cannot own firearms" actually deter convicted felons from buying them?...etc...
Not meaning to jump into a firefight....
No. But, it provides a remedy should the convicted felon be caught with one.
But, there is no need for a remedy. If a convicted felon decides to purchase a gun, there is no harm in that alone. The harm comes from what the felon does (maybe using the gun); and there are already remedies for that.
So this seems redundant to me.
It's some "feel good" law that helps a politician - not a law that actually does something.
I may use that line if I ever want to get out of jury duty. Thanks. My overall point is this: if the concept of prison time/reform truly worked, then, once one is set free, then he/she is again a complete citizen. I readily admit that I'm living in a dream world with my scenario.
That's my opinion too. I would venture that it's nearly everyone's opinion.
But that's not the question. The question is whether laws against felons buying guns deter felons from buying guns. A useful law (from what I've gathered from you) would be one that provides punishment for felons using guns to commit crime.
But I don't see how a law directed toward law breakers is effective. By definition, they're lawbreakers....so how will a law governing their behavior affect them?
So we're getting off topic... I originally jumped in because I thought I saw a misunderstanding. That's been settled.
See you around the forum.
Two ways.
1) If they are caught using a firearm again, they will get a much longer sentence.
2) If they are found to be in posession of a firearm, they go to jail, possibly prior to their being able to use said firearm.
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.