Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA

Slate.com ^ | 03/14/2003 | Timothy Noah

[Pitchfork]

In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's … you get the idea.

The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to chatterbox@slate.com) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.

[TC Rider]

In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun."

Poor Timothy based his whole article on believing something he read in the NY Times? What a dolt.

Here's the quote:

One gauge of that fear is the trade at gun shops. Most Iraqi households own at least one gun, so there has been no particular run on armaments. But some gun shop owners report as much as a 50 percent jump in ammunition sales.

Doesn't say what his home ownership info is base on. To me it sounds like Saddam propaganda.

[weaponeer]

Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.

Yeah, you're right. Why don't you'all come on down to my house in Texas and bring your registration form. Just come on in, about 3:00 AM or so.

[mommadooo3]

You are about to embark on an education. Are you honest enough and intelligent enough to RECEIVE such an education?

[Gritty]

The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat.

What proof is there that "everyone" is packing heat - other than a few Baath Party members in good standing? Does anybody in his right mind actually believe Saddam would allow an armed populace?

Besides, what has this got to do with our Constitution? Can you spell R-E-D H-E-R-R-I-N-G?

This is merely an attempt to discredit gun ownership in America by tarring and feathering it by association with Saddam!

[Noumenon]

I think that we have another hand-wringing, Depands-wearing hit-and-run poster here. Fools like Pitchfork are immune to logic, reason and common sense anyway.

[Pafreedom]

An armed society is only free as long as the government will not turn its power upon the citizens. A semi or AK cannot compete with gas or a tank division.

Would our military turn on its citizens. By law no. However if they did there's not much anyone could do to stop them.

Therein lies the difference. Saddam will use his military against its peoples.

I cannot concieve of the situation GW would turn the military on us.

[Jhoffa_]

Does anybody in his right mind actually believe Saddam would allow an armed populace?

Saddam is the man who doesn't allow foreign TV crews to photograph him.. for fear of assination.

[Myrddin]

You must have missed the article from Northern Iraq today. Saddam's troops were making house to house searches for guns and Kurds. They are disarming the population and separating them into loyal Iraqis and potential revolutionaries. The military people doing the search have overwhelming firepower compared to a limited number of gun owners. Sort of "Krystal Nacht" lite.

I suspect the number of working firearms in the U.S. exceeds the actual population. It's a completely different situation.

[supercat]

A semi or AK cannot compete with gas or a tank division.

A few people with small arms can force a more powerfully-armed government to either destroy a city or leave them alone. Warsaw and Budapest demonstrated that if a government is willing to destroy a city not much will stop it.

On the other hand, the U.S. has enough value in its cities that even a rogue government would be loathe to destroy them. Probably not so in Iraq.

[Double Tap]

Come back and play. It is pretty gutless of you to post and run. Especially when so many want to talk to you.

[Sofa King]

"In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, 'Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.'"

Sorry, but believing this would violate my don't-believe-statistics-from-oppressive-dictators rule.

[Myrddin]

Don't bring a pitchfork to a gun fight.

[Centurion2000]

Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.

Who gives a f*ck what you think commie ?

[Alas Babylon!]

As a military retiree who only recently hung up his uniform, let me tell you this isn't going to happen via the troops, either. Any one ordering troops to fire upon innocent Americans will probably be fragged rather quickly. Most GI's, and especially NCO's, are country-oriented, conservative, and freedom loving. You won't find a better group of dedicated, patriotic folks. They wouldn't follow such orders.

[an amused spectator]

I always thought the "we need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument was a load of nonsense and a refuge for those who wanted to avoid a cost-benefit discussion centered on the real issues of crime and violence.

Well, I'm sure that Saddam isn't worried that the Iraqi commoners will go "Athens" on his a**.

However, in this country we do have the precedent...

;-)

[piasa]

Like most things in Iraq, including education and job selection, it is a matter of whether or not you swear alleigance to the Baathist Party and dutifully attend required demonstrations and so on. Those who do not, don't have any rights and are in ever-present danger of imprisonment.

No one ever mentions what the registration requirements are in Iraq, or other relevent details.

It's not the first time this has been brought up in the press- last week it appeared frequently enough to look like it was an intentional talking point distributed for the seminar caller crowd. Since it appeared in different papers among correspondants who are allowed to be in Iraq because of their malleability, and who are escorted at all times by Iraqi intelligence officers, it is most likely a point directly from the Iraqis, who are trying to play on western fears of coalition troops having to engage in house-to-house fighting. As such it is unreliable information.

Note that they have paraded around their fattened home guard for the cameras as well, and claimed they have volunteer suicide bombers lined up. It's all an effort to imply that the civilian population will fight to the death to keep Hussein in power.

They won't of course- because if they were really as well armed as the government agents claim, they would not be living in fear of Hussein's security forces. They live in fear of hussein's security forces becasue they know every detail of the life of each Iraqi. They know the family links and friendships, employment history, etc, of each citizen- even of dissidents who have long since gone overseas. This is nothing new- it has gone on for decades. That's how Hussein's agents were able to assasinate dissidents abroad and how they were able to find the family members of those they blackmailed. They have literally registered the people- and having done so, knowing and controlling who is armed, how well they are supplied, and whether or not they ever get to practice is an easy matter. Everything is regulated by the one party in power. Unusual purchases or buys deemed excessive will be duly noted, investigated, and punished, and there is no legal defense for anyone the government selects for arrest on any charges, or no charges at all.

And in a land without free speech and right of assembly, gun ownership does little good for you cannot rally your fellow citizens. Gun ownership in Iraq, owing to the lack of basic liberties, limits militias to a membership of one or at most a small family unit. The inability to assemble without drawing the ire of party officials or government prevents citizen's militias from forming and threatening the power of those in charge.

[Pafreedom]

Agreed,

However if a dictator is willing to use nerve agents or bio's to wipe out an entire region there is not much that the populace can do.

This nut job will gas his own people. In his case the military does not consider the victims to be actual Iraq citizens. So they go along with his depraved wishes.

[RandallFlagg]

Yeah, but ya gotta admit. Posts and posters like this make a lot of us happy to realize, yet again, that it's soooo nice to be on the right side of the fence.

[Pitchfork]

Let me address the main arguments I've read so far:
1. While Iraqi's may have guns, unlike Americans they aren't brave enough to use them.

The "American exceptionalism" argument is essentially unfalsifiable and is therefore nonsense. Iraqi's rose up against the British in 1918, that's more recent that 1776, so there is no reason to believe they wouldn't use thier weapons (they've also been a war more or less continuously since 1980)

2. The notion that Iraqi's have guns is a) false, b)propaganda, c) overstated.

O.K.I can buy that the evidence might be weak. Would any of you be prepared to abandon your dogma if it weren't?

3. In response to supercat's criminals using lists point

There are currently a number of states that require firearm registration I have yet to hear about criminals using that list to pick victims. Moreover one would think that crime would be rampant in Canada where guns are resticted and registered yet the opposite is true. The idea is quite paranoid and has no factual support.

4. I am a moron who hasn't read the constitution.

I teach american government! The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court. The court doesn't appear to share the NRA's veiw on the second ammendment at this time. So to claim I am in error is to only reveal an alarming lack of attention on your part.

5. Its not the federal government's job to regulate guns.

The federal governments job is to do what we as citizens ask it to do within the boundaries of the Consitution. Given the fact that no federal firearms law has ever been overturned by the Court, it would appear the FG has yet to exceed its constitutional mandate in this area.

And, the lesson I've learned:

1. Its easy to rile up you yahoos by posting an anti-gun article. Sadly while your barrage of responses may be intense, the aren't very intelligent. Try harder!

[Pearls Before Swine]

Sure the media like to show Iraqis and Palestinians shooting AK's into the air, but that doesn't mean most people have such weapons or ammo to burn in them.

Palestine is a relatively lawless place, where weapons are common. Still, there's enough gang mentality that the guys you see shooting off those weapons are probably hooked up with one gang or another.

Iraq, in my opinion, is a different story. It is, much more heavily contolled, especially in the central region of the country. The government is very strong--witness the omnipresent tales of fear and torture. I bet those with weapons have some "loyalty" connection to the Baath party. I don't think its the city Kurds in the North, for example, or the marsh Arabs, who are armed enough to act as a balance on Saddam's government.