Yawn.

Are you  serious, to take away the firearms from citizens in this country, of course they would have to change the constitution, and if they change it to confiscate firearms, they can change the rules about how the military acts on US soil also. Now I got to go and buy more tin foil, before they run out at the market. [:)]

I really don't think US soldiers would go against there citizens. (at least not all of them)

IT IS A WAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOSERS dont get to keep guns cause they use them to shoot the winners, thats how you win the war you take way the enemys way of killing you. [whacko]

To compare what is happening in a war with taking away rifle from us just seems stupid.[whacko]

We haven't forgotten. The US govt., and many civilian police have..



I will explain that to the next survivor of Ruby Ridge or Waco I meet. I'm sure they'll be grateful for the enlightenment.



And when the people have been intentionally dumbed down in govt. run education systems, then what?



Yes, "the people", also decided to BAN precisely the kind of weapon the 2nd Amendment protects. Machine guns, and so-called assault weapons. Where is "the govt" protecting our rights. Why has the military not protected us like you seem to think they will?



I'm sure the DEAD Branch Davidians, their family members, and other innocents killed almost weekly by Federal and local police in this country over firearms laws will take great solace in your statement...



Ya, I'm just overjoyed at the idea of an encounter with police that I won't survive....[rolleyes]
Do a little research. The Constitution in this country is DEAD!
BTW, The commander in chief of the military has already signed Unconstitutional legislation, and stated same when he signed it. Where was the military to protect us??
He has also said he WILL sign the AWB renewal, obviously unconstitutional. I assume the military will help us.(If they're not all in some foreign country disarming them, that is)  [rolleyes]

Ummm..... remember the War?

There were lots of Iraqis shooting at American troops.
Shooting guns.


Thosae poor, poor Iraqis.
Look how we trample on their rights.

We outlaw certain political parties -no one here complains.
We kill their citizens who were merely lawfully resisting an armed invasion, without so much as a trial.
We "quarter troops" in their homes and buildings -no one says a word.
We kick in doors and search their homes WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT -no complaints.
We disarm the people whom we were fighting, JUST A MONTH AGO, and you guys complain.

Was it wrong to disarm their armed combatants?
Think about it.
They were lawfully defending their homeland against foreign invaders!
What right did we have to disarm these people, let alone capture and cage them.
How dare we!
Shouldn't we have respected their "right" to defend themselves?
Maybe when they were in the POW camps, we should have let them keep their weapons.
Or at least given them back afterwards.




Perhaps we should view this in the context of war.
(that way you won't seem like you're naively projecting your dmoestic political concerns upon an overseas warzone)

The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves.......

Collapsable stock on a 20" barrel? Am i seeing this correctly?

Yes.
They never imagined that we'd be so ignorant as to suggest that disarming the populace of a country we're at war with, is somehow wrong.
They were educated men, with enormous common sense.  They would never have imagined that their very words would be so misinterpetted, as to be projected upon this situation.
They are indeed turning in their graves.

Damm right they would be laughing at you guys who think someone who was just shooting at you had ANY RIGHTS AT ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They would have made them into SLAVES

[lolabove]

That's a good point.
The "Founding Fathers" would have considered the Iraqis to be less than human, and therefore not afforded the same rights as "men".
Indeed, the Iraqi POWs might very well have been shipped back to the US to pick cotton, as slaves.

Folks, we need to understand here that Iraq, at the present moment, is an occupied country, and as such civil liberties are curtailed until order can be imposed and assured.

That being said, I am uncomfortable with the "sweep-them-all" nature of our operations in Baghdad. Yes, reducing the number of guns in circulation will, in that kind of an environment, help impose order, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that these people need to be able to defend themselves from looters, criminals, etc., just as we do here.

It's a very delicate line to walk, and one frought with unavoidable peril. If you confiscate NONE of the weapons, then any smart-alec can take a serious shot at your troops. OTOH, if you confiscate ALL the weapons (good luck!), you risk allowing crime to skyrocket and the order you're trying to impose to suffer.

I'm okay with thinks like RPG's and similar heavy weapons being rounded up. You can't justify defense of home or self with an RPG. AK-47's and pistols, OTOH, are just as valid as they are here. As such, I would favor rounding up CRIMINALS rather than guns.

All this being said, I would hope that once a civil authority and (hopefully) democratic Constitution is ennacted in Baghdad, that Iraqi's will be able to enjoy the same God-given rights that we (for the most part) enjoy here.

One final thing: All of you who enjoy equating SWAT teams with the Ghestapo and Lord knows who else are all a bunch of idiots. Sure, incidents happen, but they are the EXCEPTION, rather than the rule. Even when Komisar Reno and her ilk were in power, the overwhelming majority of law-enforcement units performed honorably and ethically. Keep your paranoid fears tom yourself, or do us all a favor and pick a fight with them so you can get your glorious "for my rights" death over with expeditiously. The rest of us want to get back to reality, here.

they are a defeated nation and they should have their rights restored when the new government is established. hopefully they will have gun rights until then they are still a defeated nation.

If their new democratically elected government wants this, yes.
But let's not be so arrogant as to think it's OK to "force" OUR constitution upon them.
What we consider to be "inalienable rights" might be different from their beliefs.

I frankly don't give a rat's ass what they do, or what rights they end up with.  That's up to them.
As long as they are friendly towards us, and do not allow their country to harbor terrorists.
THAT'S up to us.

Here's a link to a NYT article on the subject. It would appear the military is going to announce some kind of proclamation;
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21DISA.html[/url]





It would appear, this is NOT a "sweep-them-all" type of operation. A few quotes from the article.;
[blue]"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."[/blue]

It would appear, not ALL weapons are being taken.

[blue]"Looting has gone down and violent crime has gone down," General McKiernan said. "The trend is down."

But robberies, looting, kidnappings and attacks by paramilitary forces are still frequent, prompting allied forces to step up their efforts to secure the country.

The weapons proclamation is an important part of that endeavor. The intention is to reduce attacks against allied forces, reduce crime and stop violent fights among rival Iraqi groups, allied commanders believe.

While General McKiernan talked about the ban in broad terms, other officials provided details.

Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.

Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.

For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license
[/blue]



Agreed. It's worth noting here however, that while the US has helped other nations develop a Constitution, in NO case have they included a 2nd Amendment.



Let's you and I get something the fuck straight right now zaphod.

1)People ARE being killed over this shit almost weekly.
2)These incidents ARE the "rule", to judge by the frequency in which they happen. Doors are being kicked in DAILY in this country, over firearms laws, and tax issues.
3) Many of my anscestors had "paranoid fears", which led to the founding of our nation, and the establishment of certain inalienable rights. I am NOT gonna allow the US govt, or anyone else to take a shit on their blood, and the blood shed by so many others, for our liberty. You go right ahead and do so if you wish.
4) Like I said before, I'm NOT looking forward to dieing in any encounter. If it happens, I can only pray to die as well as so many patriots gone before me.




Here's reality zaphod. I have personal friends who have set case law before the Supreme court. One case resulted in the govt. being unable to dispose of seized property before appeal in irs case's. (Rossi vs. IRS)I myself have run a sucessful International boycott against a city in my state, being the first, and only time a boycott has been used in a gun rights case in the state.
The fact that I and others refuse to lose any more rights without a fight seems to upset you to the point of name-calling like the liberal you are.



You'd have made a good Tory....

Fine, let's get something the fuck straight right now, Liberty.



I have no doubt that instances such as the one you describe do occur on a daily basis, but I'd be willing to bet that most them involve people who are BREAKING THE LAW.

Now, we can argue over the Constitutionality of a particular law all you want, and that's fine, but I'd also be willing to bet that most of them involve breaking laws we would all agree with.

As for the other instances, I say we DO shine the light on that, and do all we can to stop it.



I have no desire to do that. Quite the opposite. I hold them in very high esteem and awe.

However, where you and I part company is that you seem obsessed and determined to find lawlessness, tyranny, and oppression in EVERYTHING that happens in this country, and as such tend to paint with an extremely broad brush.

I have always (and still do) acknowledge and admire your desire to preserve the freedoms we still have, restore those we've lost, and enhance them beyond what we had originally. In that, you and I are in complete agreement. However, just because we can't fix it NOW, IMEEDIATELY, THIS SECOND, does NOT mean that we have to live in perpetual FEAR.

There is a difference between living in eternal vigilance (a thoroughly wise thing to do) and living in extreme paranioa. Maybe you don't think that way, but I'm simply responding to what I see on a computer screen. If I'm reading you wrong (as are other who agree with me), you may want to rethink the way you express yourself. You might be surprised to find we're closer on the issues than you might think.



Don't we all. I've always said that those who shout the loudest about how bad they are are always the first to crap their pants. (BTW, I mean that as a general statement, not an accusation toward you in particular.)



Congratulations to your friends. Frankly, I'd love to hear more about your boycott. Sounds interesting.

My "name-calling" is simply an observation based upon the content of your (and other's) posts. If you don't like the fact that I and others think your views are idiotic (because you know them not to be) then perhaps you can present YOUR position without calling the rest of us (who agree with you on principle but differ on method) liberals, pansies, etc.




Nah. I can recognize full-scale tyranny easily enough. We're nowhere near that point yet, though we're closer to it than I'd like, no doubt.


Edited to fix quotes.

Zaphod and others good points.  

Occupation after a war is a SPECIAL and EXCEPTIONAL circumstance.  It provides no precedent whatsoever for what the US can do to its citizens the overwhelming majority of whom are responsible and law abiding. (can that be said of Iraq?)

While this might not be a smart policy, it's certainly not a crazy or immoral policy.  Iraqis have to depend on the US for all their rights and for everything in the time being.  Period.  That's the only right of the vanquished, to obey.  THEY LOST A WAR.  Many with Guns are former Baath Party Officials and Fedayeen Sadaam.

I ask those who oppose the US here;

1) Should prisoners in a prison have the right to bear arms?

2) Or criminals?  (I mean God forbid they can't have a fair fight with citizens and cops).

The right to be arms is a right, but it can be Forefeited by individual or collective irresponsibility.  Going to war with the US is one such example.  

But, but, but, if the U.S. Army is taking guns away in a country that we've just conquered by military force, it [i]must[/i] mean that they're about to do the same thing here!  Isn't it obvious? [rolleyes]

Oh, dear..... [peep]

Hey eswanson, you dumb freak... go and jump off a bridge or something. You have obviously not read anything at all here...

A few people misunderstand and disagree with me, but many such as cyanide, CRC, RipMeyer, DevilsAdvocate, N_Viejo, 5subslr5, PoliticalScience, CLP, LWilde, llanero, liberty86, and Zaphod especially who brings up some great points know what I am trying to say and they agree.

Cincinnatus I am rather disappointed in, I could have sworn that my point got across. Ok, no, I wont happen exactly this way, no  the situatuion is diffretn, but seriously, you cannot have everyone disamred wheter just or unjust just because some of them (even if a large number) tried to kill you. Yes, RPGs and heavy MG's should be seized, since they are not self defense weapons. On the other hand, since AK47s are much cheaper than semi-auto, postban rifles over in Iraq and since the criminals who attack good Iraqi citizens (some of you racist fucks think that all Iraqis are assholes, I disagree) are armed with AK's also, shouldn't the people jsut tryong to live be allowed to bear equal arms against them? Sure, once Iraq is well secured, then you can take away the AK's (Hey as long as you can keep the HK G3's !!!) but right now, the situation is still pretty bad.

[img]http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=331245[/img]

DScott, you make some good points, but in the end, you are still an ass. But yes that's me holding the gun there. Nice shirt, eh? The ladies find me sexy. That's my friend Abdul behind me, he got an Beretta 92F back in 1997 and he sold it to get four AK47's five weeks ago. A Beretta is $200 and an AK is $50. The fat guy is you, obviously. You got ten thousand Happy Meals from Feinstein after you surrendered your testicles and your hunting rifle to her. DON'T SUE MCDONALD'S!!!

NME and u-baddog, just shut up and leave...

DPeacher and liberty86, you guys are great!

"If anyone thinks that that can never happen here, then they are smoking some serious herb."-PoliticalScience, great quote! I love it!

Thanks, all who agree. I'm sorry for those who disagree, I hope you don't take this all that seriously (It is serious, but not THAT serious).

[img]http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=334097[/img]

No that doesn't seem to be a 20 inch barrel and a regular collapsible stock. That would a great idea, because the stock would be adjustbale and can be shortened for use w/ body armor while the long barrel allows for better long range engagement which one would be prepared for in the desert. If you would use an M4A1 receiver then you would get the extra advantage of full auto for CQB. Altough, remember that the Rangers in Somalia in '93 did quite well with their M16A2's w/ the 3rb...

Doggonit.out.

If anyone doesn't want an M16A2, I will take it. However, an M16A4 or M16A3 would be also nice to have.

thanks for the pics....

ibtl

your right that is a 16" barrel.

Well, you got me there.  I'm speechless.

I agree with most of your scenario but they will probably come under the cover of darkness.

Hey dog, it was a good topic, and considering how far we've come in just the last 50 years, I don't think the topic is unrealistic at all, to happen in our lifetime, (I'm 55).

Thanks...

Then we should be arguing the 1934 US gun laws and forget the AWB.  That's the problem....don't just fuss with the current stuff....Let's turn back the clock and start the marching.

The sad thing is the Iraqis can have full auto & we can't.

You've made the inherent argument that there are "some weapons" that shouldn't be in the hands of citizens.  Why?  

You seem to have agreed with: "I'm okay with thinks like RPG's and similar heavy weapons being rounded up. You can't justify defense of home or self with an RPG. AK-47's and pistols, OTOH, are just as valid as they are here. As such, I would favor rounding up CRIMINALS rather than guns."


Which one's should you deem that the Iraqi citizen have....they haven't been accussed and convicted....

Shouldn't they be able to keep all all of the weapons to be able to defend themselves.   Taking away any weapon is a long step down a short road of totally disarming the Iraqi population (and it could happen here).  THis is where the arguments started by blasting the supporter for not blasting the "anti-gun" american goverment.

It's a long thread to get back to "well that's probably OK"  [rolleyes]

You missed my point(s) entirely.  

Nice pics, though...  [;D]

DScott, me no much good with reading comprehension, that why me fail english (just kidding, almost got you there...)

The threads are too long and spread out, I will read them but I have to stay up late tonite to finish some work.... busy busy busy... I want to sleep.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Doggonit.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Say it gets so violent that they, (the people in charge) start saying that we have to confiscate wepons so we can tell the good guys from the bad guys,  kind of like they're doing in Irack...and New York City....and Washington DC...and Chicago...and

Oh I am sorry [>(]I called the idea of comparing what is going on in a country we ARE AT WAR with to what could happen here stupid. It just seems stupid to me. Can I stay now ?

If that was you in Iraq would you still feel the same way, knowing all those weapons could be turned on you at any time ? Well would ya ?

Dont get me wrong, I think it is a very real possiblity that one day someone will try to take my guns. Look at Calf and NJ. I am not blind.

liberty86 speaks volumes of what IS happening IN THE USA right now. Apple to Apples




Compare apples to apples not apples to 55 chevys

drjeffallen:

I think I understand your last post, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that I support the idea of disarming the Iraqi people en masse, for the same reasons I don't support it here in the United States.

However, I think it is an apples-to-oranges comparison to suggest that just because it's happening in Iraq (a war zone and a conquered and occupied territory) that it's immentent here (a civilized society operating under the rule of law).

As such, my position remains: I can understand why it is happening, and in many ways I support it. What I fervently hope is that our forces take into account the fact that Iraqi civilians need to defend themselves against looters and other undesireable elements of their society, and as such complete disarmament is NOT a good idea. I hope the disarmament will be enough to minimize the threat to our troops while still allowing citizens the means to defend themselves.

As for weapons types, I don't think a citizen needs an RPG to defend his home and family. An AK is acceptable, provided the person holding it is a good guy. Hence my assertion that after (or during) the removal of the heavy weapons, we should be doing everything possible to remove the bad guys as well.

Granted, such a policy takes time and thought to conceive and implement, and I'm simply thinking on the fly here.

In summary, I think that, in the current environment IN IRAQ, it's probably a good idea to pick up overly destructive and non-defensive weapons as a matter of security for our troops. However, such a pickup MUST be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of law-abiding and/or non-threatening people to defend themselves.

I don't think my position is inconsistent in any way. Have I missed the point of your post entirely?

I call upon all loyal americans to support Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia in his efforts that legislation be written to overrule the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. WE ARE AT WAR and must give our government all of the tools it needs to insure this great democracy has freedom from fear.

[b]IF (And this is a HUGE if!) some far distant day in the future, the majority of our citizens does decide to end private ownership of firearms, then we would have to deal with it.[/b]
Actually, no we won't have to deal with it.  That's the beauty of living in this fine Republic.  Now if we were living in a Democracy then yes, if the majority decided to end private ownership of firearms we would have to deal with it.  That old scrap of parchment we owe this great country to explains it pretty simply.  By being Men, we are granted the rights to own and bear arms regardless of what the majority says.

How much for the Webley?

Zaphod,

The point wasn't missed.  The point is that commonsense rules need to be applied in a hostile war environment.   If someone wants to argue gun rights in Iraq and its applicability to this country then the argument with this situation need to be compared to the pre-1934 US.

No harm...thank for the thoughful reply.