[url]http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1279311&nav=7k6sBu3V[/url]

U-S military tells Iraqis to turn in all guns or face arrest

Baghdad, Iraq-AP -- The U-S military is now telling Iraqis they cannot own or sell guns. Any Iraqi who does faces arrest, according to a new radio spot running in the country.

One problem U-S forces have is the tens of thousands of weapons Saddam Hussein's government gave out in its final days in power. Many ended up in the hands of looters or criminals.

McKiernan has issued a statement saying coalition forces will hunt down those people -- whom he calls a threat to everyone in Iraq. He is urging any Iraqi who owns a firearm to turn it in to coalition forces.

Ain't it funny?   One of our most cherished rights is the personal rights to keep and bear arms.  It's fundamental to our freedom.   We allegedly went into Iraq to restore THEIR freedom,  and then THIS???

I can't help but sense my hypocrisy meter banging the needle on the stop.

I'm not entirely sure how to react to this.

CJ

kind of makes ya wonder what they would do with us if we let them get away with it

watch very closely my friends.

this is our future if we don't guard it well.. the military is training now in a forign land to do to us here what is now incomprehensible..

i personally am watching with great interest. it will give me an insight to how the machine works for when they come for you and me..

We already have tried this, no one argued.


[i]Illinois       Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois.
                   Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority
                   (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and
                   enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep,
                   which applied to all housing units owned and operated
                   by the CHA.  The purpose was the confiscation of
                   firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of
                   warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy
                   severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to
                   associate in their residences with family members and
                   other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the
                   building, producing to the police or CHA officials
                   photo Id.  Relatives, including children and
                   grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on
                   holidays.  CHA tenants who objected or attempted to
                   interfere with these warrantless searches were
                   arrested.  The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking
                   declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA
                   tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean
                   Sweep.  The complaint was filed in the United Sates
                   District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
                   Eastern Division, on Dec. 16, 1988, as Case No.
                   88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v.
                   Chicago Housing Authority, et al.  A consent decree
                   was entered on Nov. 30, 1989 in which the CHA and
                   CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which
                   the scope and purposes of such "emergency housing
                   inspections" were limited.  (GMU, p. 98)[/i]


I guess no one cared if we disarmed the poor minorities in Chicago.  To add an even better kicker, Clinton tried to pass this to every person living in federal government assisted housing.

 
[i]1994 United States  President seeks to single out all poor citizens
                   residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton
                   Administration introduced H.R. 3838 in 1994 to ban
                   guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking
                   Committee rejected it.  Similar legislation was filed
                   in 1994 in the Oregon and Washington state
                   legislatures.[/i]

I doubt that the Iraqis will pay much attention to this bright idea.  They are living in an anarchy right now, and guns are their only means of security.

I read somewhere that an opinion poll of the general staff of the US Military (as opposed to the rank and file and lower ranking officers) found that the generals tended to be anti-gun in their political views.

They tried that in Somalia.

I would say that THIS issue needs to be given our full attention, by the sending of email and letters and phone calls, to our elected representatives, and to the White House.

If our goal is to assist the Iraqis in achieving freedom,  we should certainly not attempt to deny them the very freedoms that we hold most dear to us.

Get those letters going.  This could be a very serious matter, eventually.

CJ

... Absolutely right [b]cmjohnson[/b], just don't mail it in the same envelope as your letter regarding the AWB sunset.

It would be great if there was a link to this poll.  It would come in handy later.

I will see if I can find it.  It was some years ago.

Not surprising - Monopoly of Power.

Don't you wish you had a gun and bad guys didn't?  Of course.

It's always preferable to have the upper hand.

Our boys are still being shot at over there.
Why don't we wait just a bit, before getting all "concerned" about the Iraqis' individual freedoms.  Projecting our domestic concerns onto a foreign battlefield is folly.

How about the Iraqis' right to a trial?
What about the property rights of Saddam and his regime?
Why no complaints when we "banned" the Baath Party?  What, freedom of association isn't a right, too?
Aren't we "quartering troops" in the homes and buildings of the Iraqis?

It's still a war.

I guess the hypocricy is what is bothering most folks, including me.  The official spin was that we were there to "liberate" the Iraqis.  To that end some units were ordered NOT to fly the U.S. flag so the Iraqis would not see us as conquerors, but as liberators.  Now we are doing things to them that we would not tolerate in this country, because it would be viewed as a loss of liberty. Of course they are not U.S. citizens and are not entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution, although if you look at the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in this country that do receive constitutional protection, that arguement seems like even worse hypocricy.

I agree with Cincinnatus, it's still a war, but the stupidity of the government trying to convince both the Iraqis and the U.S. population that it something else is ridiculous.  The least they could do is be honest about it.  It's a war to destroy the current government of a country, not some kind of holy freedom crusade.   A state of war exists in Iraq and they are, or should be under martial law until ALL hostilities cease.  Under martial law, you have little, if any rights.

Let's drop the PC crap and finish the job.  The military should secure their areas of operations by any means possible, but wholesale random confiscation of guns is not a military operation, it is a policing action, and that's where most people, I think, are getting concerned.  Let's not turn the military into a police force like Clinton tried to do.

I resent that!!  I thought I was the resident DU troll!!  

In any case, if you think the US Govt. believes in the Constitution, you are sadly mistaken and wildly gullible.  Go read the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and the, soon to be coming, Patriot Act 2 and convince yourself that the US Govt. has any respect for the law of the land.  

I'd say that's just a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you?

Just like cops. Most street cops are pro-2nd Amendment. The Chiefs,  Police and public employee unions, and Sheriffs tend to be political.

Note also, in our country, the AWB bans precisely the best weapon to defend one self with........In DIRECT violation of the 2nd.

I understand protecting the soldiers.  All weapons should be rounded up and stored.

Leaveing the population unarmed is a recipe for disaster, which will force our return ala somolia.

After we leave, give everyone a weapon, and instruct them in its use.  That way, they have a chance against some warlord or fanatic cleric trying to oppress them similarly to saddam.

The right of ALL PEOPLE to keep and bear arms was not granted by our government.  But rather by God.

TXLEWIS

What is REALLY of note here, CM, is the fact that of all the countries we have liberated, to NONE of them, have we given our 2nd Amendment, when we helped them write a Constitution......

Is this total confiscation, or only taking away RPG's and and machine guns?  When I first heard of disarming Iraqi citizens, they were allowing weapons for self-defense, as long as they were being kept at home.  Someone parading around with a rifle looked too suspicious.

This really has been bothering me too.  I have a real problem with hypocricy of disarming civilians in another country.  TxLewis makes an excellent point.  The rights under the Constitution are supposed to be granted by God, not a government.

If you want to say that we need to do this to insure the safety of our troop; that same argument can be made about our ownership of firearms and the LEO community.  Do you think the really bad people in Iraq are going to turn in their weapons?  No!  Not any more than the criminal in the US would.  

If your going to believe in something, at least have the decency to be consistant in your beliefs.  

I edited my previous reply, I had a typo in it.  If I was a peacekeeper, I wouldn't mind every person keeping a firearm in their home, as long as it stays on their property.  I think it was Liberia or Sierra Leone a few years back when they had a civil war, but the USMC was sent in to protect the US embassy.  After pointing their guns in a menacing way a couple times at the embassy, a sniper took out one of the offenders.  After that, the fighters would remove their magazines, hold open the bolt, and carry their rifles over their heads when they passed the embassy.

There are still Baath party thugs trying to keep their influence, and they do so by parading around armed in public.  I doubt everyone walking down the street in Baghdad with an AK is carrying for "self defense."

It's a mess.  They cant even get the utilities up and running, they dont have the very basic public services, because they want the Iraqis to do it for themselves instead of bringing in American companies..

I mean, they'd rather bring in baathist thugs instead of Americans who could actually do the job of policing.

This is all just BS.  Let's bring in our companies, pay them boatloads of cash to get Iraq running again, and when the media cries foul/corporate welfare, tell them to talk to the Iraqis who finally have power and water after a month (not to mention freedom from Saddam's tyranny).

All this BS for the sake of appearances.

Nope.  If anything an understatement.

I wanted to edit my earlier post.  I just read  story on this disarmament of Iraqi civilians.  Apparently, the US forces are allowing each home to keep an AK for self defense.  They are only taking the extra guns and if they are outside of their home with a firearm.  

I think each person in a hom eshould be allowed to keep a firearm, but I have no problem with a TEMPORARY curfue on firearms in public.  

The military would never do that here. Don't believe me? Just go to any new recruit and ask him or her to tell you the 10 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. They know what they are protecting and defending against enemies foreign and domestic!

I read somewhere that an opinion poll of the general staff of the US Military (as opposed to the rank and file and lower ranking officers) found that the generals tended to be anti-gun in their political views.

------------------------

that was the way it was when i was in.  we were not allowed to have guns in the barracks (any personal weapons, including firearms, bows, or large knives) had to be kept in the arms room.
our barracks were searched routinely for contraband, and the mp's would occasionally stop all cars on post and search them for anything the army frowned upon.

what a buch of cocksuckers

it was acceptable to train me in the use of assault rifles, machineguns, and explosives, but i wasn't allowed to have a .22 in my room or, heaven forbid, a machete?

just one of the many, many reasons i hated the military.

I think the reasons why alot of the upper echelon have a distrust of troops keeping weapons in barracks goes back to the conscription days.  It's not about responsible, well behaved troops, it's about the rest.  There was a percentage of troops drafted in that would've been in jail if it not been for involuntary service.  Many a judge decided the military would straighten them up.  Another consideration is possession of alcohol or other controlled substances around weapons.  Last thing we need is someone who is pissed-drunk crazy from whiskey with an automatic weapon.  It's better to have a criminal shooting at bad guys, and not our own people.  A weapon is easier to account for if it's locked up.

Ever wonder how the M1 carbine came to be?  Originally there was a desire to issue everyone a sidearm, but then the issue of drunken idiots and criminals with concealed weapons arose.  I believe the ease of use was a secondary consideration.  

Understatement?
Please explain.
If this is what you consider an "understatement":

What do you consider an accurate statement?