[url]http://www.gunowners.org/pr0307.htm[/url]

www.gunowners.org
Jun 2003
Bush Administration Treats Iraqis Better Than Americans
For Immediate Release
June 2, 2003
Contact: Ellie McDaniel
703-321-8585

Gun Owners of America today chided the double standard that the Bush administration holds toward firearms.

"It seems that the Bush administration trusts Iraqis more than it does Americans," said GOA Executive Director, Larry Pratt.

According to the June 1 issue of the New York Times, the U.S. officials are now allowing Iraqi citizens to keep their fully automatic AK-47s.

"And yet in this country, the Bush administration supports the Clinton-Feinstein ban on several types of semi-automatic firearms," Pratt said. "These semi-autos function no differently from millions of firearms that are commonly owned by American citizens. In fact, the semi-automatic rifles banned in 1994 are not used by any military in the world.

"In Iraq we are told that the people need their guns because they feel their security is still at risk. But what about our own citizens here in America? Is our security not as important? How bad must the terror threat get before the Bush administration is willing to trust the American people to defend themselves with guns that have far less firepower than the typical shotgun?

"In the same spirit of allowing Iraqis to defend their homes, the Bush administration needs to support the self-defense rights of American citizens and oppose any renewal of the 1994 ban on semi-autos," Pratt concluded.

-- GOA --

Larry Pratt is Executive Director for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151.

Either Larry Pratt or another GOA spokesman is available for press interviews.

Yeah i caught Larry Pratt on the Larry Elder show yesterday. As soon as he said it I said "Oh shit, here it comes. its gonna get ugly although I really dont see the Bush administration answering to the GOA. NRA.... MAYBE. but GOA??

give it a break, its not Bush trampling our rights, its the Democrats lead by Feinstein, Pelosi and their friends...

You know I never realized it till you posted it, but your right if the AWB is renewed now it will be a joke. May I pass this around?

it's a free country isn't it?

the iraqis need them because they don't have the police

we've got an excellent police force in the good ol USSA so us serfs don't need weapons

[rolleyes]

This illustrates the term "talking out of both sides of your mouth."  First, the anti-Bush types criticize him because the Army is seizing arms.  Then, when a decision is made that the Iraqis can keep full-auto AKs, the anti-Bush types criticize him for letting the Iraqis have better guns than we can have.  Talk about a no-win situation...

Damn Rik you beat me to it.

Libertarians are still pissed that Bush won without them-and that they polled so low that they won't be elligable for federal matching funds in 04'

If Bush wouldn't have come out in favor of the AW ban, I doubt this would ever have become an issue.  He doesn't support us so he deserves every criticizm he gets.  But since you are all for siezing arms from civilians you probably back Bush's stance on the AW ban.

Two words for you dude. What...ever.
[whacko]

There is a way to win in that situation, I think. He could repeal our restrictive gun laws and give us the same freedom that the Iraqis have. BINGO! Bush is an instant winner!

except then he would lose in '04 and even harsher laws would be enacted, woo yay!
Bush knows the AWB is gonna die in congress, he did the politically smart thing by saying he "supported the current laws" it was obvious to me at least what he really thinks

Ummm...no.  I don't know how much you know about government, but the President doesn't get to "repeal" anything.  Congress has to repeal laws, and although we have a very conservative House, the Senate is about 50-50 and there are enough RINOs there to make actively repealing ANY gun laws about impossible.

But was the '86 ban a piece of legislation or was it an executive order?  All executive orders need to be scrapped. They are too much like a royal making a proclimation = unconstitutional

it was passed by congress


i'd like to see Bush get rid of the import ban executive order

And how about the ban on demil'ed ammo.

I still think it's shocking that we detained those Iraqi Soldiers without reading them their rights, and providing them with legal representation.

Isn't it their right, as citizens of a sovereign nation, to defend their country against a foreign invasion?  As freedom loving people, we should defend their right to defend themselves against a foreign invasion.  After all, what would we do, if we were in their shoes?

Show of hands....
...who here supports the Iraqis, in this war against US (the United States)?
Come on guys, it's your logic...
....be proud of it.

Ya, they lead, Bush follows like a little sheep, and signs the Bill like he's said he would....

That's not trampling our rights, it's taking a shit on them. We are giving Iraqis almost the same "rights", guaranteed to US in the Constitution, and that have been TAKEN from us....

Sherrick, have you ever considered moving to the BEAUTIFUL, [url]http://bandonbythesea.com/[/url], Oregon Coast? [:D] [url]http://www.bandon.com/[/url]

Shoot me an e-mail, for more info.....[snoopy]

You sure sound like you hope he gets it and signs it.
You're almost giddy about the prospect.



That has to one of the more silly things ever posted here.
Get in touch with reality.
There is a war going on in Iraq.
If anything, we're fools for letting them keep ANY of their weapons.  The Kurds got to keep theirs, because they helped.

I know some of you geniuses may be shocked by this bit of news, but the Iraqis are not US citizens.  All you are doing is projecting your favorite domestic political concern onto THEIR situation.
This preposterous concern for Iraqi "rights" is a joke.
You don't give a damn about any of their rights other than their RKBA.  Why is that?
What about their freedom of speech?
What about their freedom of association?
What about their 4th Ammendment rights?

Pure projection.
Your concern is touching, but disingenuous.

Puh-leeze.... The ONLY reason this rule was reversed, is because the Iraqi's are doing what the European Jews should have done when they came for their guns. Make them pay. American soldiers are dying BECAUSE of the policy. Iraqi's are using their "Liberty Teeth", against all comers, both criminal, and military...

If only our great-grandparents had done the same, we would not be confronted with the situation WE are in now.

Will we rise to the occasion?? Or will another WEAKER generation in the future have to deal with it???

American soldiers are dying, because they are being shot by Muslim extremists who came from OUTSIDE Iraq to fight the Americans, and Iraqi Baathists, who don't like us invading and conquering their nation, and are holding out.

You WANT the reason Americans are dying over there to be a direct result of our gun confiscating.  It simply is not so.
It's a direct result of WAR.
Again, you are projecting.

Our stated mission was NOT war against the Iraqi people, it was Saddam Hussien, and the Baath Party apparatus.



Actually, Second Amendment is one of the LEAST of my personal concerns. You like to make assumptions about people like that all the time??



I don't recall expressing "concern" about Iraqi "rights", at all. If you read back, you will see, I stated concern for the fact the Iraqis have closer to what WE SHOULD have under our Constitution.



It's interesting that someone on a pro-gun board, thinks that Iraqis should have a better deal than American citizens do when it comes to RKBA, and that my expression of that concern is seen as "touching, but disingenuous".....

Please.
Yet across the board we are trampling their "Constitutional" rights.
I mentioned all of the violations, yet all you care about is this one.  It makes one think you're just prtending to be concerned about their "rights".
As if our Constitution even pertains to them!

No where have I expressed such a sentiment.
I'm talking about the conduct of a war.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC GUN RIGHTS, HERE AT HOME.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
...I don't give a damn about the Iraqis, or their imaginary "Constitutional" rights.
We are at war with them.

And some of the fiercest fighting came from those dressed as civilians.  I have no love for them as a people.  YOU may have bought the "Iraqi Freedom" line, but I guess I'm a little less naive than you.  We're  over their to take care of business.  We're cleaing out "nests" of them, and Iraq's right in the middle of it all.  

The war continues, and you like to pretend the American casualties are because of imaginary violations of the Iraqis' "Constitutional" rights.
If you are so concerned about THEIR rights, why not speak up about their right to not be invaded.

When I talk about Americans' Constitutional rights, Iraq just doesn't come up as a topic.
Nor does Pygmy cannibalism, Egyptian female driving privilages, or Tibetan property rights.
That's just me.