Blogcritics: Comments on Liberate the people of Iraq!

Comment by Randy M

Tue, 27 May 2003 07:33:19 EDT

I don't think the soldiers are actively searching peoples homes looking for weapons. You all are right, it should be, and as far as I know is, the Iraqi peoples right to own guns. We must understand that right now our soldiers are getting fired upon still. Surely you understand the logic behind this statement: "If we see you with a gun, we shoot you." I don't much blame the troops in Iraq. They already have to deal with trying to distinguish Joe Shmoe's mom out buying food and some Islamic militant trying to blow up their damn fool selves and take a military check point out with her/him. Give every individual coming toward them a weapon and it complicates their decision considerably. We aren't denying the Iraqi people ownership, just putting their conceal and carry priviledges on hold for a while till the country finds it's feet, gets its own police force up to par. Now if any one can supply proof that we are searching house to house taking all weapons we find reguardless of their intended purpose then I'll jump on your band wagon, but if it helps the troops make that desicion on good guy/bad guy any easier and helps bring a few more of our sons, brothers, daughters home safely then GO TEAM!!

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Tue, 27 May 2003 03:22:37 EDT

Hell, might as well let them keep some grenades...

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 27 May 2003 02:19:16 EDT

A well armed citizenry is not necessarily invulnerable to a tyrant, as Iraq demonstrates. Still, guns will give the citizens at least a fighting chance. The additional quotes in #2 do somewhat mitigate the situation. But even some relatively heavy armaments might legitimately be most useful in dealing with armed gangs, Ba'athists and just little mafiosos. They're not just talking about defending themselves against simple pickpockets and such.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Mon, 26 May 2003 23:37:57 EDT

"And don't gun people always say: The first sign of tyranny is when the government takes away your guns?" Actually Iraq is a great example of how specious that argument is. It was a tyranny where much of the population still had guns. And it isn't as if they are trying to impose the kind of sensible gun control the great Great Britain has, it is only automatic and heavy weapons. Lt. Gen. David McKiernan said, "The intent is not to completely disarm the Iraqi population of all weapons. That is neither practical nor necessary." The article also says:

Small arms - including small automatic rifles semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols - are allowed in homes and businesses. Public use is prohibited. Only coalition forces, police officers and other uniformed officials under coalition authority are allowed to possess most automatic or heavy weaponry. Owning a firearm is a matter of pride and a sign of manhood to many Iraqi men, especially in rural areas where tribalism and traditional values endure. Saddam Hussein deepened the country's gun culture by appearing frequently in public with a firearm. An image of Saddam firing a rifle with one hand became an icon of his rule, depicted in thousands of posters and murals.

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 26 May 2003 20:12:19 EDT

Iraqis need guns. Dirtbag Ba'athists and fedayeen types have all kinds of weaponry. Much like the logic in the US or anywhere else, only the nice law abiding citizens will willingly give up their guns. Then when the US leaves, or just isn't there right that second, the little guys get run over because they can't defend themselves. Confiscating guns has to be the worst one idea we've pursued of anything in Iraq since the war. Doesn't work here, and will work even worse there. The people may very well need those guns to defend themselves against a nasty rogue government if, for example, the mullahs manage to grab power