US disarms IRaqis to reduce lawlessnes

[a_unique_person]

Small arms amnesty begins in Iraq
Sunday 1 June 2003, 8:06 PM




The US-led coalition began collecting personal weapons today in a campaign to stem lawlessness in post-war Iraq, as Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair faced charges of having "duped" the public over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Coalition commanders opened weapons collection points at police stations around Iraq as they began a two-week countdown to the imposition of tight new controls on firearms.




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/01/1054406074330.html

Good for the goose, but not the gander.

[Jon_in_london]

Pro-gun lobby?

[Agammamon]

At least we'll get another first hand example of how tight gun controls don't work. Not that it will make any difference to the G/C lobby. "Hi, I'm a terrorist/partisan/criminal and I'd like to turn my guns in."

[Richard G]

We are going out of our way to allow the citizens to keep weapons in their home for self defense. They are attempting to round up machine guns, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft weapons, and weapons with a bore larger than 7.62mm. Only open, public displays of firearms are being confiscated.

Notice that the lawlessness in Baghdad is being kept in check by armed citizens. A very desireable side effect of an armed people.

[crackmonkey]

Possession of full-auto AK-47s is frowned upon in the US as well.

[aerocontrols]

The occupying powers are treating Iraq as if it were a conquered nation. I know this may shock you, AUP.

When Iraq writes its constitution, I hope it puts in gun rights language.

I also have a problem with violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, but I'm not going to argue that the US military should not be acting as a law enforcement body in Iraq.

Crackmonkey... 'frowned upon'? I thought it was next to impossible to get fully automatic weapons in the US? It's my understanding that if you want to legally own a fully auto weapon in the states, you get monthy visits from the ATF's proctologist.

MattJ

[crackmonkey]

It was my understanding that a gun dealer could get some kind of certification that allows possession of some full-auto weapons.
It USED to be that way, anyway...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It was my understanding that a gun dealer could get some kind of certification that allows possession of some full-auto weapons.
It USED to be that way, anyway...

Citizens can get authorization to own full-auto weapons, in any state.

It's just quite rare because the hurdles are pretty high, and the cost of the weapons and ammo (not that a 9mm shells for full-auto are more expensive, just that shooting them full-auto tends to be) is VERY high, and (I believe) full-auto weapons made after 1970-something are illegal to buy/sell.

MattJ

[Ed]

Nonsense and selective reporting. From the Times, yesterday:

"Allied Officials Now Allow Iraqi Civilians to Keep Assault Rifles"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/international/worldspecial/01IRAQ.html

So, for your political views, you would deny people the righ to defend themselves?


Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/01/1054406074330.html

Good for the goose, but not the gander.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Citizens can get authorization to own full-auto weapons, in any state.

It's just quite rare because the hurdles are pretty high, and the cost of the weapons and ammo (not that a 9mm shells for full-auto are more expensive, just that shooting them full-auto tends to be) is VERY high, and (I believe) full-auto weapons made after 1970-something are illegal to buy/sell.

MattJ

Actually the date is May 19, 1986. You can purchase any fully auto firearm made prior to that date as long as you pay the $200 tax and pass the BATF rectal exam.

[ssibal]

They are not losing all their weapons:
They would, however, be allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes and carry licensed hand guns on the street.



http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2856095

[a_unique_person]

It does, however, illustrate a basic point. Too many weapons = lawlessness.

[crackmonkey]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I'd say that a large number of weapons plus a large number of terrorists equals violence...

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It does, however, illustrate a basic point. Too many weapons = lawlessness.

Switzerland, Isreal? Not so basic methinks.

Also Army bases, war zones, gun shows, police stations. I think you win the logic prize with that one.

[reprise]

Define "too many" weapons.

[Ed]

Originally posted by reprise
Define "too many" weapons.


Easy. A number greater than what I own:D