See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Question For BeAChooser
Source:
me
URL Source: http://none
Published: Apr 29, 2007
Author: Diana
Post Date: 2007-04-29 15:02:21 by Diana
Keywords: Question, For, BeAChooser
Views: 1033
Comments: 17
BeAChooser, there is something I have been wondering about, something few seem to talk about, yet I find it very odd. When Saddam was in power, the Iraqi people owned lots of guns, all kinds of weapons, in fact they were encouraged to. They had quite a gun culture and as we know during celebrations they would shoot their guns into the air and such. What I want to know is how is it that a brutal dictator would allow his citizens to have all sorts of weapons including automatic weapons, probably more than we are allowed to have in this country? Please don't accuse me of being a Saddam-lover, I am far from that, I just find this very curious and would like an explanation, if there is one. Since you seem to have all the answers I decided you would know the answer to this too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Diana (#0)
(Edited)
Saddam obviously did not fit the entire definition of a dictator and had little reason to fear the people. Regardless of his ruthlessness, no amount of security could protect him from all those weapons in all of his many public appearances. Nobody went around blowing up Saddam's people when he was in power now did they? Our benevolent StateInc certainly does have something to fear as evidenced by the remission and revocation of almost every Liberty we once enjoyed. Ironic that TheStateInc fears us more than they do "foreigners/importation of terrorists" as evidenced by the wide open Meskin border and Chinp's desire to import even more cultural chaos into this country, which will eventually destroy it. How does TheStateInc justify fighting Islamic boogeymen by restricting the Liberties of American citizens??? It can not.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition That's another one I've been trying to figure out, it makes no sense to me at all. We're not the enemy, we're the ones who are supposedly to be protected from the terrorists. So that too is a major puzzle to me.
Saddam didn't arm the populace, until it was obvious that Bush was coming through the gates. He knew he'd lose & set the stage for what is now termed "the insurgency."
There was an article posted on LP at some point within the last couple of years which claimed that the Iraqi people had more weapons per capita than the people of the United States do. IIRC these weapons included access to fully automatic weapons, RPG's, grenade launchers, grenades, etc. I don't know how true the story was, but I do not remember anyone arguing over the information given in the article. Instead the debate was over whether or not the Iraqi's people's access to weapons gave them the abilty to overthrow Saddam had they chose to, and whether or not it even made a difference.
hey HF, good to see you, missed you.
BAC, your wisdom is in demand. Please answer question.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
We're not the enemy, we're the ones who are supposedly to be protected from the terrorists. So that too is a major puzzle to me. The whole point of the 9-11 perps was to take over THIS country, to silence critics, to make Bush and others "heroes" who would be followed, to implement restrictions on travel, free speech, and constitutional rights, to tag and track US. They don't give a damn about a bunch of sand chiggers.
No 2nd Amendment in Iraq constitution Colin Powell hails prohibition on arms while emphasizing 'liberty' By Ron Strom © 2004 http://WorldNetDaily.com Iraq's new interim constitution sounds many of the same themes as the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of the people – with one stark difference: There is no right to keep and bear arms in the new charter. As Secretary of State Colin Powell hailed Monday's signing of the document, which lays out the time line for Iraqi self-government, he encouraged his audience to read the new constitution. "Read this administrative law, and read what the Governing Council has written for the people of Iraq," he said in a speech commemorating International Women's Day Monday. "Read what it says about the rights of all Iraqis, the rights of women. Read what it says about a free judiciary. Read what it says about the military firmly being under control of the civilian authority." Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of "rights" and "liberty." ... The only reference to individual ownership of arms is in Article 17: "It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law." Based on that provision, individual gun ownership can easily be restricted by use of statutory law. Article 27 addresses the formation of militias: "Armed forces and militias not under the command structure of the Iraqi Transitional Government are prohibited, except as provided by federal law. " A leading gun-rights organization strongly disagreed with leaving out a right to bear arms. "It's a very big mistake," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America. "What an interesting contrast to what our Founding Fathers thought." Pratt emphasized America's founders believed it crucial for citizens to have the right to own arms to prevent what Iraq has endured for decades: tyranny. ........ Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
All one need do to understand what they want to do to us here, is read the Iraqi Constitution.
What I want to know is how is it that a brutal dictator would allow his citizens to have all sorts of weapons including automatic weapons, probably more than we are allowed to have in this country?
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose." -- IndieTX
#2. To: IndieTX (#1)
How does TheStateInc justify fighting Islamic boogeymen by restricting the Liberties of American citizens???
#3. To: Diana (#0)
#4. To: Diana (#0)
What I want to know is how is it that a brutal dictator would allow his citizens to have all sorts of weapons including automatic weapons, probably more than we are allowed to have in this country?
#5. To: Hayek Fan (#4)
#6. To: Diana, BeAChooser, TREASONOUS QUEER! (#0)
#7. To: Diana (#2)
That's another one I've been trying to figure out, it makes no sense to me at all.
#8. To: Diana (#0)
#9. To: wbales (#8)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#10. To: Diana, ALL (#0)
Are you trying to suggest he wasn't a brutal dictator, Diana? Because I'm afraid you won't get very far basing anything on that claim. You will only end up discrediting yourself. But as to your question ... perhaps your assertion is wrong? http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/did_iraqis_own_.html "In March, Neil MacFarquhar of the New York Times asserted that guns were easy and legal to obtain in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ... snip ... Today, however, John Tierney of the New York Times reports that "Mr. Hussein, never one to tolerate competition, forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry." By the way, if what you say were true, one could perhaps claim Saddam's Iraq proves gun rights do not secure liberty. Care to go there?
When Saddam was in power, the Iraqi people owned lots of guns, all kinds of weapons, in fact they were encouraged to. They had quite a gun culture and as we know during celebrations they would shoot their guns into the air and such.
What I want to know is how is it that a brutal dictator would allow his citizens to have all sorts of weapons including automatic weapons, probably more than we are allowed to have in this country?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)
They don't secure liberty here either. Not yet anyway. But, when enough people have had enough, having those gun rights will be a good starting place for making much needed changes.
By the way, if what you say were true, one could perhaps claim Saddam's Iraq proves gun rights do not secure liberty. Care to go there?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#12. To: BeAChooser (#10)
Because I'm afraid you won't get very far basing anything on that claim. No, YOU'RE the one making a claim because all I did was ask a question.
Are you trying to suggest he wasn't a brutal dictator, Diana?
#13. To: Paul Revere (#7)
I really hope you are wrong, but if you aren't, what would be the benefits to the govt restricting the citizenry? The only thing I can think of is financial incentive, but I fail to see how that would work.
The whole point of the 9-11 perps was to take over THIS country, to silence critics, to make Bush and others "heroes" who would be followed, to implement restrictions on travel, free speech, and constitutional rights, to tag and track US.
#14. To: BeAChooser (#10) (Edited)
You know who else was is a dictator in that region? YOUR president's allies in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Where is your outrage about them, you lying Bush shill? Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but by mideast standards, just another strong man WE SUPPLIED AND MADE WHO HE WAS. He killed a million Iranians, and he killed fewer Iraqis than Bush has been responsible for killing. By any standard, George Bush has been worse for Iraq than Saddam ever was.
#15. To: Diana (#13)
POWER. They want to run things, and to run things, they have to have us under control. The shadow government is at work no matter who is in office, but this time, they had a convenient co-conspirator, just as they had with LBJ. These guys have been operating off the books for 50 years. As for the financial benefits, it's the profits in Big Pharm, Big Munitions, and Big Oil.
really hope you are wrong, but if you aren't, what would be the benefits to the govt restricting the citizenry? The only thing I can think of is financial incentive, but I fail to see how that would work.
#16. To: Paul Revere (#15)
That's a difficult concept for me but I have to accept it does exist, even if I don't understand it.
POWER.
#17. To: christine (#5)
Hi Christine. I just seen this post. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I'm afraid that day all I had time for was a "hit -n-run." This is the busy time of the year for my businesses and although I usually have time to check up and read an article or two, I rarely have time to post. It will be like this for the summer, although with the gas prices rising, things may slow down some.
hey HF, good to see you, missed you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest