Fascist Dictatorial American Government to begin seizing Arms from Iraqi citizens

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Hooray for freedom and setting a good example! Ironic how they were legal under the iron fisted rule of Saddam!

Allies to Begin Seizing Weapons From Most Iraqis
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


AGHDAD, May 20 ? Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.

The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.


Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt.

"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

The weapons proclamation, which is to be issued by L. Paul Bremer III, the chief allied administrator for Iraq, and General McKiernan, is part of a broader effort to improve security in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

The need to secure Baghdad and provide security elsewhere in the country is expected to slow the pace of American troop withdrawals from Iraq, allied officials said. The United States has about 165,000 troops in Iraq. It is likely to have 100,000 in the fall, more than American planners had projected just three weeks ago.

Among other steps to strengthen security in Iraq, American forces are deploying a 4,000 strong military police brigade and more Humvees to improve the ability to conduct patrols. They are also repositioning American forces in the capital.

Allied officials are also considering a plan to bring Britain's 16th Air Assault Brigade to Baghdad. If approved by the British government, the British forces would be charged with training the Iraqi police and helping to safeguard the Iraqi capital, allied officials said.

Allied forces, however, do not plan to change the rules of engagement to encourage the shooting of looters, officials said. Allied commanders are eager to avoid an armed confrontation with Iraqi civilians.

There are some circumstances in which looters can be shot under the existing rules, but the main emphasis is to enable American forces to protect themselves against attacks.

Since allied forces toppled Mr. Hussein's government last month, they have struggled to fill the power vacuum in Baghdad and provide security in this capital of 4.5 million people. American military officials insist that the capital is safer than it was a month ago and that progress has been made in restoring essential utilities like electricity and water.

"Looting has gone down and violent crime has gone down," General McKiernan said. "The trend is down."

But robberies, looting, kidnappings and attacks by paramilitary forces are still frequent, prompting allied forces to step up their efforts to secure the country.

The weapons proclamation is an important part of that endeavor. The intention is to reduce attacks against allied forces, reduce crime and stop violent fights among rival Iraqi groups, allied commanders believe.

While General McKiernan talked about the ban in broad terms, other officials provided details.

Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.

Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.

For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.

Those who do obtain such licenses ? security guards, for example ? will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/worldspecial/21DISA.html?ex=1054094400&en=bedbde438a3299e8&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Various snippets from the article:

"We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

"Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection."

Wow Phokus. This little rant was absolutely brilliant! So tell me Phokus, do you keep your RPG-7 at home or school? Or how about Semtex, TNT or C-4 just to "have a blast" in your spare time? Fun, ain't it? Is your AK full-auto? Hey, hey... rock and roll, babeeee!

Pssst: Will you let me in on the little secret about how I can be legally allowed to keep RPGs and C-4 at home here in the USA? Where can I legally purchase full-auto weapons and explosives at flea markets? I promise not to tell.

<sarcasm off>Now, before you go into your puny self-serving "burnedout is anti-gun" mode, be advised I probably own more firearms than you, have been shooting longer than you and am a member of the NRA. I'm sorry, but the protection of our troops is more important than a screwy little agenda.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: PipBoy
I don't see a problem with taking frickin RPGs out of the hands of the general public.

Jokus's oligophrenia causes him to spastically post whatever comes to mind. Similar to Turets Syndrome but instead of curse words it's moronic posts.

 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: burnedout
Various snippets from the article:

"We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

"Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection."

Wow Phokus. This little rant was absolutely brilliant! So tell me Phokus, do you keep your RPG-7 at home or school? Or how about Semtex, TNT or C-4 just to "have a blast" in your spare time? Fun, ain't it? Is your AK full-auto? Hey, hey... rock and roll, babeeee!

Pssst: Will you let me in on the little secret about how I can be legally allowed to keep RPGs and C-4 at home here in the USA? Where can I legally purchase full-auto weapons and explosives at flea markets? I promise not to tell.

<sarcasm off>Now, before you go into your puny self-serving "burnedout is anti-gun" mode, be advised I probably own more firearms than you, have been shooting longer than you and am a member of the NRA. I'm sorry, but the protection of our troops is more important than a screwy little agenda.


1. It's not just "RPG's", it's also AK 47's and other "Scary looking machineguns".

2. Where does it say in the constitution that only guns are protected?

3. Nice assumption you make there, tell me, where did you become so clairvoyant, you know how many guns i own or how long i've used them?
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76
All they really need to do is outlaw things like folding stocks and bayonet lugs.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
1. It's not just "RPG's", it's also AK 47's and other "Scary looking machineguns".
To begin with, where in the article does it say "Scary looking machineguns"? Next, I am so happy that you are so educated on the "harmless" effects of fully automatic weapons in the hands of hostile, host-nation citizenry (read: anarchy). RPKs are just a joke, right? Oh yes, belt-fed machineguns in the hands of those we have just defeated! Will you accompany the Army or USMC chaplain on his next visit to the families of the KIA so that you can further proliferate this otherwise insane agenda? I thought you would.

2. Where does it say in the constitution that only guns are protected?
Ah yes, the good old constitutionality test. Oh for the failure of our founding fathers! I mean, how could they not forsee man-portable, explosive rocketry in the late 18th century! How could they not forsee that when we deploy our sons abroad, they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves. I'm happy that you are so trusting of the Iraqis, Phokus. I really am.

3. Nice assumption you make there, tell me, where did you become so clairvoyant, you know how many guns i own or how long i've used them?
Have you been shooting for 30 years? Served 20 in the Army? Ever had a local point an AK at you or your men while on patrol in a "peacekeeping" situation? Yep, warm and fuzzy feeling, eh Phokus?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Phokus hasn't read the constitution, or much less a history book. He just finds lots of politically oriented nasty decribers and lets them pour forth, regardless of the total lack of logic.

Pretty cool how we vote our dictators in every 4 years here isn't it? Course, they never win with the margins Saddam did. It requires them to be a member of a vast right wing zionist conspiracy.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
I thought this administration believed that if everyone had an automatic weapon, there would be no crime. Shouldn't the same apply for Iraq?
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
Fascist Dictatorial American Government to begin seizing Arms from Iraqi citizens
Let me know when they start seizing Legs from Iraqi citizens and I might agree with you.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: BDawg
I thought this administration believed that if everyone had an automatic weapon, there would be no crime. Shouldn't the same apply for Iraq?

LMAO, you think the Irakis have rights????

They should be happy that they at least have it better now... equality is for suckers...
 

HwK2

Member
Jul 17, 2001
166
0
76
Everyone even considering this thread , also aught to consider the author Phokus' thread.

I am from SC, and I guess I make a great pet.


Looking forward to a prompt, and I am sure witty reply.


HK
South Carolina
 

Ltroy24

Member
Mar 4, 2003
43
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Various snippets from the article:

"We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

"Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection."

Wow Phokus. This little rant was absolutely brilliant! So tell me Phokus, do you keep your RPG-7 at home or school? Or how about Semtex, TNT or C-4 just to "have a blast" in your spare time? Fun, ain't it? Is your AK full-auto? Hey, hey... rock and roll, babeeee!

Pssst: Will you let me in on the little secret about how I can be legally allowed to keep RPGs and C-4 at home here in the USA? Where can I legally purchase full-auto weapons and explosives at flea markets? I promise not to tell.

<sarcasm off>Now, before you go into your puny self-serving "burnedout is anti-gun" mode, be advised I probably own more firearms than you, have been shooting longer than you and am a member of the NRA. I'm sorry, but the protection of our troops is more important than a screwy little agenda.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
2. Where does it say in the constitution that only guns are protected?

"...The right to keep and bear arms..."

Ordinance was the word used back in the 18th century to describe things such as cannons and other crew served weapons. Thus, guns are protected, having your own personal tank isnt.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: BDawg
I thought this administration believed that if everyone had an automatic weapon, there would be no crime. Shouldn't the same apply for Iraq?

Yes, yes, you are right, thats why Bush announced he was in favor of extending the assault weapons ban. And none of those are even automatic weapons... just semis
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Hooray for freedom and setting a good example! Ironic how they were legal under the iron fisted rule of Saddam!

Maybe we should allow the new Iraqi government to continue torturing its citizens. After all, we wouldnt want to outlaw anything that was formerly legal in Iraq.

That said, while I see the reasons to confiscate the AKs, I am not entirely convinced that we should, at least not on a permanent basis. The RPGs and explosives, well, I dont see much of a problem there
 

Chobits

Senior member
May 12, 2003
230
0
0
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Phokus
2. Where does it say in the constitution that only guns are protected?

"...The right to keep and bear arms..."

Ordinance was the word used back in the 18th century to describe things such as cannons and other crew served weapons. Thus, guns are protected, having your own personal tank isnt.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militas do not exist in the manner that was thought of at the time therefore it is unecessary for people to bear and keep arms since the situation is much different from 200 years ago.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Maybe Saddam wasn't as hated as the US made him out to be? Its surprising that a horrible despot could stay in power as long as he did with every other guy packing heat.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Maybe Saddam wasn't as hated as the US made him out to be? Its surprising that a horrible despot could stay in power as long as he did with every other guy packing heat.

Just a little bit of research will tell you when Saddam started arming his people.

Hint: It was fairly recent.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,858
13,985
146
We disarmed Germany and Japan (though, their governments had done most of the work for us long before we got there) after WWII. It's common sense, unless you want people shooting at your troops.

That said, they are allowed to keep small, semi-auto and lesser weapons. All fully auto weapons and larger are being gathered up. It's the same thing here in the states. Wouldn't piss you off if we allowed the Iraqis more freedom than ourselves during our occupation?

 

Sternfan

Senior member
May 24, 2003
203
0
0
Phokus
Lets not let facts or common sense get in the way of the truth. It would be insane to leave all those guns on the streets now.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Chobits
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Phokus
2. Where does it say in the constitution that only guns are protected?

"...The right to keep and bear arms..."

Ordinance was the word used back in the 18th century to describe things such as cannons and other crew served weapons. Thus, guns are protected, having your own personal tank isnt.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militas do not exist in the manner that was thought of at the time therefore it is unecessary for people to bear and keep arms since the situation is much different from 200 years ago.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii[/q

Gee, glad you quoted the second amendment, I had never read ti before
rolleye.gif
. As to the other part of your post, the USSC has been skirting the issue for a while, but they have never denied the 2nd as NOT pertaining to individual rights.

You know, the founding fathers didnt take email, electronic forums, telephones, etc into consideration when crafting the 1st amendment. By your logic, the 1st amendment shouldnt apply to those, either