The right to bear arms is not enshrined in the new Iraqi constitution, there is even talk of disarming the militias. Not even Saddam tried to disarm the Iraqi people. If Bush can do it in Iraq, what is stopping him doing it in the USA?
2007-01-06 19:48:35 · 17 answers · asked by Sheik Yerbouti 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm sorry but Bush did not write up the Iraqi constitution... that is something that needs to be addressed else where. We have laws regulating that right, so not just any one can legally own a gun and no one can just walk in to a store legally and buy one without either a waiting period of showing tons of proof that you are who you are.
2007-01-06 19:52:17 · answer #1 · answered by 2007 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A good point. The Iraqi Constitution came out while I was in Baghdad. As I suspected, it reads a lot more like the Soviet Constitution, and the constitutions of virtually every other nation. In our Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, the various enumerated rights are defined as: "Congress shall make no law...". In the Iraqi Constitution, the Iraqis are guaranteed various right, which is followed by: "except as provided by law". In other words, you have the right until we decide that you don't.
I suspect that this is because "constitutional experts" from the US (more specifically, the Council on Foreign Relations) were not about to make the Iraqi people sovereign over their government, the way we are. Their government is their leaders, our government is our servants (although it seems that some of them have forgotten that fact).
When I was there, every Iraqi home was allowed on pistol or rifle (generally AK-47) for defense. They were not allowed crew served weapons, or belt fed weapons. Natually, RPG-7s were not allowed. I remember their constitution considering posessions of arms being considered a priviledge, granted at the government's pleasure.
I agree, guns are too dangerous a thing to allow politicians to have a monopoly on.
2007-01-07 14:09:08 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lets try to toss some facts into this debate:
First of all - the Iraqi people choose the representative who wrote their Constitution in a national election.
Second: The Iraqi people approved the new constitution in a national referendum.
Third: Iraqi law and custom allows each household to keep one AK-47.
Fourth: There is not, nor has been any attempt to seize personally owned weapons in Iraq.
2007-01-07 06:53:16 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not really. That right, given to us by the Second amendment of the Constitution, should be held back, at least for now, from the Iraqi People. Why? Because the american presence in Iraq makes it necessary for us to keep as many weapons out of the hands of Iraqis, seeing there Recent history, both with us there and before our invasion of Iraq, In previous years. when we are gone, They can do what they Like to and For themselves. To allow Weapons In there constitution would be like giving a Baby Dynamite. I'm not going to speak on what they do Outside the Laws and constitution, because then we would then be talking about giving C4 to a Baby That already has Nitroglycerine. Not my best analogy, But it'll do.
What's stopping him from Doing that here? The Bill Of Rights. Nothing he does, without offering an amendment to the Constitution, can affect These basic rights. And Anything he Does In terms of An attempt at changing the Constitution will be HEAVILY Scrutinized by both the press and the people. and That goes for ANY Sitting president attempting to amend the Constitution and the bill of rights.
Enjoy
Uncle Mike
2007-01-06 20:13:26 · answer #4 · answered by Oopaack 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush didn't make the new Iraq constitution right now they need to just stop fighting then the Iraq people can come up with new laws
2007-01-06 23:10:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The bill of rights=the constitution of the united states=freedom to vote-must I say more. Iraq is not a democracy and never will be with the class and religious hatred for each other. If bush tries any of his strong armed tactics there's always Cheney =who might take bush hunting with him.
2007-01-06 20:03:22 · answer #6 · answered by Extra Blue Note 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm an arab, and live in the middle east, and believe me i'm totally against that right for the iraqi's or anyone else for that matter, to have arms outside the military.
I believe that armory should be in the hands of the military only.
We've all seen what the militia's in Iraq are using those weapons for .. if they do actually want what's better for their country . they should join the military.
2007-01-06 19:54:10 · answer #7 · answered by Fadi K 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
sure if the knives are legal in length to be donning interior the 1st place. that's bull crap I even have the marvelous to undergo hands yet i might desire to head with the aid of a million 3 hundred and sixty 5 days of proccessing for a hid weapons license
2016-10-30 05:34:27 · answer #8 · answered by arrocha 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why? Its not our business to butt into another country's constitution. Once America pulls out of Iraq they'll make whatever amendments to their constitution they want regardless of Bushs' desires. If Bush wants arms to be banned in Iraq its just another example of his stupidity. But he believes strongly in our right to bear arms since he himself owns guns & rifles. He would never contenance such an amendment to ban our right to bear arms.
2007-01-06 19:57:04 · answer #9 · answered by Judith 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush didn't make this law...even if he did it would be of good common sense to do so! For the most part that entire country is turned upside down still....why would you want just anyone to have the right to carry a weapon at this point?
2007-01-06 20:29:51 · answer #10 · answered by Jacqui 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋