Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA

Slate.com ^ | 03/14/2003 | Timothy Noah

[Pitchfork]

In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's … you get the idea.

The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to chatterbox@slate.com) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.

[Long Cut]

I guess what tees me off the most is that these rocket scientists NEVER have the nizzuts to stick around and defend their positions.

Of all the vices of the Left, their absolutely most scorn-worthy is their limitless, craven cowardice.

[fish hawk]

Pitchfork seems to have gone away!!! What does that tell us? Post trash and run.

[RandallFlagg]

Well, he/she just did. Better than other hit-and-runners; ya gotta give him/her that much.

[Long Cut]

Oh hey, it has crawled out from under its rock...to pat itself on the back!!

It must have gotten bored doing its homework tonight.

"I teach american government!"

Then at least try to teach it properly.

[jwalsh07]

Yeah, good riddens.

[RandallFlagg]

"1. Its easy to rile up you yahoos by posting an anti-gun article."

Your using the term, "You Yahoos" tells us a lot about you. You're either from The Dark Side, or your 'Puter died right after you signed up in 2001-10-18 (Two posts??).

"or Sadly while your barrage of responses may be intense, the aren't very intelligent. Try harder!"

And, that statement says it all.

[weaponeer]

The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court.

How about..."The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and ENFORCED by the PEOPLE."

We haven't been doing a very good job.

[Dan from Michigan]

2. The notion that Iraqi's have guns is a) false, b)propaganda, c) overstated.

O.K.I can buy that the evidence might be weak. Would any of you be prepared to abandon your dogma if it weren't?

No. It's called the constitution.

3. In response to supercat's criminals using lists point There are currently a number of states that require firearm registration I have yet to hear about criminals using that list to pick victims. Moreover one would think that crime would be rampant in Canada where guns are resticted and registered yet the opposite is true. The idea is quite paranoid and has no factual support.

Well, Michigan has gun registration. It also has one of the higher crime rates in the USA. Gun registration works well, doesn't it. Also, Strathclyde Scotland is "gun free". Around 2000(I think), they had 81 murders(all weapons). Population 380,000. It's been a couple of years since I looked this up, but I think they had more murders than San Antonio(population over a million) and Charlotte NC which also has a higher population. In Michigan, only Flint and Detroit had higher rates.

4. I am a moron who hasn't read the constitution.

I teach american government! The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court. The court doesn't appear to share the NRA's veiw on the second ammendment at this time.

Teaching American Government doesn't mean anything. I've had some history teachers who were not in my league. I've had some that knew what they were talking about. Read US v Miller, and that's when Miller could not show up to give his side. US v Emerson is another case.

The federal governments job is to do what we as citizens ask it to do within the boundaries of the Consitution. Given the fact that no federal firearms law has ever been overturned by the Court, it would appear the FG has yet to exceed its constitutional mandate in this area.

Emerson again.

1. Its easy to rile up you yahoos by posting an anti-gun article. Sadly while your barrage of responses may be intense, the aren't very intelligent. Try harder!

Yeah, gun control works. Ask Strathclyde.....

[Cvengr]

Obvious answer: When socialism leads the country it migrates into a police state.

[Dan from Michigan]

BTW - The NY Slimes is not a credible source on this issue. Because someone said it, doesn't make it true.

[Pitchfork]

OK, I'll post again. But I have to say the quality of your arguments has not improved!

1. A few respondents seem to support my contention by arguing that Tanks beat small arms.

This is one of my favorite points in this debate. The gun radicals will hilariously later make the claim that we ought to be able to own anti-tank weapons! Did you hear they are patrolling airport to make sure no shoulder mounted SAMs are targeted at passenger planes! More access to arms is NOT what the country needs.

2. A few of you resort of ad-hominem attacks

(yawn) Cyberspace makes my skin thick--keep thinking if you've got the horsepower.

3. One poster notes that US troops being inherently conservative would never obey an order to attack thier own populace.

Anyone recall Kent State?!

There were a few intelligent posts (or at least one) that correctly observes that the stability of our consitutional system depends not on the farcical proposition that we might take up arms against the government but instead on the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Of course this just supports my point that non-registration is unsupported by the 'protect democracy from tyranny by arms' rant.

[jwalsh07]

I teach american government! The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court. The court doesn't appear to share the NRA's veiw on the second ammendment at this time. So to claim I am in error is to only reveal an alarming lack of attention on your part

And I presume you tell your students the same balderdash? The fifth circuit has ruled that the right is an individual right.

What the ninth circuit says is of little or no consequence, they are the most overturned asseblage of leftists in America.

But what's more is the original intent which is clearly sspelled out in the federalits papers. Ever heard of those?

The notion that the founders of this country, after having just fought a revolution against a tyrant with privately owned weapons, would have intended for the government to control the citizens weapons is so stupid as to not even be debatable.

The eminent Lawrence Tribe, one of your pals, has also acknowledged the same thing.

[dersepp]

Sit on your namesake.

[jwalsh07]

Anyone recall Kent State?!

Yes, all the more reason for citizens to be armed. The Kent State fiasco was a result of poorly trained National Guard troops and thier equally poorly trained commanders.

[semaj]

"There is an additional requirement to possessing and knowing how to use your firearms and that is the balls to do so if the need ever arises. You will find that Americans gun owners are not sheep pal."

Bravo! Bravo!

[Jhoffa_]

The federal governments job is to do what we as citizens ask it to do within the boundaries of the Consitution.

Please find for me where in our Constitution this power is granted to the Federal Government.

[Pitchfork]

One circut! That's a long way from game-set-match.

Original intent is a particular interpretation doctrine, there are others. Like religions, all make the claim they are the true way; all are probably wrong.

[jwalsh07]

This is one of my favorite points in this debate. The gun radicals will hilariously later make the claim that we ought to be able to own anti-tank weapons! Did you hear they are patrolling airport to make sure no shoulder mounted SAMs are targeted at passenger planes! More access to arms is NOT what the country needs.

You apparently skipped the Vietnam War in your march to become an uninformed history teacher, eh?

[dighton]

2. A few of you resort of ad-hominem attacks.

Terrible, just terrible. Call the police.

Quote: "Its [sic] easy to rile up you yahoos by posting an anti-gun article."