Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.
Well, I'm sure that Saddam isn't worried that the Iraqi commoners will go "Athens" on his a**.
However, in this country we do have the precedent...
;-)
Well, Timothy Noah (writer) may not be aware of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons (paper, scissors, rock... chemical weapons outgun handguns, duh), but the Iraqi people are sure aware of them as indicated in the story about the run on birds in Iraq by a population that is anticipating their dictator will be using it on them.
Then you are extremely misinformed. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the public to violently overthrow the government if it is ever necessary.
James Madison disagrees. Federalist 46.
-------------------
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Well it mustn't be that obvious since you missed the relevant observations completely. One of those would be that the ammo is controlled by sodom's butt boys. The other is that the relevant war is over and sodom's rule reigns. The proagandists that wrote this piece also failed to count how many homes have gas masks and antibiotics.
The fundamental question you're attempting to gloss over is whether, or not folks will rise to the occassion and fight for their Freedom and the Freedom of their fellows. Their will always be those that strive to gain supremacy in the drive for authoritarian rule, but that will never be found in the soul of the Free. They have no desire to rule over their fellows. See Freedom is the only valid justification for warfare. All else is nothing more than a struggle to exert some arbitrary will on those they can subjugate by force.
In Iraq, and that part of the world in general, there exists various and similar authoritarian worldviews and political mechanics that have established themselves. Freedom for the most part is a foreign concept. In this country it's not. Their is still a good percentage of the population that firmly believes that enduring Freedom is the only valid way of life to live, and the only valid cause to fight for. In other places, the question is always, "which moron is a worthy of our obedience, or which bozo has the most loot to offer?"
You may think that the announcement, "MOLON LABE", is nothing more than the cry of a crackpot, but the Free do not and they will fight. The question the gun grabbers should ask is not whether they command sufficient combat power, but-"DO THEY FEEL LUCKY?"
Let's say you get your wish. A Federal Firearms Registration Act is passed and signed into law.
How would this reduce the level of violent criminal activity in the United States?
Anyway, on Greta Van Susteran's show on FOXNEWS tonight, she had on a Turkish reporter who just came back from Iraq and she reports that the VAST MAJORITY of the Iraqi people would see the Americans as liberators when we finally get around to removing the "BREW DALL" dictator. Boy, are the liberals going to be pissed when they see the Iraqi people so happy to have been liberated from this "BREW DALL" dictator. And will the Iraqi people ever be pissed with the liberals who were so adamant about keeping the "BREW DALL" dictator in power.
Iraq has a vested interest in who has guns, and who does not.
If you know who has a gun, and you know who supports you, and who does not, you can confiscate the guns of those who do not support you.
Even if you do not know who supports you, and who does not, you can simply check the registry, and confiscate all guns that are registered. Why guess?
If you do NOT have a registry, you do not know who has guns and who does not, so you cannot confiscate them, and you are more leary of performing an action that oppresses your people.
Unregistered gun ownership is a good thing in a free society.
Washi
p.s. You are a troll
The entire argument is built on a false premise.
From Wash Post
"The large-scale distribution of weapons began during the war with Iran, when the government gave Iraqi-made AK-47s to decommissioned soldiers, members of the ruling Baath Party and tribal leaders. But it has dramatically escalated in recent months. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said last month that officials had handed out "hundreds of thousands of weapons" since the Bush administration began deploying additional forces to the Persian Gulf.
One group largely left out of the gun distribution has been Shiite Muslims, who make up about 55 percent of the population but whose allegiance has been questioned by Hussein and other top leaders, who are predominantly Sunni Muslims. In 1991, after the Persian Gulf War, Shiites rebelled against government forces in several southern cities. Today, some Shiites still are quietly loyal to a large opposition group based in Iran, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leader has vowed to send fighters into Iraq to oppose Hussein if U.S. forces invade. "
First the information is sourced from the Iraqi government.
Secondly, it's a safe bet to assume that only loyal Baath Party members have guns.
This is because we have always had guns.
The leftist media can't even come to grips that there are WMD in Iraq, but they purport to know that most households have guns. Horsehockey.