Posted on 04/18/2007 7:52:45 AM PDT by freemarket_kenshepherd
For the second day, The Washington Post rounded up hostile global opinion toward America’s gun culture in a Molly Moore story headlined "Va. Killings Widely Seen as Reflecting a Violent Society: World Reaction Mixes Condolences With Criticism of Policies." But Moore’s article turned unintentionally comic when she quoted an Iraqi praising the gun-control policies of....Saddam Hussein. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
Perhaps it’s not surprising for a liberal newspaper to use a terrible mass shooting as an opportunity for pro-Saddam Iraqis to condemn how the United States has ruined their paradise. But it’s hardly a poster for the Brady Campaign’s gun-control aims – and Saddam’s dictatorship is hardly a model of nonviolence. (It can, however, illustrate the gun-rights crowd’s belief in guns as a bulwark against dictatorship.) Moore’s Iraqi section came about halfway through the article:
Nowhere, perhaps, were foreign reactions to the Virginia shooting more impassioned than in Iraq, where many residents blame the United States for the daily killings in their schools, streets and markets.
"It is a little incident if we compare it with the disasters that have happened in Iraq," said Ranya Riyad, 19, a college student in Baghdad. "We are dying every day."
"They are always saying that the Arabs and Muslims are behind the terrorism and the killing," said Hussein Kadhum, 26, a traffic policeman in the heavily Shiite city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
[see NewsBusters for more]
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Molly Moore liked it when the wood chippers ran on time.
Saddam tough on guns? In Iraq, I was told, a citizen can bear a full-auto AK or equivalent.
Firing full-auto into the air is (was?) common at weddings.
We should have Saddam type gun control!
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=45107
LOL. They are only illustrating what pro-constitution and pro-gun are saying for decades.
Gun-control enables Tyrants and Totalitarians. Saddam's Iraq may have lacked "chaotic gun violence", but therefore had a nice array of chemical weapons massacres, propely organized mass-shootings, government torture, genocide campaigns and at least two horrible decade-long wars of aggression against regional neighbours. Yes Saddam the gun-grapper was such a peach...
You need to see this.
Enemies of America would love to disarm the American people. They'd be easier to defeat that way. The terrorist cells currently in the U.S. could create their own version of Virginia Tech.
They prefer torture chambers, beheading, dismemberment, and meat grinders. The bodies were easier to dispose of that way. They all landed in one big, neat, bloody pile. Clean up was a breeze.
Saddam, take their guns away then gas them.
...then only he and his military would have them? Hummmm....
Liberals don’t have guns anyway... and the vast majority of law-abiding gun-owning citizens are Republicans.
Hitler instituted gun registration in 1933. When the guns were registered, he knew who to take them off of. When he confiscated them from the Jews, they were unable to defend themselves. 6.5 million Jews died during the Holocaust. That number would be much less if Hitler had not been able to take all of the guns away from the Jews.
I knew Baghdad Bob had found a new job.
I believe Sandy Burglar stole documents pertaining to martial law plans if a terrorist attack ever happened in the U.S. Clinton was deeply disappointed when 9/11 happened outside his watch, and the democrats were blatant about trying to steal the 2000 election for Al Gore, as if they knew this opportunity was coming.
Sandy Burglar got off with a mild verbal spanking, and the facts of the case have never been disclosed. Even the Republicans aren't talking about what he stole.
Sometimes it's best not to tell the American people things, because it could diminish the peoples trust in their government (even worse than it already is).
Right, but the Nazi Gun-law matter is actually a bit worse.
It was the democratic pre-Nazi German “Republic of Weimar” which registered gun-ownership in 1928, ironically to curb the fighting between Nazis and Communists.
The Nazis inistituted gun-ban in 1938. They used the gun-owner lists already instituted in 1928 to take away citizen’s (Jewish and non-Jewish alike) guns.
Gun-control is a totalitarian instrument, used by fascists and communists alike to control the people and carry out massmurder.
Socialism believes in sharing the wealth equally. That means everyone would always receive the same amount of pay as another, even if one simply chooses not to labor like the democrats today. So why bother to work at all? The government checks in the mail anyway, right? Why not jump on the freebie bandwagon? You'll still get paid the same either way.
The tax money eventually starts to run out, because no one is bothering to work, invest, invent, or achieve. What reward is there in that? Everything will be taken away anyway to "make it fair" so why bother getting out of bed in the morning? Because there's not enough tax revenue coming in and too much money going out, the government can no longer feed it's dependent people. Some one has to be eliminated. Some one has to become the villain. Someone has to die.
In the UK, the socialized medicine money is running out. Some one has to die. The UK has chosen to let the smokers and the obese die from lack of health care. Right now, they are the "wasteful villains. " A few years from now, another group will have to be sacrificed in the name of "fairness and equality."
Liberals don't drive SUVS or fly private aircraft either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.