15 years for owning a gun

[Berzerker]

And not handing it over to authorities. That's the punishment (according to Fox News) Iraqis are facing if they don't invite troops in to confiscate their guns when asked if they have any.

I know I know, it's a war, but how are Iraqis supposed to defend themselves from Saddam's supporters if we disarm them?

Won't Saddam's supporters have a large supply of weapons stashed anyway or buy them en masse on the black market? If the Iraqi people are disarmed won't that just make it easier for Saddam's loyalists to rule over them once the US cuts back on it's presence?

I don't know how this will win us any support from Iraqis...

[Zylka]

how well did those guns prevent them from coming into power the last time?

[David Floyd]

This is a somewhat different situation, I would think.

Well, maybe this is just another step towards a popular uprising to throw the US out - that'd be the optimal scenario, in my opinion (well, outside of the US packing up and leaving, lock, stock, and barrel, which won't happen).

[Berzerker]

how well did those guns prevent them from coming into power the last time?

I suspect Saddam and his predecessors used gun "control" too.

It has been said the catalyst for Concord and Bunker Hill was the Brits attempt to seize armories...

[Berzerker]

Now maybe this policy is being applied only to the Sunni triangle and not the Kurds and Shi'ites in the south, but even those Sunnis who are glad Saddam is out of power (for now anyway) will need to be able to ward off future attempts by Saddam's cohorts to regain control...

And jailing Iraqis (even if it's just Sunnis) for 15 years for not handing over their guns will only anger the people who are supposed to benefit from our action. Can you imagine being opposed to Saddam and seeing your family member get a 15 year prison term? That's something you'd expect from Saddam, not the warriors for "democracy" who've arrived to liberate you...

[Urban Ranger]

I see that Pal militia is quite ineffectual against the IDF. A bunch of people with small arms simply aren't up to snuff against a regular army.

[Berzerker]

I wouldn't compare the present Iraqi army to the IDF and I'm sure the IDF has been dis-arming Pals for quite a while now.

[Zylka]

and I wouldn't compare the situation in Iraq to Concord and Bunker Hill, presumably which happened a few hundred years ago

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I suspect Saddam and his predecessors used gun "control" too.

It has been said the catalyst for Concord and Bunker Hill was the Brits attempt to seize armories...

you know that everyone in Iraq had small arms

and a group of people with small arms will not stand up to a modern army

and you generally jail people who break the law

that is what is to be expected

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

and I wouldn't compare the situation in Iraq to Concord and Bunker Hill, presumably which happened a few hundred years ago

The situations are comparable in that innocent and armed people were and are being disarmed by occupying forces. Just as the colonists certainly felt they had the moral high ground, Iraqis who want to keep their guns to ward off future tyrants will feel they have the moral high ground.

Jon -

you know that everyone in Iraq had small arms

and a group of people with small arms will not stand up to a modern army

Iraq no longer has a modern army, when the US pulls back there will be another power struggle between Saddam's forces and Iraqis who don't want them coming back into power. Disarming the latter in an attempt to disarm the former may have disastrous consequences and may be disastrous for US troops now and in the immediate future. The US needs as many Iraqis as we can get to help with the transition and jailing people for 15 years will only anger Iraqis.

and you generally jail people who break the law

that is what is to be expected

Morality matters, immoral laws matter too... You want to "liberate" people? Don't jail them for 15 years because they won't hand you their primary means of self-defense...

[Zylka]

The situations are comparable in that innocent and armed people were and are being disarmed by occupying forces.

I wouldn't compare the present Iraqi army to the IDF and I'm sure the IDF has been dis-arming Pals for quite a while now.

Uh oh. Someone's slipping on his own selectivity.

I thought the US were the occupying forces? And in case unclear, the US and IDF use the same hardware - the former being the more powerful. What would you compare, then?

[David Floyd]

Somehow my post got lost...it was along the lines of what Berzerker said:

and you generally jail people who break the law

Morally valid laws don't involve the confiscation of private property.

[Az]

Morally valid laws don't involve the confiscation of private property.

under NO conditions?

[Berzerker]

Uh oh. Someone's slipping on his own selectivity.

I thought the US were the occupying forces? And in case unclear, the US and IDF use the same hardware - the former being the more powerful. What would you compare, then?

This "selectivity" you see is a result of mixing up quotes and arguments. You and I were discussing similarities between Concord and Iraq. UR and I were discussing whether or not armed citizens could stand up to an army and he cited Israel as proof. I pointed out the difference between Iraqis and their current and primary enemy - Saddam - not the US.

The situation in Israel is different in that the US is in Iraq to "liberate" Iraqis, not replace the brutality of Saddam with US/IDF brutality. In Iraq there are actually 2 occupying forces in the minds of most Iraqis. One was Saddam's regime which has not been eliminated, just reduced, and the US is becoming the 2nd and actions like this will re-inforce that perception. Most Iraqis aren't fighting the US occupation because they wanted Saddam out of power, but that may change as we pull stunts like this.

We keep doing stuff like this and more Iraqis who are neutral or sympathetic to the US' stated intent will start taking potshots at US troops. I sure as hell would consider doing so if I was an Iraqi and US forces threw my kin in a cage for 15 years because we refused to give up our guns.

The fact many Iraqis already view the US as backstabbers because of what happened after the first Gulf War only re-inforces the perception that the US will leave and not defend Iraqis from a resurgent Saddam/Sunni regime. So, would you trust the US to take away your primary means of self-defense with a promise the US will defend you against Saddam et al?

[David Floyd]

under NO conditions?

I can't think of a single instance when it is morally valid to confiscate private property.

If you are simply making someone give back what they stole, then you aren't taking that person's property.

A non-frivolous lawsuit resulting in monetary damages being awarded would be an exception, but the person who is having property confiscated did something to the person receiving the property - in a morally valid lawsuit resulting in financial compensation, it'd have to be something like fraud or medical malpractice.

The final thing I can think of are fines imposed for breaking a morally valid law, but here again, the person did something actually wrong in the first place.

Possessing a firearm doesn't fall under any of those categories, simply because it (in most cases) wasn't stolen, not obtained through fraud, and the ownership of a firearm doesn't hurt anyone.