Monday, August 23, 2004

Guns and democracy

"There is no place for militia in democratic Iraq. These two, militia and democracy, cannot go together. They are incompatible."

--Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

--second amendment to the U.S. Constitution

6 Comments:

At 4:05 PM, Blogger himself said...

It's been known for a long time that the Iraqi Constitution is a communist pinko screed. Had Noam, Hilary, Fidel and all those other Volvo driving, America-hating, Brie-eating Unitarian Universalist bastards drafted the thing itself, they couldn't have come up with a bigger stinking heap of liberal bunk.

In addition to taking away the God-given right to bear arms (Article 17), it also caves in to the Femino-Terrorist special interests by instituting by the equivalent of the Equal Rights Amendment (Article 12).
The constitution also panders to the American Commie Liberties Union by specifically aknowledging the right to privacy (Article 13H). And it also claims that people have the "right" to education, health care and social security (Article 14). See for yourself at http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

I thank God/Bush every day for preserving America's Constitution, the greatest in the world. The only parts we need to change are the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth amendments. And Article VI. And we also really need to do something about those gays and flag burners.

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger Dan said...

And don't forget the seventeenth amendment.

--Alan Keyes

 
At 8:40 PM, Blogger Bob said...

Oh.Kaay. This is going to be boooring compared to "Himself": a well regulated militia to preserve liberty was seen by the founders and composers of the Bill of Rights as necessary in light of their history. Their experience with monarchy made them ever suspicious of central powers. They felt state militias would be the correct balance should the central government turn sour. These were also times that included a native population that still may have appeared as a threat.

I think even "Himself" would admit that his comments were a little over the top. One might think he may have even been kidding.

 
At 11:55 PM, Blogger Dan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:46 AM, Blogger Dan said...

You don't believe there are parallels between 18th century America and Iraq regarding the suspicion of central powers? Just as the early Americans were skeptical of their government, why can't today's Iraqis be leery of theirs? Especially when you consider the circumstances under which it has formed. They have every right to question whether or not the government represents their interests.

Don't get me wrong. Moktada al-Sadr is a thug. His militia's use of the Imam Ali Shrine as a military base is a hideous affront to Islam. The Iraqi army (read: the U.S. military) should be working to defeat the Mahdi Army.

But it's absurd to say that militias and democracy can't coexist.

I know "himself" very well. I can truthfully say that he harbors extreme right-wing sentiments.

 
At 8:42 PM, Blogger Bob said...

I wasn't really addressing the Iraqi situation. I was just trying to add a little perspective to the second amendment.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home