liberating or conquering Iraq?

[Rebar]

If we wanted to disarm them, wouldn't we take all their weapons? Are we taking all their weapons? The answer is no, we're not.

We've made a reasonable decision to let them defend themselves, while taking precautions to saveguard the troops. If you want to lecture on pure libertarian philosophy weither we're "disarming" them or "occupying" them, feel free.

The fact is, they are allowed to keep weapons that are denyed to the vast majority of American citizens. After the elections, if the new Iraqi government want to confiscate all weapons, then you all will have a point. Right now, considering the situation, I think it's a reasonable policy.

 

[Silent-Snail]

TIME OUT!
Not to interupt an interesting battle of words, but

Of course, while we're sitting here discussing whose opinion is correct, the rights of the Iraqi people to keep and bear arms are still being infringed.

. as far as I know the United States is the only country in the world with that right.
So for the Iraqis to have the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't Iraq have to be at least an official US territory. Sorry but that line I quoted really annoyed me. Let the hissing and spitting recommence.

 

[publius]

Maybe the reference was to an inherent human right, not a legal right.

 

[FeebMaster]

Silent-Snail: TIME OUT!
Not to interupt an interesting battle of words, but

. as far as I know the United States is the only country in the world with that right.
So for the Iraqis to have the right to keep and bear arms wouldn't Iraq have to be at least an official US territory. Sorry but that line I quoted really annoyed me. Let the hissing and spitting recommence.

Are you saying that the second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms to people in the US and its territories? Here I was thinking the right to bear arms was a human right and the second amendment just kind of recognized it on account of it being pretty important.