Race Relations

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Iraqi constitution identifies many basic rights....free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, protection against search and seizure, etc.......even a right to guaranteed work, a living wage and health care.

But no specific language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't be that stupid.

Ok, I take that back.

Are you saying there is?

[TheMercenary]

I am saying that it is an not a very important point when the Iraqi Constitution has no language which guarantees a right to bear arms in a country in the midst of a war/civil war/civil unrest where everyone owns guns. You cannot in any way make a comparison to the US Constitution and our societal norm to Iraq.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am saying that it is an not a very important point when the Iraqi Constitution has no language which guarantees a right to bear arms in a country in the midst of a war/civil war/civil unrest where everyone owns guns. You cannot in any way make a comparison to the US Constitution and our societal norm to Iraq.

You lost me.

Are you saying that because there is a civil war (there is?) and civil unrest, that a guaranteed right to bear arms might be counter-productive and dangerous and lead to greater civil unrest?

Or, on the other hand, that a democracy can exist without such a guaranteed right when everyone already owns guns?

Or such a guaranteed right is just not that important.

Which is it?

BTW, societal norms at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution...there were pockets of civil unrest (Shay's rebellion) and most everyone owned guns.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You lost me.

Are you saying that because there is a civil war (there is?) and civil unrest, that a guaranteed right to bear arms might be counter-productive and dangerous and lead to greater civil unrest?

No. I am saying it is a non-issue in a country such as Iraq at this stage of their re-birth.

Or, on the other hand, that a democracy can exist without such a guaranteed right when everyone already owns guns?

Or such a guaranteed right is just not that important.

Which is it?

BTW, societal norms at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution...there were pockets of civil unrest (Shay's rebellion) and most everyone owned guns.

And none of this is significant in the greater discussion of the issue of the Second Ammendment in this country. Apples and Oranges.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No. I am saying it is a non-issue in a country such as Iraq at this stage of their re-birth.

And none of this is significant in the greater discussion of the issue of the Second Ammendment in this country. Apples and Oranges.

The discussion was not intended to be about the Second Amendment in the US, but about UG's assertion of the necessity of such an amendment in order to prevent a democracy, at any stage, from heading down a slippery slope to genocide.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The discussion was not intended to be about the Second Amendment in the US, but about UG's assertion of the necessity of such an amendment in order to prevent a democracy, at any stage, from heading down a slippery slope to genocide.

Yep.

I just see things differently from UG.

And to attempt to draw a comparison between the US and Iraq and gun owership in the context of our situation is pretty stupid.