Dig something up to prove that.

I know this fact really embarasses you guys, because if it is true than one is left with the question: Why these people didn't rise up to free themselves? But it is true, guns were as legal in Iraq under Saddam as they are in the US . In fact, they will end up having less gun rights under the new government than they did under Saddam, if the US gets its way.

Here it is directly from a gun mag site:
http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=6211
Snip:

The licenses replace permits issued by the U.S. civilian administration that handed over sovereignty in June. Citizens may own only handguns and hunting rifles. Special permission is needed to own military AK-47s. People who want these weapons, mainly for self-defense, take their case to the Interior Ministry.

The requirements for gun ownership -- minimum age of 18, no history of mental illness and no record of violent criminal activity -- are the same as under Saddam Hussein's regime. The permanent Iraqi government, set to be elected in January, is expected to write a new licensing law. The Interior Ministry also is considering a weapons buy-back program.


also

http://www.cdi.org/iraq/small-arms-pr.cfm

Thanks for the link, there's no embarassment I thought i'd let you do the research unlike the treestand thread that you won't reply to because you and your homie were so off base.

I don't think all the facts are in on that one. The Lao guy gave a statement that is a total contradiction of that 5 page statement. There is also no word yet on whether alchohol is involved.

Kirk,
How can you listen to Michael Savage for even 20 minutes? I've only heard his promotional out takes and those clips are enough to keep me from listening. It worries me that he has any following.

Possibly because many of the insurgents are largely supported by the same people that supported Saddam.

One view that is shared by some of Iraq's neighbors is that the **** wouldn't have hit the fan until Saddam lost power. Since Saddam gained his power by force, his successor would probably also take power by force. There was no clear succession of power. The resulting and inevitable civil war is largely what we are seeing now. By the US being there in the middle of it there is the hope that it will not spill over into neighboring countries, unless the powers that be want it to.

Millions of people listen to him. I catch him once and a while, just to see what he is up to. Know thy enemy. I think the guy is actually going stark raving mad on the air. He gets more and more outright Nazi every day. Same thing is happening with the local hosts. They seem to be driven further and further to the far right by something - a need to be more outrageous perhaps?

I see the same polarization happening on the left. The extremes seem to be both going more extreme. JFK wouldn't be welcome in the democrat party today--too much a promoter of business for their current taste.
I see the leadership of the dems as having moved their party so far left since Carter that, even without moving, the conservatives appear more and more to the right. Its like what Reagan ( as well as Zell Miller) said--I didn't leave the democrat party--they left me. It seems the left is continously devising new areas of need that only government can handle. The problem, as I see it, is, as we give more and more benefits to everyone, there is less incentive to work hard. There has to be a balance between personal responsibility and government responsibility. We even try to make personal safety a government responsibility--yet any cop will tell you, the cops can't protect you. Now its health care---people can live any dangerous lifestyle they choose and expect "us" to take care of them. As for retirement--people can waste all their money and fail to provide for the future, and somehow, its my fault---
All perfect issues for the liberals to patronize and get votes.

I'm lost...did you read the statement that the SHOOTER made. If you can't figure this one out...

Never mind

You won't. but I'm sure his attorneys statement will convince you.

Concise and no vitriol. You, sir are right on target.




And for the record, I dont listen to talk radio. I have yet to find a station that has a libertarian as its host. I dont want to get my blood pressure worked up listening to Rush about how the PA is completely valid and the quaint idea of civil liberties has long passed, and I dont want to listen to a liberal show telling me that my hard earned money is someone else's and if I dont like it I can take it up with the Alphabet Agencies with guns, and that a parent has no right to know what their kids are doing to their bodies. Leave me out of both, thanks.ukeface:

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg