Wednesday, March 10, 2004

I have heard some talk of supporting Colin Powell should he venture into the '08 presidential race. Here's a good reason to re-think that:

"Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of "rights" and 'liberty.'
'Read what it says about arms not being allowed within the society except under the control of civilian authorities,' he said. 'Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty, and what the new Iraq will look like. ?…"

One sentence talks favorably about the restriction of an inherent, natural Right (the means of self defense) & the very next goes on to speak of liberty & Rights. & the most troubling part is that he probably doesn't realize that his views are self-contradictory.

& the Iraqi Constitution that Powell referred to? Here's what it says about arms in Article 17:

"It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

Hell, that's all Sarah Brady, DiFi, Schumer & Boxer could ever ask for.

But there'ssomeonee else we should give credit for the Iraqi Constitution's views on arms:

"The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer has had significant input into the drafting of the new law. The preamble mentions the United Nations, saying the Iraqis are 'working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations."

Paul Bremer. The same Paul Bremer who announced the partial civilian arms confiscation program in Iraq just last May. & lest you think he's just the messenger I offer the following from the post I just linked to on the attempts at civilian disarmament in Iraq:

"The new weapons policy appears to be the outcome of a debate among top military officials in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of U.S. and British land forces in Iraq, told reporters two weeks ago that he was skeptical about simply trying to disarm Iraqi civilians.
'For one thing, I don't think it would be enforceable,' McKiernan said at the time.
But Bremer, keenly aware that his political priority in Iraq is to restore law and order, strongly suggested that he wanted to prohibit most weapons in civilian hands."
(emphasis mine)

The bright side is that this Constitution is temporary. A new one is supposed to be in the works as we speak & will replace this interim one when Iraq is ready to govern itself.

Of course there's no guarantee that Bremer, Powell &/or other gun control advocates won't influence the next constitution as well. I'm reminded of one of the most puzzling things I learned in my youth: Gen. Douglas MacArthur wrote Japan's Constitution in 1945. In it he included almost all of the U.S. Constitution's Bill or Rights. Can you guess which amendment he left out? Now you'd think that as a military man with hisexperiencee he'd be in favor of an armed citizenry. If everyFilipinoo had a rifle, ammo & some training in 1942 MacArthur probably wouldn't have had to take his unwanted detour inAustraliaa. But perhaps he feared a covert re-militarization of Japan. Maybe he just thought how badly it could go for him as an occupier if all the citizens had arms & decided they didn't like his presence there. Perhaps he had a fear that another Bonus Army scenario would happen but this time with deliberate & effective resistance to his troops. (in 1932 Gen. MacArthur & his aides Maj. Eisenhower & Maj. Patton were ordered to break up a group of WW1 veterans that were protesting in D.C. Their orders were to clear an area of the veterans as the protests were turning violent. MacArthur one upped his superiors & not only forced the veterans to move to their make-shift camp across the Anacostia River & burned them out. This played no small part in getting that socialist bastard FDR elected. For more look here, & here as well as here.)

But at least our government is consistent: they try to ignore the 2nd amendment here as well as abroad.

No comments: