Gun Control in America East

Gun Control in America East
by Russell Madden

If the most recent incarnation of the war in Iraq has accomplished nothing else, the aftermath of that conflict has revealed fascinating insights into the mindset that dominates the agents of the American State. When I read articles and quotes and comments regarding what the United States is doing in Iraq in its role as that country's latest caretakers, I sometimes have to check to be certain that the stories are not detailing events in the Homeland.

This sense of deja vu is no more present than when considering the problem confronting our military as it seeks to impose its control over the chaotic conditions inherent in any transitional era. Our soldiers continue to face hostile fire — sometimes organized, sometimes spontaneous — as they attempt to pacify a population that is less than completely grateful for the billions of dollars and hundreds of lives (or thousands, if you count Iraqis...) our venture into the deserts of the Mideast has cost us.

What a predicament.

In any army, soldiers are well-versed in how to kill and destroy the enemy. They are usually much less adroit moonlighting as police officers. Our own men, for example, had little difficulty in routing a third-rate military we had already weakened in our previous foray into the Gulf. Annihilating conscripts, exploding tanks, rocketing buildings is easy when your team spends 350 times more on its tools of conquest than the other guy. Sure, we got our hair mussed now and again, but, really, how many folks entertained serious doubts as to the capability of our boys to kick Iraqi butt? Yeah, some worrywarts experienced sweaty palms at the prospect of being doused with a liberal spraying of chemical or biological welfare agents, but those fears proved groundless.

(We won't rehash here the frustration our valiant leaders have experienced in trying to prove to the Doubting Thomases that the danger to us all justifying full-scale invasion actually existed.)

Those annoying loyalists who saw Saddam Hussein as a meal ticket to power and the good life have decided that they will not meekly slink into the sands and lick their wounds. No, no. By gum and by gun, they continue to harass the liberators and, in general, make themselves royal pains in the ass.

Now, I can understand why most of us would grow a bit testy if we were subject to incessant and random attacks from enemies not easily distinguished from peaceable citizens. We would rightly want to do something to deal with such miscreants.

In its infinite wisdom, of course, the United States government has done what it always does: it treats everyone as potential (if not actual) criminals and seeks to punish and control everyone for the misdeeds of the guilty few.

Heck, it's a lot easier to adopt the collectivist approach rather than go to all the inconvenience and bother of determining who is or is not to be regarded as a troublemaker. As the ol' bumper sticker says, "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort 'em out."

After all, this policy is what the State follows here in the West. Why should those in charge alter their stripes when transplanted to the East?

For example, some people do stupid things on recreational drugs.

The collectivist response? Ban all such drugs (and drug paraphernalia) for everyone. (And ban raves, while you're at it.)

Some people build unsafe homes.

Impose uniform building codes even on the most conscientious of contractors.

Some people do lousy jobs of home-educating their children.

Force all children to attend government-run or -approved schools or adhere to State-determined rules even if a parent has multiple doctorates.

Some people are killed when they foolishly refuse to buckle up or when they drive when drunk or neglect to wear helmets.

Mandate seat belts and airbags for all — even if such devices kill people — and continually drop the legal blood alcohol levels until even social drinkers become felons.

Some people use guns to murder and rob or to kill themselves.

Restrict and regulate or ban all guns for all people.

The Iraqis are learning the joys of the latter policy up close and personal.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune illustrates that illogical and immoral policies generate the same kinds of negative consequences whether they are instituted in Washington, D.C....or in Baghdad, Iraq.

Nowhere do the occupying forces make any reference to the principle of self-defense in establishing what they will or will not restrict or ban. Collectivism and its attendant pragmatism, however, are evident at every step of the process.

As in America, West, the leaders of America, East, define the issue as "too many guns." And, as any statist idiot will tell you, the way to deal with "too many guns" is to eliminate as many as of them as possible. After all, we did that in Kosovo, and that solution is working so well.

But in a "lawless Iraq," it's not easy "reining in thousands upon thousands of armaments" held by private citizens and various militia groups. What to do?

Remember those infinitely successful "gun buyback" programs in America, West, that net ancient, broken pistols and rifles worth less than the State pays for them (with your tax dollars)? In America, East, the interim leaders have eliminated the monetary incentive and, being the generous types that they are, have established an "amnesty period to turn in" heavy weapons such as hand and rocket-propelled grenades. "Small arms — including rifles, shotguns and pistols — will be allowed in homes and businesses but cannot be brandished or discharged in public."

I imagine that the renegade Baathists seeking to notch their belts with American heads will just leap to take advantage of this thoughtful offer from their conquerers.

Plus, those "small arms" will be as useful to the lucky Iraqis as they are to many Americans who are "allowed" to own guns (with the proper permits and background investigations, of course) but who cannot legally carry their weapons concealed or openly into those areas where the weapons would actually be of the most use...or who cannot even own them, at all.

Just as in America, West, the "U.S. authorities" in America, East, "do not call their efforts a disarmament."

Yes. Taking arms away from people is not "disarmament." (And tax reductions "cost the government" which does not engage in legalized theft.) Indeed, rather than disarmament, "'This is a weapons-control policy,' said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan..." And no one would dare advocate weapons that are "out of control," now would he?

In the name of making us "safer" in America, West, the folks in America, East, likewise have only the best interests of the Iraqi citizens at heart.

So how can those "Iraqis seeking law and order complain that the ban penalizes well-intending militias and allows powerful AK-47's to remain in the hands of thugs"? Or how about chicken merchant, Mohammed Yassin who asks, "'How am I supposed to protect my family?....How am I supposed to protect my business without guns? When they take our guns away, they are widening the gap in security. This creates a better atmosphere for the criminals and for the Baath people to take advantage.'"

What an ingrate! He sounds suspiciously like those "gun nuts" in America, West, with their bumper-sticker mentality: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Or: "Guns don't kill. People do."

Now, come on. Get real.

Doesn't he know that he should turn over his security to the good ol' Americans. He has no right to defend himself. Or maybe he has a "right" to do so, but he just can't be trusted to exercise it properly...

All the boys in camo are doing, according to U.S. Col. Rick Thomas, is "'...targeting those [pro-Hussein] people's guns.'" But that is really hard, so I guess it's much more practical simply to apply these reasonable rules to everyone. Towards that end, the Americans want "Iraqis to walk slowly to donation points with their guns disassembled." Ah, yes. I am totally convinced this judicious policy will be truly valuable in pulling the teeth of the "pro-Hussein" fanatics. Ol' Mohammed Yassin doesn't have a thing to fret about...

And even though the U.S. military tells those who "donate" their weapons that the arms will be "for use in a retrained Iraqi police force," apparently no Iraqi citizens are to be entrusted with these guns just yet. For example, "At the militia headquarters of the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group that for years has been closely aligned with the Americans, dozens of guards sit around their headquarters disarmed."

These whiners "are not allowed to walk around armed." Who cares that their head of security, Humam Al-Qurayshi, whimpers that, "'We feel betrayed...We came here to protect Iraqis, not to have Americans tell us how we can protect them." If Iraqis don't obey the edicts and decide to go out in public openly armed, they face the same fate as millions of U.S. citizens: "'The Americans will arrest us. They are the law in Iraq.'" (Al-Qurayshi.) "Iraqis have no choice but to go along with the Americans."

"'This is not the freedom we fought for.'"

Sorry, Mr. Al-Qurayshi. But . . .

Welcome to America.

Reference

Torriero, E.A., "U.S. Aims to Tame Gun-Riddled Iraq." Chicago Tribune. 5-31-2003. Section 1, p. 3.

Discuss this Article (2 messages)