Comparison: Gun control and Kurdistan

[Brian4Liberty]

What to do about Kurdistan? They are being attacked by ISIS forces, and they don't seem to have enough appropriate weapons to defend themselves. Part of the reason for this is that the US has been hesitant to sell arms to the Kurds. There are a variety of political reasons for this. Suffice it to say, the Kurds now find themselves without sufficient means of self-defense.

The Obama Administration did finally react by having the US military come to the rescue with air strikes. Now why does this sound familiar? They don't allow people to have the means to defend themselves, but tell them to call the "authorities" for help when they need it. It sounds like gun control in the US, with the assurance that if you need help, just call 911. The policy of gun control is being applied globally.

As anyone who has an urgent need for self-defense will tell you, calling the Police doesn't always work in an emergency. And if the Police are overwhelmed, help may never come at all. As recent events in both Kurdistan and Missouri demonstrate, it's best to have a means of defense right when you need it.

Kurdish Peshmerga Forces:

2886

Employees defend their store in Missouri:

2887

[TheTexan]

As anyone who has an urgent need for self-defense will tell you, calling the Police doesn't always work in an emergency. And if the Police are overwhelmed

If that's the problem, we should probably boost up the police force and give the police what they need (perhaps bearcats?) before resorting to giving weapons to civilians.

[Brian4Liberty]

If that's the problem, we should probably boost up the police force and give the police what they need (perhaps bearcats?) before resorting to giving weapons to civilians.

Yep, anything to keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, non-criminal citizens. Now if the Police had armed drones, they could cover more area at once.

/s

[Pericles]

At this level, it is not just arms, but training as well. ISIS did not achieve the capability it now has in the last two months. Their fighters and leadership acquired knowledge of how to conduct their operations over time.

[Brian4Liberty]

At this level, it is not just arms, but training as well. ISIS did not achieve the capability it now has in the last two months. Their fighters and leadership acquired knowledge of how to conduct their operations over time.

Experience had been downplayed so much that it has almost zero value anymore in the US. But in the extreme Darwinistic environment of real warfare, it still matters a bit.

[Pericles]

Experience had been downplayed so much that it has almost zero value anymore in the US. But in the extreme Darwinistic environment of real warfare, it still matters a bit.

I don't need to know anything, I can just google it.:rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

Additional question: During all of the years that the US was in control of Iraq, what was the gun policy for civilians? Were average Iraqis of all types disarmed? Were common civilians allowed to have AK-47s?

[pcosmar]

If that's the problem, we should probably boost up the police force and give the police what they need (perhaps bearcats?) before resorting to giving weapons to civilians.

You know,,
You should really start putting /sarc tags on that shit before someone starts taking you seriously.

[pcosmar]

Additional question: During all of the years that the US was in control of Iraq, what was the gun policy for civilians? Were average Iraqis of all types disarmed? Were common civilians allowed to have AK-47s?

One per household,, as I recall.

[Brian4Liberty]

From 2003:


U.S. Will Restrict Civilian Gun Ownership in Iraq
May 24, 2003

BAGHDAD — A new U.S. policy aimed at drastically reducing the number of weapons in Iraq will allow people to keep guns for self-defense at home but outlaw them almost everywhere else, the commander of American ground forces in Iraq said Friday.

Lt. Gen. David McKiernan said permits will be granted for keeping guns at home. There will be limits on the type of weapon allowed, he said.

"The intent is not to completely disarm the Iraqi population of all weapons. That is neither practical nor necessary," McKiernan said at a news briefing.

Disarming the population, even partially, would help fight crime in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
...
The policy is expected to take effect next month and would give Iraqis 14 days to give up their guns. McKiernan said penalties for offenders hadn't been decided, and no details were given on how the weapons would be collected.
...
More:
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/24/world/fg-guns24

[Brian4Liberty]

One per household,, as I recall.

Yeah, that's what Wikipedia says:


Iraq

Citizens are allowed to have a Select fire AK-47 for home protection with limited ammunition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Iraq

[Brian4Liberty]

No worries about too many guns in Iraq anymore. ISIS has banned them.


ISIS Declares All Guns in Iraq Illegal…Except Those Used by ISIS

It’s the holy grail of gun control, as demanded by Michael Bloomberg and his minions as well as Dianne Feinstein and her associates in Congress: a total ban on firearms, other than those used by the government. And what government is embracing this “progressive” stance on ‘dangerous weapons, you might ask? The Al-Qaeda associated group known as ISIS has just made that declaration for all land under its control in Iraq...
...
More:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/isis-declares-guns-illegal-iraq-except-used-isis-soldiers/

[pcosmar]

No worries about too many guns in Iraq anymore. ISIS has banned them.

That's our guys. :rolleyes:

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ISIS-McCain-ad.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

That's our guys. :rolleyes:

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ISIS-McCain-ad.jpg

Yep. McCain loves to arm aggressors.

There is major difference between McCain arming ISIS, and allowing arms to be sold to the Kurds.

McCain and friends were arming rebel groups willy-nilly. There was no large, cohesive, established community they were aiding. There was no established homeland or personal property that people were defending. Mostly they were arming mercenaries who were out to wreck destruction, often coming from other nations to kill and destroy.

The Kurds have a long history. For the past several decades, they have been one of the more stable societies in the area. They don't exterminate or ethnically cleanse their territory. They have a civil society, and they want to defend their established territory and homes. They are not out on a mission of conquest, death, adventure and destruction.

[Warlord]

Yep. McCain loves to arm aggressors.

There is major difference between McCain arming ISIS, and allowing arms to be sold to the Kurds.

McCain and friends were arming rebel groups willy-nilly. There was no large, cohesive, established community they were aiding. There was no established homeland or personal property that people were defending. Mostly they were arming mercenaries who were out to wreck destruction, often coming from other nations to kill and destroy.

The Kurds have a long history. For the past several decades, they have been one of the more stable societies in the area. They don't exterminate or ethnically cleanse their territory. They have a civil society, and they want to defend their established territory and homes. They are not out on a mission of conquest, death, adventure and destruction.

All of which makes the neocons resent them.

[Brian4Liberty]

All of which makes the neocons resent them.

Actually, I don't believe that the neoconservatives have any problems with the Kurds, with the exception of the fact that an independent Kurdistan at this particular point in time will highlight their absolute failure in trying to nation-build a new Iraq.

One of the original neoconservatives, Richard Perle, was trying to make some money via Kurdish Oil. One can guess that the Bush-neoconservative alliance was always interested in Kurdish and Iraqi oil.


In March 2003, weeks after the invasion of Iraq, war architect Richard Perle resigned from his position on the Defense Policy Board in an attempt to “defuse a controversy over charges he stood to profit from the war in Iraq.”

But that hasn’t stopped Perle from continuing to seek profit from the war. Citing documents and people close to the negotiations, the Wall Street Journal reports today that Perle “has been exploring going into the oil business in Iraq and Kazakhstan. One of the oil tracts, near the Kurdish city of Erbil, “is estimated to hold 150 million or more barrels of oil, would potentially be operated by Houston-based Endeavour International”:

Mr. Perle, one of a group of security experts who began pushing the case for toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein about a decade ago, has been discussing a possible deal with officials of northern Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government, including its Washington envoy, according to these people and the documents. [...]
...
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/07/29/26824/perle-oil/