Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometime ago US Soldiers were going door to door collecting weapons from the Iraqi Citizens... What they do have a change of heart and reissue their AK47's along with a loaf of bread.
Not sure about the loaf of bread, but yeah, they were allowed to keep an AK.
Maybe in some of the hottest insurgent areas, they were a little stricter, but the overall policy is to allow them to keep an AK.
Not sure about the loaf of bread, but yeah, they were allowed to keep an AK.
Maybe in some of the hottest insurgent areas, they were a little stricter, but the overall policy is to allow them to keep an AK.
What's the point of this, though?
Would you happen to have a link to substantiate your claim? What are you a War Corespondent? Their overall policy? What are you talking about overall policy. You act as if you were some Ambassador of Iraq? Please, clue us in on this "Overall Policy"? Maybe a bit of speculation on your part or maybe wishful thinking whatever the case.
Would you happen to have a link to substantiate your claim? What are you a War Corespondent? Their overall policy? What are you talking about overall policy. You act as if you were some Ambassador of Iraq? Please, clue us in on this "Overall Policy"? Maybe a bit of speculation on your part or maybe wishful thinking whatever the case.
Ok, I'll ask again...what difference does it make?
All I asked for was a link to substantiate your claim, you did and I stand corrected. Hwever, we really need to get this thread in sync with the OP. We are now talking two different governments, let us get back the US and continue with this debate.
There is a school of thought out there ,that espouses a view, that the private ownership of firearms is just BAD to the core. Arms that were originally designed for military use are a convienient scapegoat, regardless of the fact that they are NOT actually "military" arms. The mere fact that a lot of people choose to be armed is enough to send this school of thought into a frenzy of rabid rhetoric, labeling, and name calling. The far flung folks on the other side of the coin , of course, respond in kind and here we are.. Restricting private ownership of arms has NOT done a thing to stop violent crime. It never will. The bad guys will always be able to get anything they want. They don't get thier guns from gun shops or sporting goods stores and they do not bother with any paper work or background checks. Such measures are in place merely to make some people feel good, and to inconvienience LEGAL, firearms buyers. The flow of ilegall arms into criminal hands has not slowed in the least because of new firearms restrictions, and it never will.
Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment would allow lawsuits against crooked gun dealers. How is that bad?
The Tiahrt amendment only keeps people who have no business seeing records of gun owners from seeing them. It's an outright lie to say it stops police from doing their jobs. If a police agency needs to see a record in connection with a legitimate investigation, they are able to do so. This Amendment only stops personal information being looked at by anyone who has no business seeing it such as trial lawyers fishing for a case or as happened in at least one state, the press publishing the names of people who own guns in the newspaper.
The Tiahrt amendment only keeps people who have no business seeing records of gun owners from seeing them. It's an outright lie to say it stops police from doing their jobs. If a police agency needs to see a record in connection with a legitimate investigation, they are able to do so. This Amendment only stops personal information being looked at by anyone who has no business seeing it such as trial lawyers fishing for a case or as happened in at least one state, the press publishing the names of people who own guns in the newspaper.
Lol yea, publishing name of firearms owners in the paper. I remember that, but where did that happen again? Hmm, lets tell EVERYONE who those "evil" gun owners are. That way there can be protests staged in front of peaceful peoples houses and we can get them stigmatized and kicked out of the PTA.. Such tactics are despicable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Restricting private ownership of arms has NOT done a thing to stop violent crime. It never will. The bad guys will always be able to get anything they want. They don't get thier guns from gun shops or sporting goods stores and they do not bother with any paper work or background checks. Such measures are in place merely to make some people feel good, and to inconvienience LEGAL, firearms buyers. The flow of ilegall arms into criminal hands has not slowed in the least because of new firearms restrictions, and it never will.
