Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

Guns and Liberty in Iraq

Apr 09, 2003 10:43 AM
Tags: guns, iraq, politics
update more really good discussion of this at the blogs of Jane Galt, Instapundit and Stuart Buck.

As they say, the exception proves (as in "tests", not "verifies" — this is an often misunderstood saying) the rule. I found this on cartoonist Tom Tomorrow's blog, This Modern World:
Riddle me this

Timothy Noah, writing in Slate:
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense."
If gun rights ensure our freedom, why has this war been necessary at all? Why didn't the people of Iraq simply rise up with their arms and demand their liberty? Isn't that how it works?

Via Electrolite.
I've been thinking this over, and it seems to be a pretty good contradiction of the oversimplified dogma that Second Amendment advocates often state. Still, I think the basic principle holds, and here's why:
  • There are no hard-and-fast rules in politics. It's a matter of tendencies, not guarantees. A well-armed populace makes despotism less likely, not impossible.
  • It matters what sort of firearms the population has. A fifty-year-old hunting rifle means little against what was once the world's fourth-largest army. This is part of why gun rights advocates are so strongly opposed to weapon restrictions — such as the outlawing of assault weapons — and not just flat-out bans.
  • A culture of freedom is important. The people have to feel entitled to freedom, that it is a natural right. Historically, that has not been the case in Iraq and the Iraqis likely do not identify with slogans like "live free or die". They, unfortunately, may be historically accustomed to subjugation by one despot or another.
  • The claim might be false or an exaggeration. On what is that statement based? Are the guns in good condition, with ample ammunition available? Do people know how to use them, or are they largely ceremonial, like the jambia (knives) of Yemenis and chakrams (blades worn on the wrist) of Sikhs?
Here are some further thoughs from Electrolite's comments section:
  • Derek James points out that there is, presumedly, a lack of parity in gun distribution among Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds.
  • Nicholas Weineger states, "I don't know of any serious gun-rights advocates who claim that gun rights are effective bulwarks of liberty *in the absence of* either (a) other essential rights like free speech and free assembly, or (b) a culture in which people are willing to risk their own safety to preserve liberty against government."

Comments: Guns and Liberty in Iraq

You probably mean Second Amendment advocates. Fourth amendment advocates would be against unreasonable searches and seizures, not gun ownership.

Posted by: the constitution on April 9, 2003 5:14 PM | permalink

Fixed. Thx.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 9, 2003 5:29 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.