Iraqi Assault Weapons Ban
There may be a ban on real assault weapons in Iraq, not like that fake ban we had here. It seems that the US Military’s offer of $200 for each AK47 that Iraqis turned in wasn’t resulting in many of them being turned in. If those Iraqis could get those AKs to the US, they’d probably go for thousands of dollars. The author points out that $200 is a good deal. I think the Iraqis have it right. If such a ban were implemented, all those AK47s just went up considerably in value. The smart man invests. Additionally, not many folks are too keen on giving up the means to defend themselves for a measly $200.
Also, the Military doesn’t understand economics:
This was true despite the fact that for the insurgents it was a good deal. Partly because the coalition disbanded the Iraqi army shortly after the “Mission Accomplished” sign was hoisted in May 2003, the country is awash with weapons. AK-47s can be had on the black market for about $50. An insurgent could therefore sell his assault weapon to the coalition for about $200, replace it for $50 and have plenty of money left over for a dozen rocket grenades and a family visit to Burger King.
Offer four times the value when there are plenty available? Not a good plan. And no article on AK47s would be complete without a tie in to the NRA:
. . . such a law would probably be regarded as falling afoul of the highly influential NRA (National Rifle Association), who would point out that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment, they explain, permits anybody to carry his (and possibly even her) own machine gun.
Now Democrats and other losers might try to argue that the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution do not cover the Iraqi insurgents. However, since our president has just won a smashing national vote of confidence, partly by proving that he has brought liberty to the Iraqis, it would not behoove us to continue the weapons ban that was brutally enforced by the overthrown dictator Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, the NRA fears, with some justice, that the Democrats may not remain forever dead, and that in the future they might use an assault-weapons ban in Iraq as the thin edge of a wedge to extend the same lack of liberty to the people of this country.
As it is, the administration’s purchase of AK-47s is, overall, a good thing. Though the $200 price does not disarm the insurgents but instead supports them financially, the occupying forces can send the purchased weapons to the United States, where prices are much higher. By selling them here, the armed forces can not only confer liberty to the purchasers, but also increase the defense budget while still cutting taxes.
First, such a ban is in no way similar to the recently expired US assault weapons ban. In Iraq, they have machine guns. Such weapons have been regulated in the US since 1934 and, provided certain criteria are met, are legal to own subject to excessive regulation and taxes. The notion that such a ban in Iraq is remotely similar to the recently lapsed US AWB is absolutely asinine.
December 4th, 2004 at 2:51 pm
The writer seems like a crackpot to me.
it would not behoove us to continue the weapons ban that was brutally enforced by the overthrown dictator Saddam Hussein.
This, of course, is bull. Under Saddam each family was given an AK-47 to defend themselves.
First, similar laws are already in force in obsolete countries such as France and Germany, and are therefore, almost by definition, a bad idea.
So any law in force in France and Germany must be bad? Guess those murder laws should be repealed.
such a law would probably be regarded as falling afoul of the highly influential NRA (National Rifle Association), who would point out that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment, they explain, permits anybody to carry his (and possibly even her) own machine gun.
Except that its already a crime to possess weapons that you are not supposed to.
An insurgent could therefore sell his assault weapon to the coalition for about $200, replace it for $50 and have plenty of money left over for a dozen rocket grenades and a family visit to Burger King.
I’m not sure what his source is for the $50 AKs on the black market, but it would seem to me that the sellers on the black market could turn in the weapons themselves and pocket the $200 rather than letting an insurgent do so. Basic economics would tell us that if the US is offering $200 for AK-47s turned in, that the black market price is now higher than $200.
Though the $200 price does not disarm the insurgents but instead supports them financially, the occupying forces can send the purchased weapons to the United States, where prices are much higher. By selling them here, the armed forces can not only confer liberty to the purchasers, but also increase the defense budget while still cutting taxes.
How much money are we talking? A few mil at most. We could lower taxes by a fraction of a cent per person.
Additionally, not many folks are too keen on giving up the means to defend themselves for a measly $200.
It should be noted that $200 goes a lot farther in Iraq and other 3rd world nations than it does here. In India, the average income is about $200/month. However, the cost of living is lower too, meaning that on that much money, one can have a roof over their heads, TV, food, etc.
December 4th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
There are many reasons why he’s full of it. I tend to agree that he’s a crackpot.