Bush administration supports strict gun control measures — in Iraq

Exactly one week after the Bush administration said it would accept the cancellation of an assault weapons ban here in the U.S., the administration will be implementing a strict new gun control policy in Iraq.

Under the new policy, which will be formally announced in Iraq this week, Iraqis will be required to give up any and all automatic weapons they own. As the New York Times reported, “The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47’s, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.” Iraqis who fail to follow the order will be subject to arrest.

I don’t disagree with the policy. On the contrary, post-war Iraq is an exceedingly dangerous place with rampant crime and large areas of lawlessness. The administration sees a tough, new gun control policy as a way of helping to restore some order to a country teetering on chaos. As far as I’m concerned, this is the right policy at the right time.

To be sure, this will not be a complete ban on all guns. Iraqi citizens will be permitted to own smaller, hand-held guns in their homes for protection, but larger automatic weapons will be confiscated. Those who wish to carry small arms outside their homes can apply for a new license to do so.

I can’t help but notice, however, the irony of the administration’s position on guns. Some of the same weapons that will be banned from Iraqi homes will be permitted in American homes under the policies embraced by Republicans in the White House and Congress. When Democrats advocate nearly identical gun control measures to help curtail violent crimes in this country — such as allowing Americans to own registered firearms with a license but banning weapons such as AK-47s — conservatives express outrage.

Indeed, to hear NRA-types, the citizenry must have unlimited access to firearms to be free. Bill Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama and a Bush judicial nominee pending Senate consideration, said three years ago, “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.” I can remember a few radio debates I’ve done with conservatives who argue that the “right to bear arms” is actually our “first” amendment because without an armed electorate, the government would be inclined to take away our rights of free speech, press, and religion.

As Slate’s Tim Noah explained in March, “The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you’ll need to organize a militia against your government.”

Of course, I don’t agree with this philosophy, but at least I understand the thinking behind it. Which leads to me to wonder, will Tom DeLay, the NRA, and other pro-gun conservatives complain about the administration’s draconian gun control policies in Iraq? Will they conclude that Iraqis can never truly be free unless and until the Bush administration’s totalitarian gun control measures are undone? After all, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right?