Shot In The Dark: Right To Keep And Bear Arms

March 23, 2005

Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Everyone knows civilian ownership of assault rifles is a bad thing.

Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon Tuesday, a carpenter named Dhiya saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming toward his shop and decided he had had enough.
.
As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhiya and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47s and opened fire, the police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhiya's young nephews and a bystander were wounded, the police said.

We attacked them before they attacked us," said Dhiya, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."
.
It was the first time that private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against insurgents. There have been anecdotal reports of residents' shooting at attackers after a bombing or assassination.

More power to them.

Posted by Mitch at March 23, 2005 06:37 AM | TrackBack

Comments

FYI, there were two of these incidents. Within about 36 hours of each other. What the news didn't mention was that the "Bad guys'" shoes, and weapons were taken. But, fact of war is this, they wouldn't be neediong them anymore. Payment for services renderd I suppose. Odd how in Iraq, this type of taking the law into your own hands is a good thing. Ah, the birth of democracy! Great site, I miss HBO.

RDC

Posted by: Russ Currie at March 23, 2005 12:53 PM

Mitch, were did you get that news snippet?

Posted by: Lance Lavandowska at March 23, 2005 01:05 PM

Crap, I dropped the link.

It was from the International Herald Tribune, via Command Post.

I'll try to get it back in there

Posted by: mitch at March 23, 2005 01:14 PM

It's also more proof that the U.S. is occupying Iraq...and taking their freedom away and stuff...

Maybe?

Posted by: Marty Andrade at March 23, 2005 03:58 PM

Powerful logic you have on display there, Marty.

Ordinary Iraqis take arms against in-turd-gents, and that's proof the U.S. is occupying Iraq? Which freedoms are being taken away here? Care to explain?

Time to switch to a higher watt bulb, my man, because right now you're pretty much the dimmest light on the porch.

Posted by: Ryan at March 23, 2005 04:36 PM

I figured it was satire or parody or whatever.

So the Iraqis are gettin' all Northfield on their asses, eh?

It's wonderful!

Posted by: Old Whig at March 23, 2005 04:40 PM

I suspect Marty - a GOPer in good standing, if I recall correctly - is speaking in the sarcastic tense.

Or at least you'd better be, Andrade...

Posted by: mitch at March 23, 2005 04:41 PM

LOL "Northfield".

Gotta put that one in the canon.

Posted by: mitch at March 23, 2005 04:42 PM

*sigh* And I'm usually good at detecting sarcasm in comments. Oh well, I can't detect it all the time, I guess.

Posted by: Ryan at March 24, 2005 09:02 AM

I was being sarcastic, sorry for the confusion.

I in fact do see this incident as evidence against using the word "occupation" to describe the U.S. military actions in Iraq.

However, I might still be a dim bulb. Hopefully it's a byproduct of youth.

Posted by: Marty Andrade at March 24, 2005 10:43 AM

Good ideas and suggestions about pet treats and products - http://www.pet-treats.info

Posted by: Pet Treats at December 3, 2005 02:35 PM