Are you saying there is?

I am saying that it is an not a very important point when the Iraqi Constitution has no language which guarantees a right to bear arms in a country in the midst of a war/civil war/civil unrest where everyone owns guns. You cannot in any way make a comparison to the US Constitution and our societal norm to Iraq.

You lost me.

Are you saying that because there is a civil war (there is?) and civil unrest, that a guaranteed right to bear arms might be counter-productive and dangerous and lead to greater civil unrest?

Or, on the other hand, that a democracy can exist without such a guaranteed right when everyone already owns guns?

Or such a guaranteed right is just not that important.

Which is it?

BTW, societal norms at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution...there were pockets of civil unrest (Shay's rebellion) and most everyone owned guns.

No. I am saying it is a non-issue in a country such as Iraq at this stage of their re-birth.

And none of this is significant in the greater discussion of the issue of the Second Ammendment in this country. Apples and Oranges.

The discussion was not intended to be about the Second Amendment in the US, but about UG's assertion of the necessity of such an amendment in order to prevent a democracy, at any stage, from heading down a slippery slope to genocide.

Yep.

I just see things differently from UG.

And to attempt to draw a comparison between the US and Iraq and gun owership in the context of our situation is pretty stupid.