Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« American Prospect on Alito | Main | Carnival of Cordite is up! »

Kuwaiti gun prohibition

Posted by David Hardy · 18 November 2005 09:56 AM

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel has a posting on Kuwaiti gun prohibition. The kingdom has a near-complete ban on all guns, and just doubled the penalty to ten years in the slammer. A major issue is the Kuwaiti resistance (to the Iraqi invasion of some years ago), which understandably does not propose to disarm, nor quite understand why its rulers don't trust it. [The kingdom seems to be a perfect illustration of what people of the founding period here foresaw: (1) absolute rulers must disarm their people; (2) they are then forced to rely upon a mercenary army, which (a) must be weak enough to where it cannot take over and (b) must thus be too weak to defend the state... or else be strong enough both to defend it and to take over, and, as Machiavelli put it, what reason is there for an armed man to obey a disarmed one?]

· non-US

1 Comment | Leave a comment

RKV | November 18, 2005 11:03 AM | Reply

David, I would be very interesed in the cite for "what reason is there for an armed man to obey a disarmed one?" I couldn't find a reference to it, as much as I agree with the sentiment.

Leave a comment