NationStates Jolt Archive

(DELETED... since no one cares, and all...)

What about military personnel?

How does this apply within states where a significant percentage of the population is classified as either active or reserve DoD?

i'd consider military personel as being within law enforcement...

this resolution is not meant to take guns away from people, but rather to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't capable of using them responsibly...

What about those of us who require our citizens to be heavily armed? I happen to prefer knowing my nation would be able to repel an invasion without the military being present. Besides, we're of the opinion the populous has the right to decide to change the government at any time and should have the tools to do so at hand.

What about those of us who require our citizens to be heavily armed? I happen to prefer knowing my nation would be able to repel an invasion without the military being present.So, you're telling me that there isn't a single ill-willed, ambitious person in your country and that every single citizen is a hardcore patriot willing to throw their life on the line for the good of the nation? There is a significant risk that someone may push another too far and that the situation may end in bloodshed. If you run such a utopia in which said laws and procedures would be pointless, then no one's forcing you to approve the resolution. Again, this is NOT about taking guns away from everyone. This is about preventing unnecessary injury and death, accidental or otherwise.
Besides, we're of the opinion the populous has the right to decide to change the government at any time and should have the tools to do so at hand.And if the government believes that the citizens have the right to overthrow the governent as they see fit, then it's not a government, it's anarchy, and they would arguably be able to overturn any and every single resolution that they disapprove of, right?

And if the government believes that the citizens have the right to overthrow the governent as they see fit, then it's not a government, it's anarchy, and they would arguably be able to overturn any and every single resolution that they disapprove of, right?

Exactly. :cool: Which is why gun control should be a national issue. That way otherwise peaceful nations who want their citizens to have guns won't have to drop out of the UN.

we are also against this. it is a national issue, not UN

So, you're telling me that there isn't a single ill-willed, ambitious person in your country and that every single citizen is a hardcore patriot willing to throw their life on the line for the good of the nation?

Actually, I have quite a problem in one area with a small terrorist group. However, the large supply of weapons in circulation prevents them from being effective and so far they're only out to free their territory from my rule. That said, they don't exactly have the ability to draw people in since they were crushed over a century ago. If I were attacked by an outside force, I'm pretty sure I can count on them to fight for me. After all, they may want their nation back but at the same time even they recognize the species as a whole must come first.

There is a significant risk that someone may push another too far and that the situation may end in bloodshed.

That happens quite often when the occasional human tourist with a criminal streak thinks he can rob a bank or grocery store and get away with it. They never seem to account for those pesky gun laws...

If you run such a utopia in which said laws and procedures would be pointless, then no one's forcing you to approve the resolution. Again, this is NOT about taking guns away from everyone. This is about preventing unnecessary injury and death, accidental or otherwise.

We have yet to see a way to do such that doesn't involve sedating the entire population for the rest of their natural lives. In most cases, we find that keeping in mind everyone around you is heavily armed tends to be effective enough to prevent unnecessary injury and death. Respecting the weapons you have and being careful with them prevents even more.

And if the government believes that the citizens have the right to overthrow the governent as they see fit, then it's not a government, it's anarchy, and they would arguably be able to overturn any and every single resolution that they disapprove of, right?

If they wanted to do that, they have to overturn the government first. I'm a dictatorship, not an anarchy.

one could argue that EVERY UN resolution is a national issue... if gun control was nothing more than a national issue, why does the option exist?

[OOC: why is there even a category for it under submitting a proposal?]

So, you're telling me that there isn't a single ill-willed, ambitious person in your country and that every single citizen is a hardcore patriot willing to throw their life on the line for the good of the nation?

Yes, as a matter of fact, some states do look upon it as that. Within Constitutional governments, the people themselves are considered as the source of all authority. Thus the people are capable of nulifying the "contract" they have with the existing governing body, and establish new government if it were to become too corrupt. The ballot box and the cartridge box are both valid forms of replacing government.


There is a significant risk that someone may push another too far and that the situation may end in bloodshed.

Such is the price of a true liberal and free society.


If you run such a utopia in which said laws and procedures would be pointless, then no one's forcing you to approve the resolution. Again, this is NOT about taking guns away from everyone. This is about preventing unnecessary injury and death, accidental or otherwise.

Gun control laws are not very preventitive. States which apply gun control, have larger blackmarket gun industries. Thus, the "controls" only act to inhibit those people who operate in the law from purchasing firearms. Those who do not operate in it, have better opportunity to access.

Law in itself should be retributive and not preventative. Preventative law is that which is operated by totalitarians, who see their job as controling the populace at large, for their own betterment.


And if the government believes that the citizens have the right to overthrow the governent as they see fit, then it's not a government, it's anarchy, and they would arguably be able to overturn any and every single resolution that they disapprove of, right?

Anarchy is government. Pure Republican Democracy is Anarchy with order. If you're not an Anarchy, you are either an Oligarchy or a Monarchy. In continuation, liberal nations are anarchies, as the flex is the power of the people, and their rights over and against government. You may not agree with such precepts... But one of the protections granted states in these United Nations, is their right to the determination of their own governmental forms; which includes the determination as Anarchial forms, up to an including Democratic Republics.

gun powder doesn't explose so that means I could own a heavy machine gun and your resolution would do nothing.

Gun powder burns very quickly creating such a high pressure area in the guns chamber that it pushes at super sonic speeds, no expolding involved (well except where the bullet may be going).

Then I got something to say about DLE's gun policies

if anyone trys to pull a shooting and goes crazy well then his entire population is welly armed, therfore detering it. For example if a kid were to commit a school shooting a teacher down the hall could have a 12 gauge behind his black board and be able to take care of it, the kids cold also be carrying pisols and its hard for a individual to shoot up a population that all have weapons on them.

I should make a country like that, if i did that in my dictator crazy one everyone is already made enough and I don't think my citizens would like that in the umcd.

Dude, firearms registration has already been tried in Canada. The result?

A big hassle for private legal firearms owners.

A big waste of taxpayer's dollars.

An excuse to get an illegal gun if you wanted to commit a crime.

Sheesh... I thought you all would learn by now...

We have Arms Registration here in Australia, too.

As Inbreedia says, all it's done is cost a shitload of money, inconvenienced every law-abiding gun owner in the country, created mountains of extra work for the Police, and done nothing to stop criminals acquiring guns.

Worse, the Weapons Registries here admit their records are highly inaccurate, so all they really do is tell the police how many guns you've got, and even that's not guaranteed to be right, even if you've got all the permits and registered all your guns.

In short, Arms Registration is a huge waste of time, and Roycelandia cannot support this proposal.

...and I don't know if I have this right, but in the real world, isn't the top murder weapon in Japan (with strict gun laws) a kitchen knife?

Try trusting your people, and punishing the criminals.

Dude, firearms registration has already been tried in Canada.We have Arms Registration here in Australia, too.NOTE: "Canada" and "Australia" don't exist in NationStates... and if they do, they're not the "Canada" and "Australia" that you know.

Yes but they are still examples of how of type of proposal really affects things.

Yes but they are still examples of how of type of proposal really affects things.

RL: The US has gun control guidelines, and some states have gun registration requirements. The "results" of gun control are dependent of who you ask. If you ask a "free gun" person, they'll tell you a story of an honest gun owner who was unable to get one. If you ask a "gun control" person they'll tell you of the criminal who is unable to get one. I've heard very little real data in gun arguments, just spin and emotion.

"i'd consider military personel as being within law enforcement..."
Well that would go against the tradition of hundreds of yeras all over the world of police being civilians protecting other civilians and it will piss off a large majority of cops.

"RL: The US has gun control guidelines, and some states have gun registration requirements. The "results" of gun control are dependent of who you ask. If you ask a "free gun" person, they'll tell you a story of an honest gun owner who was unable to get one. If you ask a "gun control" person they'll tell you of the criminal who is unable to get one. I've heard very little real data in gun arguments, just spin and emotion."

Even with gun control laws criminals will find ways to get guns, unless you remove all guns from everyone (one thing to say to anyone who thinks that is a good idea, second amendment right to bear arms) and that would leave the weak defenceless against criminals who have in jail doing nothing but lifting weights.

O ya about this proposal what is it going to do about the guns already in existance, registered or not? EEK I just read something I didn't notice before, you would have to get a hunting licence to get a hunting rifle even if the only intent on it was for shooting practice or even collecting.

RL: The US has gun control guidelines, and some states have gun registration requirements. The "results" of gun control are dependent of who you ask. If you ask a "free gun" person, they'll tell you a story of an honest gun owner who was unable to get one. If you ask a "gun control" person they'll tell you of the criminal who is unable to get one. I've heard very little real data in gun arguments, just spin and emotion.

Even with gun control laws criminals will find ways to get guns, unless you remove all guns from everyone (one thing to say to anyone who thinks that is a good idea, second amendment right to bear arms) and that would leave the weak defenceless against criminals who have in jail doing nothing but lifting weights.


That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, with easily accessed guns, the everyday person is at risk of becoming criminals when without guns they were not.

There are upsides and downsides to both tightening and loosening restrictions on guns. I think as long as the people are represented the nation has made the "right" decision.

We will not allow our citizens to have weapons without screening. However, we do issue a law if this is ever necessary. This means we are fine on how it is at the moment and do not support or decline this resolution.

EEK I just read something I didn't notice before, you would have to get a hunting licence to get a hunting rifle even if the only intent on it was for shooting practice or even collecting.If you clear the screening, then you can own any gun and use them for hunting, collecting, protection, whatever.

I'm going through and revising this. Thanks to everyone for their input thus far. Hopefully there's some ground where people can meet on such an apparently touchy subject.

again, we believe this is a national issue. we would applaud if it were simple guidlines that nations could interpret and put into affect, but this infringes more on the nation. yes, it could be argued that a lot of the issues are national issues, but then again, it could be argued that a lot of the subject matter of the issues ignore national boundries and affect other nations. i dont see anywhere in the gun issue that ignores national boundries. if people want guns in their country, they should be allowed to set the laws for them, not be dictated to by the UN.

if it were simple guidlines that nations could interpret and put into affect, but this infringes more on the nation.I like that idea of just guidelines. I'm revising this as we speak... >_> type... whatever :P

If you clear the screening, then you can own any gun and use them for hunting, collecting, protection, whatever.

Who are you going to get to screen nearly 1 billion people? And that's just one of the four nations that make up the DLE Empire. The others have larger populations than that one.

I'm going through and revising this. Thanks to everyone for their input thus far. Hopefully there's some ground where people can meet on such an apparently touchy subject.

I doubt there is. Some nations want to control guns, others want to ban them, and even more want to keep them free for use.

Who are you going to get to screen nearly 1 billion people? And that's just one of the four nations that make up the DLE Empire. The others have larger populations than that one.Are you trying to deter me with numbers? Who does all the taxes for the nearly 1 billion people? How much land does the hundreds of thousands of nations in NationStates take up? The reality we know "in real life" doesn't apply to NationStates.

I doubt there is. Some nations want to control guns, others want to ban them, and even more want to keep them free for use.Of course not... especially when no one's willing to compromise, not even slightly.

may i also remind the representative from Myxx to keep in mind that this is the UN, and not the US, EU, CoA or any other type of federal government ;)

Are you trying to deter me with numbers?

Actually, no. If I was, I would point out that NS has over 30 trillion people in it and, by ratios, you would have to figure out a system for 10 trillion of them. Though, it's probably over 40 trillion by this point.

Who does all the taxes for the nearly 1 billion people?

In my nation? Automated tax programs that are double-checked by AIs. But checking a tax form and testing someone for competency with a firearm are entirely different operations.

How much land does the hundreds of thousands of nations in NationStates take up? The reality we know "in real life" doesn't apply to NationStates.

At last estimate? Roughly 27-60 Earths. Depending on how tightly you pack them, of course.

Of course not... especially when no one's willing to compromise, not even slightly.

That's the problem: A lot of us are not willing to compromise on this issue. A lack of compromise is why abortion and gay rights are always hostile battles and are still being fought, why marriage is brought up once every few days to be fought on, and why some discussions stretch on for dozens of pages.

really, i have to know... do you enjoy being a smart ass? does pissing people off make you feel better? good, i hope it does. because you piss me off to holy hell and back. there, i said it. YOU PISS ME OFF I hope you're happy... go off and laugh away, chuckle... think whatever about me you want. enjoy it. i'm one of the few people who can admit they're a bitch to cynicism and sarcasm...

really, i have to know... do you enjoy being a smart ass?

Actually, I wasn't being a smartass with my last comment. A question back in March in the Technical forum came up about NS population. I forget which mod or admin posted the figures, but by their count NS had roughly 33 trillion people as of February. My comment about the extreme number of Earths is in relation to the amount of space required for that many people.

The AI thing comes from way I deal with my nation. Automation helps when you're ruling over nearly 4 billion people. DLE as a nation rules over the DLE Empire, which consists of DLE, Tiamat Taveril, Merlyns, and Apsu Lilith. DLE is the youngest nation, having 930 million people. Tiamat Taveril is the oldest, having 956 million people. Merlyns and Apsu Lilith have 948 million people and 931 million people, respectively.

does pissing people off make you feel better? good, i hope it does. because you piss me off to holy hell and back. there, i said it. YOU PISS ME OFF I hope you're happy... go off and laugh away, chuckle... think whatever about me you want. enjoy it. i'm one of the few people who can admit they're a bitch to cynicism and sarcasm...

The cynicism results from experience with arguing on here. There are certain issues that people simply do not want to compromise on. And sarcasm wasn't even put in my post.

the questions were rhetorical... do you really think i care?

there is no sense of "reality" in nationstates... yet you bring in an argument that tries to defy that "reality", which doesn't exist... f*ck it... i'm not submitting this sh*t since everyone is so g**damn stubborn to do things for the good of this world... this imaginary world which everyone is taking too seriously or not serious enough...

this game is a sick joke... and i'm probably the only one not laughing...

the questions were rhetorical... do you really think i care?

No, but I do think you have taken my posts the wrong way. I'm searching for how, or even if, you plan to deal with certain issues or just leave them up to the individual governments.

there is no sense of "reality" in nationstates... yet you bring in an argument that tries to defy that "reality", which doesn't exist...

Quite a few of us prefer at least a limited form of realism or a coherent set of laws for what is and what isn't physically possible in our nations. That's part of why I argue from a semi-realistic far-future perspective.

f*ck it... i'm not submitting this sh*t since everyone is so g**damn stubborn to do things for the good of this world... this imaginary world which everyone is taking too seriously or not serious enough...

The serious way it is taken by comes from the effort put in and the fact some of us are using it as an escape. I put in a lot of effort to come to the thing most unlike my real life for a reason. If you wish to submit it, you must be prepared that some people will have questions and some will openly oppose and try to argue you down. It's part of the game.

this game is a sick joke... and i'm probably the only one not laughing...

No one is laughing. Unless they're particularly cruel or enjoy the misery of others.

i'm getting out of line... making an ass of myself... think i need a break from this... i'm becoming one of the people taking this too seriously...