NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that this is one right that the people deserve what do you think?

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like clairifaction upon the type of firearm. Would this include only hunting rifles, or would it also include hand guns, automatic assult weapons and perhaps anti-tank weapons?

:D

At the The Most Serene Republic of IronBrew we belive that people with thier arms on fire are a risk to our national animal the Frankensteins Monster. The Frankensteins Monster tends to be shy of fire, so to many people with firearms are a risk we are not willing to take.

Also with most of our population, high as a kite, we feel people with arms on fire could be a risk to property, thus must also be a risk to the Wabbit.

:D

At the The Most Serene Republic of IronBrew we belive that people with thier arms on fire are a risk to our national animal the Frankensteins Monster. The Frankensteins Monster tends to be shy of fire so to many people with firearms is a risk we are not willing to take.

Also with most of our population high as a kite we feel people with arms on fire could be a risk to property, thus must also be a risk to the Wabbit.

We the PROA feel that lighting people's arms on fire should only be allowed for the purposes of making movies, or tv shows, or other enterainment purposes, as long as all workers rights are respected and safety procedures followed.

There is nothing wrong with carrying firearms. Although there is virtually no crime in our nation and thus a lacking need of guns, we believe it should still be a freedom. Guns can be used for recreational purposes, like hunting or simple target practice.

I think that this is one right that the people deserve what do you think?

Not only should people have the right to bear arms.. I believe they should also have the right to have legs as well. However, I don't think it should be a right to own a gun. :wink:

Peace,
Stephanie.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like clairifaction upon the type of firearm. Would this include only hunting rifles, or would it also include hand guns, automatic assult weapons and perhaps anti-tank weapons?

hunting weapons and handguns please excuse my general question

Well, I would rather not call it a right to bear arms, more of a privilage. Because if it is a right then criminals could argue we cannot take it away.

And it does also depend on your definition of firearm, if it's only use it to either be collected or kill people then I can't see too much of a reason to have it, and if it's offensive capabilities outwiegh it's defesive capabilities or there is more risk that someone innocent will get killed (nuclear weapon or grenade) then it probably shouldn't be legal.

However if this is asking if people are allowed to change thier DNA to give themselves bear arms then I'm all for it, but I don't think I would allow people with bear arms to bear arms, they have no thumbs so they couldn't really use them anyways.

I'll be damned if someone tries to prevent me from baring my arms!

I don't know. On one hand, allowing only rifles for hunting would make countries much safer assuming few to no criminals got their hands on guns. On the other hand handguns help people protect themselves and more powerful guns are nice for overthrowing an oppresive government. There's pros and cons to both sides. I'm paralyzed by indecision when it comes to this issue.

Nope, no one but the swat team and the army and the criminal underworld may bear arms in my nation. the criminals merely need to run fast to escape. It promotes healthy living and keeps down obesity in our gangster class.

Any object whose sole purpose, ultimately, is to end the life of another human being should not be sold to the public. That is our simple credo, and we stick to it.

I think that this is one right that the people deserve what do you think?

Not only should people have the right to bear arms.. I believe they should also have the right to have legs as well. However, I don't think it should be a right to own a gun. :wink:

Peace,
Stephanie.

I think you're on the fence on this one, tsk tsk not like you. :D

Regards,
Sakbutt

I think it would be more sensible to give everyone the right to arm bears.

Giving people a gun? Are you guys crazy? You do know that guns do not require pointing at something non-human before they fire, don't you?
To make it clear: guns can and will kill people. Take away guns from your entire nation, and crime cuts in half, at least.

the right to bear arms came about as a safeguard against a tyranical government. it was meant to include any type of arms that the government had. while the type of arms available has changed over the years making the idea of all types of arms being accessible to the public a scary thought, the idea behind this issue is still valid. if the right to bear arms disappears then it would be entirely too easy for a government to simply decide they don't want to be unelected and will do as they please.

Giving people a gun? Are you guys crazy? You do know that guns do not require pointing at something non-human before they fire, don't you?
To make it clear: guns can and will kill people. Take away guns from your entire nation, and crime cuts in half, at least.

bartavia in my country the right to bear arms is held in high regard. if i took this away i can guarantee the crime rate would not drop at all as we don't have any crime rate. matter of fact in my entire region there is virtually no crime rate, and in every country there are guns.

Dont you think the guns should have a say? Ignoring the rights of firearms can cause serious repurcussions. in Kenmore Hills Firearms have been fighting for regognition for generations but to no avail. The governments only response so far has been to destroy firearms found guilty of a crime (no legal representation or trial i might add).

Firearms have the right to be beared (born, Carried).

If humans weren't such idiots, there wouldn't BE guns. Guns shouldn't be allowed to bear people.

rifles for hunting......fine.

Handguns.........assault rifles.....etc.......NO.

you can just as easily "defend your home" with a shotgun....

[quote=Bartavia]Giving people a gun? Are you guys crazy? You do know that guns do not require pointing at something non-human before they fire, don't you?
To make it clear: guns can and will kill people. Take away guns from your entire nation, and crime cuts in half, at least.

Actually american statistics show that over the last ten years that murder rates have dropped, while handgun sales have increased.

Wich does not account as to why in America last year there were over 11.000 shooting deaths, while less than 400 in Britian.

So...the question is: what is it about us americans that makes us shoot each other.....a lot.

Our concern about this question relates to lack of specificity.

The question, "should people be allowed to carry firearms" is an extremely general and simplistic question. In order to provide a sensible and considered answer, the following points must be clarified:

1) When referring to "people", about whom are talking? Are we referring to people over a particular age; who have fulfilled a set of regulating criteria; and who are free from factors, such as criminal histroy or mental illnes that could increase the chance of unlawful or injurous use of said firearms?

2) When referring to "firearms", to what kind(s) of firearm are you referring? Does this include rifles, handguns, mortors, etc. Does the firing capacity of the weapon matter - ie is the weapon, single action, semi-automatic or fully automatic?

3) In what situations would you consider it appropriate or conversley, inappropriate/illegal to carry arms? One can not say that one is free to carry firarms without placing a limit on this freedom. If one argues that it is every person's right to carry a firearm, one must consider where they carry them. We would suggest that carrying a firearm aboard a airliner is neither appropriate nor desirable.

I believe that any adult who has not on an individual basis been determined to be irresponsible (convicted felons or mentally ill people) or incompetent (people with a recognized mental or physical handicap that would impair their judgement or marksmanship) should be allowed to own a sidearm (definition below), and any adult meeting the above requirements may also get a license to own light arms (definition below). A license may be granted to anybody who applies who shows that he or she can handle the weapon in a competent manner (excluding the above categories of people)

Sidearm: Any firearm that discharges a single non-explosive round (or a single cartridge of smaller pellets) when the trigger is pressed. A Sidearm may hold any number or rounds in its ammunition chamber, but each round must be discharged by a separate press of the trigger. Sidearms include all non-automatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles which do not ordinarily use explosive ammunition.

Light Arm: Any man-portable firearm or rocket-propelled weapon that is not a Sidearm. Man-portable means that it can be fired while held in the hands or mounted on the shoulder of an adult male of typical strength--weapons that must be mounted on a tripod or transported using wheels do not count as man-portable. Light Arms include automatic handguns and rifles, submachine and light machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, etc.

[quote=Bartavia]Giving people a gun? Are you guys crazy? You do know that guns do not require pointing at something non-human before they fire, don't you?
To make it clear: guns can and will kill people. Take away guns from your entire nation, and crime cuts in half, at least.

Actually american statistics show that over the last ten years that murder rates have dropped, while handgun sales have increased.

Wich does not account as to why in America last year there were over 11.000 shooting deaths, while less than 400 in Britian.

So...the question is: what is it about us americans that makes us shoot each other.....a lot.

You've seen Bowling For Columbine as well, then?

The Commonwealth of Amiria does not grant its citizens the right to bear arms unless they are a registered member of a gun club or a military or police organisation. Guns may be owned by anyone but only for collection purposes and in this case the firing pin must be permanently disabled.

Otherwise they will drop things

No, they most certainely not. Being armed should only be limited to the police and the military.

the right to own a handgun only leads to the American phenomenon of mass fear and spiralling gun murders. For those in favour of handgun ownership, I suggest you take time to watch Micheal Moores brilliant documentry, 'Bowling for Columbine'.

Edit: Sorry, 'Bowling for Columbine' has already been metioned. The point is still valid though, if repeated.

"Bowling" does not exist in my country.

Its not a case of banning guns - in America's case its already far too late. Some countries have developed a 'gun culture' over many years and banning firearms will make no difference (also its its fault of your constitution and civil rights that has led to people having an excuse for owning firearms in the first place). Britain has a low gun crime rate because of the precedent over many years that only the army carries firearms and not the police. Although this is changing, (mainly due to the foreign drug gangs waving Mac-10s in the street), it must be the world's policy to leave the buisness of shooting other people to the armed forces.

Uh-oh
Nation Not Found: "America"

There is no America.

:D I THINK IF ANYONE WANTS TO CARRY FIREARMS THATS FINE,BUT BULLETS SHOULD NEVER BE PRODUCED IN A SANE WORLD.

amen 8)

True, not at the moment - you know what I mean.

Give people guns...OK.! Lets just make the ammo SO expensive.That you'd have to be Really Really angry (and rich) to shoot someone.Then you would know who did it (as kid rock says) cause they'd be right there trying to dig out their expensive bullet,from the corpse.When the police arrived !

Werdahek Ami Island, has a very good idea. This will be implemented in the Kingdom of The WhiteRose immediately. We see no legitimate reason why people should not be able to bear arms.

Sincerely,
Diplomat of The Kingdom of The WhiteRose,
United Nations Delegate of The Holy Empires of Zakarum,
Founder of The Holy Empires of Zakarum,
Johannes Van Liempt III

Of course they should be able to bear arms. How else will they start revolutions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I think people should have the right to bear arms, but ONLY after a very strict test and background check. I don't want just any physco maniac out there to have a gun.

the right to own a handgun only leads to the American phenomenon of mass fear and spiralling gun murders. For those in favour of handgun ownership, I suggest you take time to watch Micheal Moores brilliant documentry, 'Bowling for Columbine'.

Edit: Sorry, 'Bowling for Columbine' has already been metioned. The point is still valid though, if repeated.

LOL.....If Micheal Moore_on ever set foot in Haid DaSalami...He would be executed the moment the door of his plane opened up!

I think it's in teh best interest of the people if only politce officers, and other similar workers, carry arms.

Banning the populace from owning firearms is the proper thing to do.

At least that's what Hitler thought!

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org/)

Since I have two attached to my body it would be difficult not to bare them

(the deligate from LoreSong appologizes for the pun-ishment.. not enough sleep due to a virus invading her lands)

Since I have two attached to my body it would be difficult not to bare them

(the deligate from LoreSong appologizes for the pun-ishment.. not enough sleep due to a virus invading her lands)

Hmm, so, do you advocate citizens bearing arms or not?

To be honest, we are torn on this issue and would like to see both arguments and statistics that support both options before making a choice.

To be honest, we are torn on this issue and would like to see both arguments and statistics that support both options before making a choice.

I don't see how you could be torn. Please exxplain, if you would be so kind.

Quite simply since weapons already exist, and many people have them, it would be a huge undertaking to disarm. There will be many people who will hide weapons because they feel it is their right to have them. Additionally since not all Nation States belong to the UN - we could be putting citizens in danger. Beyond that If we make arms illegal, we will b giving more power and money to crime lords (if you don't believe me look at what happened with prohibition).

Quite simply since weapons already exist, and many people have them, it would be a huge undertaking to disarm.

But surely that undertaking would be worth it for the lives it will save.

actually you could end up with many more dead - read the rest of the post. There are nations who would NOT disarm. That would leave the citizens who do vulnerable. Could you guarantee their safety ?? Are you willing to fund massive police efforts to avoid underground trafficing of arms?

do you see how difficult this question becomes when not everyone will abide by the decision?