NationStates Jolt Archive

As the leader of a very militaristic society I have been quite upset at the recent attempt to ban guns from usage and so I have therefore come up with my own set of rules applying to guns that I hope will be considered satisfactory by everyone.

Free Access Gun Control
Basic Goal
This resolution, if passed, will allow for the ability for the citizens of ALL UN Nations to be allowed to freely carry weapons on their person and house them in their homes as a supporting act of the right for all people to bear arms and to defend themselves should the need arise.
We feel this is a greatly deterring factor in violent crimes if the chances off a violent criminal encountering an armed person were conciderably higher and if the percentage of law abiding citizens with the access to such equipment were increased, increasing the ratio of legal gunholders against that of illegal gunholders.

Guidelines For Owning, Keeping, And Transporting A Handgun
The guidelines of gun possession will be as follows:

A. Any persons shall be allowed to legally own a handgun if they meet the following requirements:
They are of or over the legal age (between 14 and 21 as determined by the government of their nation). They have taken a training course in basic handgun operation and have earned a certificate of passing signed by an official appointed by the government strictly for this purpose. They have never been convicted of a felony involving a violent crime (rape, robbery, assault & battery, ect.) They have been cleared in a simple psychatric evaluation to be compitent

B. To purchase a handgun the following guidelines must be met:
They must be fully registered and meet all the requirements in Article II, Section A. They must purchase from a registered gun distributor and must present proof of their registration to the distributor upon purchase. They must sign to be registered with the Bureau of Personal Arms (Created by the resolution, and henseforth refered to as the BPA) with their name, personal information, the serial number, model number and make of their newly aquired handgun. They must wait through a 10-day "cooling-off period" before they may pick up their weapon. People on parol or probation may not possess a handgun, neither may people deemed mentally incompitent.

C. Possession and carrying of a handgun in public is allowed as long as the following guidelines are met:
The handgun is clearly visable in a side mounted or chest mounted holster and holster is a bright color such as white or hunter orange so it can be seen at night. The safety must be on at all times.

D. Possession and storage of a handgun in one's home is allowed as long as the followign guidelines are met:
The handgun is kept unloaded and is unloaded after every use, and the safety is always on regardless of if it is loaded or not. Also, ammunition and the handgun must be kept in seperate locations.

The Sale and Distribution of Handguns

This proposition, if passed, will create the following positions:
1. A Bureau of Persona Arms, designed to track the sale, ownership, and distribution of handguns in each nation
2. A board of psychoanalysts who are appointed to analyze and approve possible gun recipients
3. A group of specialists designed to adminsiter handgun training courses and are appointed to approve possible gun recipients and to approve their licenses

The sale and distribution of handguns, while maintained to be a mostly free enterprise, is to be government regulated and all who participate must seek goverment approval via the BPA. This insures that all handguns available to the public are 100% legal, inspected and approved by the government.

Governmental Proscedures

As you can see, I've left most of this up to the governments themselves. This resolution is simply stating that if you wish to own a handgun that the government cannot stop you, although they can limit what you are allowed to do with it. That's what this section is for.
This proposal clearly states that...:

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL NATION MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO DENY THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO CARRY A GUN BUT IS ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF GUNS TO THE PUBLIC AND THE LEGALITY OF USING THE WEAPON IN PUBLIC, REGARDLESS OF THE GRAVITY OF THE ACT.

Closing Notes

I hope I didn't leave anything out. If I did and I see it presents a problem, I will propose an amendment to this resolution. This also does not apply to the sale of rifles and shotguns, which is generally not considered a problem. This proposition is here to ensure the rights of the people while still appeasing those who would like to see a more effective method of gun control.

An abbreviated version of this has been proposed, tell me what you think and if you see it up there, give me your support. Thank you.

~Commander Diana Rose

I agreed with the policies until you got to the guns in public thing, you made no provisions for places where you wouldn't want a gun at all (I.E. school).

And a holstered gun in the open in public can easily be taken by a deranged phsyco who wants to go on a shooting spree but can't buy a gun because he hasn't passed the phsycology test.

I still wouldn't vote for this though, mainly because I'd like to let nations decide this on thier own.

Well, guns are allowed in military acadamies but not in public schools. I personally don't see what your people's fears of school shootouts are anyway. It's not like the odds of a shootout are any less at a gas station, resturant or apartment building. People just take notice because they're at schools, but I really only made this up to try and combat all the anti-gun proposals out there. My country will always be a high percentile gun ownership, regardless of what the UN says.

The opinion of guns in the hands of citiens should be addressed by the individual nations. They know their people best, they know what they will want much better then the UN.

The further you take legislature from the actual people, the less representation for the individual. I am inclined to vote against anyhting that forces any sort of law in my country. That is not what the Un was designed for. Have any of you EVER read the UN Charter?

.... I didn't think so. :roll:

You people don't understand the real UN, and that is why the NS UN is so screwed up and so far fromt he truth.

*Sigh*

~Korunida~

Well, guns are allowed in military acadamies but not in public schools. I personally don't see what your people's fears of school shootouts are anyway. It's not like the odds of a shootout are any less at a gas station, resturant or apartment building. People just take notice because they're at schools, but I really only made this up to try and combat all the anti-gun proposals out there. My country will always be a high percentile gun ownership, regardless of what the UN says.


People fear school shootings because a school in itself represents innocence. Children go to schools, not always gas stations. Now, I don't want to see anyone shot, but I'd rather grown men and people where exposed to that type of violence, then children in a school, who thought they were safe...

~Korunida~

Well, guns are allowed in military acadamies but not in public schools. I personally don't see what your people's fears of school shootouts are anyway. It's not like the odds of a shootout are any less at a gas station, resturant or apartment building. People just take notice because they're at schools, but I really only made this up to try and combat all the anti-gun proposals out there. My country will always be a high percentile gun ownership, regardless of what the UN says.

The reason I have "fears" about school shootouts is because schools are not supposed to be like a gas station, resturant, or apartment building. Schools are supposed to be a place where the child has nothing to fear, for that is the best environment for learning.

And I don't need to fear school shootouts to want to ban guns in school, It's just pure logic, there is absolutely no need for guns in a school. None at all. Unless of course you have a horribly unsafe school where you let any stranger in, in which case guns are the least of your worries.

Gees. You generalize all of us in one fell swoop. Don't you? I have read the charter by the way. Fine. You don't have to vote on it. I really don't care if it passes anyway as long as I get to keep my guns. I'll be happy as long as I can fight and make money. That's just the way things are.

Sorry. Being militarist, our lives are filled with these facts and we rarely have to deal with them because we're taught from an early age to understand these things and to only fight those that are worth our time and not waste our energy on petty stuff. I'm sorry if other people don't understand that.

The opinion of guns in the hands of citiens should be addressed by the individual nations. They know their people best, they know what they will want much better then the UN.

The further you take legislature from the actual people, the less representation for the individual. I am inclined to vote against anyhting that forces any sort of law in my country. That is not what the Un was designed for. Have any of you EVER read the UN Charter?

.... I didn't think so. :roll:

You people don't understand the real UN, and that is why the NS UN is so screwed up and so far fromt he truth.

*Sigh*

~Korunida~

A word of advice, if you are going to preach then spellcheck, it's not an insult or anything, I'm just pointing out that if you have several spelling errors like that people will dismiss any point you make because they think a 5 year old is saying it.

As for your argument, the NS UN and the RL UN are completely different. There is no charter for this one, there is only on in RL. And since there is no charter for this one, we can do whatever we want, as long as it goes along with the FAQ. So to this point, the NS UN has been almost completely on the "truth", because I can only think of one UN resolution that went against the FAQ.

Sorry. Being militarist, our lives are filled with these facts and we rarely have to deal with them because we're taught from an early age to understand these things and to only fight those that are worth our time and not waste our energy on petty stuff. I'm sorry if other people don't understand that.

Do you honestly think that is at all possible in real life?

(Sure, why not? Besides we're in character in here dammit. Let's not let your personal views get in the way of enjoying the game. All I'm doing is playing a game, I don't know what the rest of you guys are doing. >.> If I wanted to discuss real politics, I'd go somewhere else. Don't take everything so personal, like Labrador for instance, man what a creep. It's just a GAME.)

A. Any persons shall be allowed to legally own a handgun if they meet the following requirements:

They have been cleared in a simple psychatric evaluation to be compitent...

People on parol or probation may not possess a handgun, neither may people deemed mentally incompitent...

This proposition, if passed, will create the following positions:

2. A board of psychoanalysts who are appointed to analyze and approve possible gun recipients

~Commander Diana Rose

I am concerned that the requirement to psychologically evaluate potential gun owners will lead to politicization of the process. Specifically, I am concerned that certain groups will be "blacklisted" from gun ownership based on their being politically opposed to government policy. It is not unimaginable that an applicant could be declared incompetent or ineligable simply because somebody with influence wants to block him/her from gun ownership or other privileges. What provisions will exist to prevent this from happening?

Personally I firmly disagree with the proposal, all guns are outlawed within Nebbyland, and the possesion of such is a serious crime. Were this passed we'd probably have to leave the UN. I don't think it will due to the gun nut freaks who will vote for this are also the ones who hold national sovereignty so dear that they'll oppose it on principle.
We would probably hawever use a loop hole something weabhore, but probably along the lines of making it illegal to manufacture, or import guns. Then any gun in the country is illegal and would be destroyed.

Very few of our nearly non existant police force carry guns, and those that do have at least one day a week for training, and due to the lack of gun crime (or any crime for that matter) they are very rarely deployed.

Our army such as it is our issued with weapons as and when they are required however our usual role as aid distributors means that they rarely carry weapons even in hostile situations relying on peoples knowledge of such to prevent them being shot at. It works quite well so far.

loadsa love
karen
today's spokesman for nebbyland

This resolution, if passed, will allow for the ability for the citizens of ALL UN Nations to be allowed to freely carry weapons on their person and house them in their homes as a supporting act of the right for all people to bear arms and to defend themselves should the need arise.

I would not vote for this resolution because it states that all people have a right to bear arms. If that were the case then you could make no laws regulating the bearing of arms. It is a privilige not a right.

You do have a right to arm yourself--you don't have a right to the arms themselves (you have to obtain those through your own effort) but you do have a right to arm yourself to the teeth, meaning that no one will stop you if you so desire.

You do have a right to arm yourself--you don't have a right to the arms themselves (you have to obtain those through your own effort) but you do have a right to arm yourself to the teeth, meaning that no one will stop you if you so desire.

And I suppose this is from your bill of rights that just magically made itself and has nobody to enforce it so therefore means nothing?

Ahh... just as I thought... :roll:

If that were the case then you could make no laws regulating the bearing of arms. It is a privilige not a right.

Well, actually, you could - you could prohibit the bearing/ownership of arms to people without full rights (children, convicted felons, the insane) or of weapons whose impact is uncontrollable (WMD's). This is the way Allanea handles it. Except for the above we have no gun laws.

Personally I firmly disagree with the proposal, all guns are outlawed within Nebbyland, and the possesion of such is a serious crime. Were this passed we'd probably have to leave the UN. I don't think it will due to the gun nut freaks who will vote for this are also the ones who hold national sovereignty so dear that they'll oppose it on principle.
We would probably hawever use a loop hole something weabhore, but probably along the lines of making it illegal to manufacture, or import guns. Then any gun in the country is illegal and would be destroyed.

Yes, we who value our sovereignty do support the sovereignty of other nations, even Nebbishes who assuredly do not return the favor. We don't even object to UN members who openly declare they will not obey that body's ordinances, yet remain members and vote on proposals that they expect to other nations to obey.

Rational Self Interest cannot support any proposal that infringes on national sovereignty to achieve an object that nations are perfectly capable of achieving individually. Let them choose for themselves. Arms control is a valid object of UN attention; gun control is not.

For ourselves, we have found that our rational self interest does not demand the registration or restriction of ordinary firearms. None of our citizens is deprived of the means of self defense until he has shown by his actions that he is untrustworthy.

I agree with Tisoconia about the schools, but if you change that then I'll endorse it.

I agree with this policy, but for my nation I will have to add, that citizens can carry rifles and shotguns, civilans can only care pistols. All of my citizens have been or are in my military, so they know the rules better than my civilians.

The Protectorate of Grotia will NOT allow citizens to carry guns. Period. UN or no UN. Guns are for the Military. And the Police. And the Border Guards. And the Traffic Wardens. And the Security Service. And Military Intelligence. And the Public Defence Militias. And the Special Treatment Units. And Prison Guards. And Prisoner Control Units. And Public Security Agents.

What are you, sick? Citizens with guns? By God, with your damn law, EVERYONE will have a gun.

Keep out of my business. Or I will have to shoot you. And then the military will shoot you. And the Police...

Down with right wing gun nuts.

Bugger Off.
Ministry of Sarcasm,
Protectorate of Grotia

Down with right wing gun nuts

What about left-wing gun nuts?

Rejistania strongly disagrees with this proposal. There is no right to bear arms in our legislation. Guns are forbidden for anyone but soldiers and policemen/policewomen. The right to bear arms would increase crime rates in our nation.

Down with right wing gun nuts

What about left-wing gun nuts?
Allanea, neo-liberals are in fact rightists.

Down with right wing gun nuts

What about left-wing gun nuts?
Allanea, neo-liberals are in fact rightists.

OK, bear with me here:

I support welfare, public education, Medicare, and similar.

I oppose the War on Drugs and the War on Guns. Am I, then, a rightist? Are you insulting me? :wink:

OK, bear with me here:

I support welfare, public education, Medicare, and similar.

I oppose the War on Drugs and the War on Guns. Am I, then, a rightist? Are you insulting me? :wink:
I thought that you said you were a "neo-liberal" neo-liberals are staunch fiscal conservatives who are often right-wing moderates on civil issues and hawks in foreign policy.

You are a foreign policy hawk, but by what you just said you are a leftist hawk who likes guns.

Actually, Allanea, if you support welfare, public education, medicare, and similar, you are holding positions on those issues in common with Mussolini and Hitler. This does not mean that those are not good positions, and I am sure there are other issues on which you would disagree with the Fascists and National Socialists; the point is that there is little distinction between left and right in domestic policy.

God, not another NRA gun nut... :roll:

Neoliberals:
Imagine a 4-quadrant graph. The further right you go, the more capitalist it gets. The further down you go, the more freedoms you enjoy.
Bottom left: Anarchosocialists (including me)
Top left: Stalinists, Maoists, etc.
Top right: The worst of the worst - fascists, Nazis, McCapitali$ts, religious rightists...
Bottom right: Neoliberals

That answered your question?

God, not another NRA gun nut... :roll:

JPFO would be better.

That answered your question?

Nope. I don't think of myself as that kind of neo-liberal, rather as bottom left to the same measure as the DNC is left on that scale, but WAY further down than the DNC.

its a ridiculous proposal. things would be like the Old West. The thought of any average person walking around with an automatic weapon is pure stupidity, militaristic or not.

Also this seems more of a secular issue than that of one that would be decided in the UN.

[quote="Icelantia"]its a ridiculous proposal. things would be like the Old West.[ /quote]

*wonders whether Icelantia knows what the Old West was really like (besides western action flicks)*

*wonders whether Icelantia knows what the Old West was really like (besides western action flicks)*

I meant to be comical but obviously it was taken too literally. A nation where every citizens owns a handgun, automatic weapon, or shotgun is anarchy. Crime would be astronomical, and the police would be unable to control the masses so a military presence would be needed. No leader in the modern age would be so foolish as to allow its citizens to legally bear arms. If this proposal is sent to the UN i will most definately vote NO and encourage others to vote the same way.

Imagine a 4-quadrant graph. The further right you go, the more capitalist it gets. The further down you go, the more freedoms you enjoy.
Bottom left: Anarchosocialists (including me)
Top left: Stalinists, Maoists, etc.
Top right: The worst of the worst - fascists, Nazis, McCapitali$ts, religious rightists...
Bottom right: Neoliberals

The problem with this, as with other simple-minded attempts to categorize the range of political beliefs on one or two axes, is that it doesn't accomplish anything other than giving some geek a graph to stare at. The "capitalist" distinction is meaningless at both the upper and lower ends; when there are no restrictions on personal liberty, there are no restrictions on the accumulation and disposal of wealth - nor any government protections of property. "Anarchosocialism" is an hallucination, not a form of society; anarchocapitalism denotes a society with a certain set of restrictions on individual liberty, as opposed to a different set.
At the other end, where there is no personal liberty, distinctions between "capitalism" and "socialism" are mostly a matter of what Marx called "superstructure" - i.e., extraneous. The government is an oligarchy, and whether the oligarchy consists of persons who are officially part of the government or not is immaterial.
I've seen other two-axis schemes that are better than that one, but none, of course, is adequate.

I use a three axis, civil, economic, and foreign policy, but now that I've seen NS's I'm thinking about merging civil and economic, and adding political.

Would that be civil liberty, economic liberty, and aggressiveness?

Yes, we who value our sovereignty do support the sovereignty of other nations, even Nebbishes who assuredly do not return the favor. We don't even object to UN members who openly declare they will not obey that body's ordinances, yet remain members and vote on proposals that they expect to other nations to obey.

Hey you're being a little unfair there. We completely respect the right to national sovereignty provided you are not in the NS-UN. Those nations that are must surrender to the dictortatorship of the masses. This is the way NS works. Once you have entered the UN you have surrendered a little of your power far from the most important bit because you can leave freely. There are proposals that will force our exit from the UN some of the more obvious ones being on the issues of Gun ownership, abortion, and the death penalty.

There are some systems based changes that could happen in the UN, however I neither expect or really want these to happen as I like things working the way that they do.

love bumble bees and other things that science can't explain
Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I meant to be comical but obviously it was taken too literally. A nation where every citizens owns a handgun, automatic weapon, or shotgun is anarchy..

Like Vermont? :D

First off I like this idea A LOT! This is a great proposal. But I think it should be taken a step further. I noticed that you put that your proposal DOES NOT include rifles/shot guns.

You should have it setup as this:
Must buy rifle/shot gun from regitered retailer.
Must have mental clearence from Psychologist.
Must get gun license.

To keep rifle/shot gun in home:
Must keep weapon and ammunition in sepeate locations.
Must keep out of reach of children under the legal age.

And finally:
MUST BE VISIBLE AND UNLOADED IN PUBLIC PLACES.
TO GET INTO A PUBLIC AREA W/ A FIREARM MUST SHOW GUN LICENSE.

Thats what i think you should do with rifles in your proposal. It would be greatly appreciated if you took this into consideration into your amendment for your proposal that you said you will be doing.