NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a practical proposal, and I believe this should at least be brought up to a resolution, and be voted upon. You review it and decide if you wish to approve it.
Thank you.

18 is the age
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Mild Proposed by: Amony
Description: Given that all legal adults of the age of 18, and of a sound state of mind can now:

a. purchase, sell, and carry firearms
b. purchase and consume alcoholic beverages

Approvals: 4 (Rhhodgen, Divine Prosperity, Rhuber, Lamoni)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 129 more approvals) (as of when this was posted)

Voting Ends: Mon Dec 15 2003

What if a nation doesn’t allow its citizens firearms at any age or alcohol for that matter?

Not to be rude or anything, but I am not exactly sure what you mean. This proposal would allow those over 18 to:

a. purchase, sell, and carry firearms
b. purchase and consume alcoholic beverages

So if a nation was in the UN they would have to follow this proposal (if it became a resolution and if it was passed). The same goes for any passed resolution.

Not to be rude or anything, but I am not exactly sure what you mean. This proposal would allow those over 18 to:

a. purchase, sell, and carry firearms
b. purchase and consume alcoholic beverages

So if a nation was in the UN they would have to follow this proposal (if it became a resolution and if it was passed). The same goes for any passed resolution.

So a nation that bans firearms for other than sporting purposes would suddenly have to rewrite their laws? I don't really think that's an appropriate demand - the right to possess dangerous and lethal equipment is hardly vital.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

So a nation that bans firearms for other than sporting purposes would suddenly have to rewrite their laws? I don't really think that's an appropriate demand - the right to possess dangerous and lethal equipment is hardly vital.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus


It is the same way with any UN resolution. If a nation's laws were different before, then they have to change. As for it not being vital, think about it. If anyone 18 or older could legally own a firearm, then crime would go down. Burglars would a whole lot less likely to break into a home if they thought there was a great possibility of someone in there having a gun.

So a nation that bans firearms for other than sporting purposes would suddenly have to rewrite their laws? I don't really think that's an appropriate demand - the right to possess dangerous and lethal equipment is hardly vital.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus


It is the same way with any UN resolution. If a nation's laws were different before, then they have to change. As for it not being vital, think about it. If anyone 18 or older could legally own a firearm, then crime would go down. Burglars would a whole lot less likely to break into a home if they thought there was a great possibility of someone in there having a gun.

I know it's the same with any resolution. But think about it - does the UN need to interfere with national gun laws? I think that's something individual to each nation. I'd also need to see statistics before I believe that allowing anyone over eighteen to buy a gun would reduce crime, and even then it probably wouldn't be possible to generalise to every country - each nation has individual needs.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

It is the same way with any UN resolution. If a nation's laws were different before, then they have to change. As for it not being vital, think about it. If anyone 18 or older could legally own a firearm, then crime would go down. Burglars would a whole lot less likely to break into a home if they thought there was a great possibility of someone in there having a gun.
But if the burglar had a gun also why would he/she not take the risk of going into the house. How would a burglar know if a house had a gun? What I am trying to say is; if the burglar really wanted to commit a crime he/she would find away of getting past a person with a gun just like they would find a way to get past other security measures.


The Black New Word outlawed firearms and in our nation ‘Crime is totally unknown’.


Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal because it would allow the average citizen to have a gun.

It is the same way with any UN resolution. If a nation's laws were different before, then they have to change. As for it not being vital, think about it. If anyone 18 or older could legally own a firearm, then crime would go down. Burglars would a whole lot less likely to break into a home if they thought there was a great possibility of someone in there having a gun.

I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of this statement. Let's just suppose it's true for my argument. While crime through burglary might in fact decrease, there would be an enormous increase in homicide rates as there is no legislation in the resolution allowing people who sell guns to have a waiting period. Crimes of passion would become much more deadly.

we seriously question the pertenance of alcohaul and as for fire arms as you call them our nation is free of lethal force neither manufacturing nor importing them as with automobiles though a few of the latter are built by hobbiests for their own enjoyment at home.

the 'legal age' for carlemnarians corrisponds with their completion of lower school and coincides with the begining of their two year intereducational sabatical, general arround the age of 12.

by legal age is defined the full and complete rights afforded to all citizens. these include but are not limited to such things as voting and the entering in to legaly binding contracts.

children as young as five and six in carlemnaria have already aquired sufficient responsibility and self control to ride the little trains that are our public transit unaccompanied and thereby enjoy much of the same freedom of mobility as adults.

on reaching the age they are at the begining of pujzhush, generaly shortly after puberty, they are considered for all lawful purposes to already BE adults and thus no special provisions such as that proposed would be meaningful in our context

=^^=
.../\...

Possum Prop 11 Drinking

I think the drinking age should be lowered to six. If you are old enough to be corrupted by governmental institutions (school), you should be able to drink to forget them.

I know it's the same with any resolution. But think about it - does the UN need to interfere with national gun laws? I think that's something individual to each nation. I'd also need to see statistics before I believe that allowing anyone over eighteen to buy a gun would reduce crime, and even then it probably wouldn't be possible to generalise to every country - each nation has individual needs.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

A nation outlawed personal guns. This nation now has the opportunity to completely oppress it's people without them having the ability to respond. The need for each person to be able own a gun is tremendous in the safety of the people in that nation. The government would have the easiest time oppressing it's people. It is in the interest of the people to be able to have their own guns. I know I may not be able to debate your concerns, for they are legitimate, but do you not see my point?


But if the burglar had a gun also why would he/she not take the risk of going into the house. How would a burglar know if a house had a gun? What I am trying to say is; if the burglar really wanted to commit a crime he/she would find away of getting past a person with a gun just like they would find a way to get past other security measures.

The burglar would not know, there just would be the possibility. This would protect the average household from theft, where if this proposal passed a burglar probably would not think it worthwhile to try and rob some place where he might get shot.

The Black New Word outlawed firearms and in our nation ‘Crime is totally unknown’.

Good for you.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal because it would allow the average citizen to have a gun.

Yes, that is the point of this proposal

I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of this statement. Let's just suppose it's true for my argument. While crime through burglary might in fact decrease, there would be an enormous increase in homicide rates as there is no legislation in the resolution allowing people who sell guns to have a waiting period. Crimes of passion would become much more deadly.

What do you mean by "a waiting period"?

Possum Prop 11 Drinking

I think the drinking age should be lowered to six. If you are old enough to be corrupted by governmental institutions (school), you should be able to drink to forget them.

No.

There are many problems with this. First of all the age of adulthood in Nevermoore is 16, not 18. Civilians are also not allowed to carry firearms for any reason so definitly wouldn't allow them to sell them. Drinking is also allowed at age 16.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

A waiting period means that, if a person wants to buy a gun, they must acknowledge themselves with the store owner, who gives them a reciept (I believe the patron aslo pays at this point, although I have never bought a gun). The person must then wait a set number of days before they can return and recieve their weapon.

I would say this goes too far infringing national sovereignty. I can't really support it, given that.

All debate about firearms aside, why are alcoholic beverages included in this proposal as a "fundamental right?" Debate all you want to say that they are, but I do not see a good reason why they should be included in the same proposal.

And I saw a few other things I feel the need to respond to...

First of all the age of adulthood in Nevermoore is 16, not 18.

The wording here doesn't actually say that people under 18 can't do these things, but more sets the maximum age for allowing them to at 18.

While crime through burglary might in fact decrease, there would be an enormous increase in homicide rates as there is no legislation in the resolution allowing people who sell guns to have a waiting period.

Hogwash. There's no clause in the proposal saying there can't be waiting periods.

What I am trying to say is; if the burglar really wanted to commit a crime he/she would find away of getting past a person with a gun just like they would find a way to get past other security measures.

Right there, you just admitted that guns are a deterrent to crime.

His Royal Highness Bradley I has issed a decree that this resolution should not be approved because it infringes upon the sovreignty of individual nations. This is the risk of UN membership, but we feel that this should be voted down.

May I ask, what you mean by the "sovereignty of individual nations"? What does every single UN resolution do? Did not the banning of barbaric torture infringe upon the "sovereignty of individual nations"? They no longer have the choice if they are going to torture for information. Or what about the banning of land mines? I do not see how this would deter someone from approving this, especially if they have approved any other proposal.

Please explain to me why this proposal is any different then any other in making nations obey something they perhaps don't want to.

Please explain to me why this proposal is any different then any other in making nations obey something they perhaps don't want to.

In my opinion, an international issue is one that crosses national borders. There are some other categories, such as those limiting certain areas of government (ie: recognizing freedom of speech), that I except from my rule of thumb. Gun and alcohol control are domestic issues, and I don't see justification for the United Nations to involve themselves.

Landmines used in war have a major tendency to outlast their wars and miss their targets -- killing civilians. In fact, landmines have killed more civilians than they ever have soldiers. Given that, it could be argued that landmines target civilians, and so they were banned by the United Nations.

Torture is a barbaric practice. Government must be limited in that regard.

Santin, you bring up an interesting point. While the proposal does not allow waiting periods, it also does not disallow them. The problem that arises from this is that we will have a huge debate between strict and loose constructionists. The strict constructionists will argue that since waiting periods are not mentioned, they should not exist. The loose constructionists will argue that since waiting periods are not mentioned, the individual nations can set them to however long they want. This whole debate can be stopped easily, however, by adressing the issue of waiting periods.

This whole debate can be stopped easily, however, by adressing the issue of waiting periods.

(OCC) Does this mean additions or changes made to proposals can be made?
I did not submit this proposal, though I know the nation who did. And I am sure that if he can make a change that would greatly enhance its chances of passing he would do so. If not, that there be "accepted" changes?

Also OOC: I have no idea. I don't have enough endorsements to propose resolutions.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with allowing waiting periods. One difficulty in the NationStates UN, of course, is that proposals can't be amended after they're submitted. The solution I use is to consider things in a more general sense, rather than as specific legalese.

And I got to say "hogwash." :wink:

Santin, you bring up an interesting point. While the proposal does not allow waiting periods, it also does not disallow them. The problem that arises from this is that we will have a huge debate between strict and loose constructionists. The strict constructionists will argue that since waiting periods are not mentioned, they should not exist. The loose constructionists will argue that since waiting periods are not mentioned, the individual nations can set them to however long they want. This whole debate can be stopped easily, however, by adressing the issue of waiting periods.

Does that mean to ban guns all you need to do is have a one hundred year waiting period?

We could just use child labor to make firearms and let them carry the firearms.
-The Armed Republic of Fallian
Telegrams C/O:FAQ NationStates

This proposal is void.

There are alreay a valid issue for both effects of this proposal in relation to fire-arms and alchoholic beverages.

BTW, This proposal, if enacted would interfere with a nations sovereignty.

Ergo, this proposal is a waste of time, plus it is REALLY non-specific, so really, its a legal loop hole breeding machine.

With respect, A Rep of Komokom, BTW, please review my proposal on the U.N. forums, titled the convention against O.U.C.H (Cool, witty, acronym! :wink: ) And its somewhere on the first three pages, if you like it, please endorse my nation, simply so I can admit it officially, please!

Yes, this post was pretty much a shameless plug for me! :D

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with allowing waiting periods. One difficulty in the NationStates UN, of course, is that proposals can't be amended after they're submitted. The solution I use is to consider things in a more general sense, rather than as specific legalese.

Okay, waiting periods are allowed.

If you simply made it so that purchase of firearms and alcohol according to local law was permissable at 18, you'd be a lot closer. Then nations like mine, with no crime at all and no gun possession, could simply leave things the way they are. We would still object, though, as 18 is too old for drinking laws.

As things now stand, this looks like another intrusion upon national sovereignty.

Posted by Zeke
If you simply made it so that purchase of firearms and alcohol according to local law was permissable at 18, you'd be a lot closer. Then nations like mine, with no crime at all and no gun possession, could simply leave things the way they are. We would still object, though, as 18 is too old for drinking laws.

If it was according to local law, then there really would not be a point to this proposal. If nations were allowed to "leave things as they are", then why even bother. The point of this proposal was to ensure that everybody over 18 had the right to own a gun, and be able to drink alcohol. And as for the drinking age earlier, that is up to your nation. This proposal as I think mentioned before, means the maximum age to be allowed to drink was 18. You could make the age to drink at 16, if you wish. Just not above 18.

The UN has no right to set limits on drinking ages.

The UN has no right to say age restrictions on anything.