NationStates Jolt Archive

ok Fellow nations I have fixed it up.

if you agree with my Govt's bill vote Aye:





The Right To bear Arms
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control Decision: Relax Proposed by: Neo BrightonBurg
Description: Section 1


Under common and natural law, law abiding citzens right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.


Section 2

it is up to the nations at large to insure that the law abiding citzen have the right to defend ones self from the criminal who seeks to harm their kin or their property if the police can not help in time.


Section 3

no Criminal shall have arms for they have forfiet same with their criminality.

Not specific enough. What kind of arms? Bio-weapons?
Also ALL Criminals? Including Jaywalkers and double-parkers?

I am not going to read the whole thing, but I like my souverenty in this matter. Something that says nations are free to do as I like (and maybe retract other resolutions) are much more to my liking.

But I see no worries. I just brand everybody as a criminal :P.

Just wondering (I haven't read the specifics) do count portable nukes as self defense weapons? :P

would we have the right to arm bears and other natural creatures?

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

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We believe that only the police and military should be allowed to bear guns/arms.

Wouldn't it be best if citizens were able to carry tasers but not guns? That way, people would be able to defend themselves and nobody would be killed.

I do not like this proposal... its the same issue that I have with the United States Constitution in this area; its too broad. What on earth does an "arm" mean? It does not specifically say "gun".

Arms could range from a sword to a nuclear missile. No offense, but I do not like the idea of having a weapons grade plutonium in the backyard of any house, no matter how well intentioned those people may be. This resolution has too much potential for abuse.

We will not approve this proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. If it looks like it is going to pass the day before, we will resign from the UN that day.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

Sadaway will not support this propasol! And is willing to argue against it at all costs!!
This propasol makes no sense, how will the streets be safer if people carry firearms around. I will match this with a propasol against it if I can!

You need weapons to fight a revolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

The Federation of Soltak objects to the ambiguity and wording of this proposal and will not support it.

I fully support The Proposal, with the exception of limiting guns from criminals, in that not all criminals are likely to perform violent crime, I beleive that gun control is useless, and if you were to attempt to limit arms purchasing, a massive black market would result, and arms would still be available.

I like bear arms. Bears have some really cool arms, big, thick, fuzzy with claws at the end. Ooooh.

I am not yet a U.N. member- I'm not sure if I ever will be. If I were a U.N. member, however, I would vote against it. Why?

Even though the right to bear arms is necessary in most societies to prevent the government from infringing too greatly on civil liberties, and even though it is necessary to allow homeowners to protect themselves, this resolution falls outside the scope of the U.N. The social contract of some countries does not extend to the right to bear arms.

In addition, this proposal, just like the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, is far too broadly worded. What are arms? Does everyone have the right to tear an arm off a corpse and carry it? Or do "arms," in this case, refer to ICBMs?

My country does not allow most citizens to bear arms. Only the class of soldiers, in accordance with Plato's Republic, are allowed to bear arms. Even the philosopher-king (me) carries no weapon. Are you suggesting that, in violation of the principles that formed our nation, we should allow the demos (the people) to carry arms? No sir, I will not stand for it!

Again, I'm not a U.N. member. However, I still strongly suggest that no nation support this resolution.

Phued would vote against the proposal

-- Patto,
Emperor, Empire of Phued
President, U.G.C.
Phued Representative, CA
http://www.nationstates.net/images//flags/kyrgyzstan--53.jpg
.: P H U E D :.

The 'world's governing body' that is partially devoted to keeping the peace should not force it's member states to allow the armament of their peoples.

If a sovereign nation wishes to attempt to cut back violence by outlawing the bearing of firearms, why should the UN come in and say any different?

1), that is going too far into the sovreignity of any nation and it's government.

2), it is almost hypocritical to the UN's beliefs and goals as an orginization.

-- Gordon Newell
Foreign Relations Bureau

Number three is stupid, as how would you know that they r crinimals until they use the gun? And then its too late.

Really wat we should have is to abolish all weaponry, god gave us fist surely we can defend well enough with them?

The thing is, if arms are completely banned, only criminals, would don't follow the rules, would have them.
Okay, you've reduced the amount of accidental deaths in a nation, but you've still got criminals running around with weapons.
I suggest we have a defined list of weapons that a lawful citizen would be allowed to carry (So, no uranium bombs) or licences with tests of the wielders mental state (which reduces the ammount of madmen with weapons)

Emperor Luskan

No lethal weapons to be used by civillians. If they use Taser's it's much safer. And if they can carry guns, what's to say that Joe public won't take it into his head to start a shoot out in the middle of town?

The ARMED Republic of CRAAZYGOATISTAN supports the universal right to bear firearms though not all arms, and convicted felons waive this right, and each country can make its own laws as to certain weapons to ban, etc.

We support the universal right to bear arms, though we would perfer you change the word "arms" to "sidearms" in order to avoid any ambiguity involving things like nuclear weapons.

Ravar does not support this proposal. No one within our borders may carry a firearm. Bows, arrows, and other traditional weapons are permissable, but I hardly see this as an issue with which the UN should concern itself.

Crown Princess Amalie Corvaquilan di Ravar
Ambassador to the UN

The ARMED Republic of CRAAZYGOATISTAN supports the universal right to bear firearms though not all arms, and convicted felons waive this right, and each country can make its own laws as to certain weapons to ban, etc.

Right.

The United Nations could stand to keep it's nose out of every little thing, starting with each nation's right to form it's own policy on the possession of firearms.

-- Gordon Newell
Foreign Relations Bureau