NationStates Jolt Archive

What about swords?
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Alienware
Description: It seems that everyone is talking about human rights and social justice for religions like baptism and chritianity. The thing that no one pays any attention to is people with samurai heritedge. These people are not allowed to go to public areas with there swords. The katana is a sacred weapon to these people. Why are we oppressing them and not letting them go to public areas with there sacred weapon? People who have samurai heritedge and study the ways of the samurai know how to act. They aren't going to go around and cut peoples heads off.

I PROPOSE THAT WE STOP THIS OPPRSSEION NOW!

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 15 2004

This is a stupid proposal.

(BTW, Baptism is part of Christianity).

Go leave the UN like you said you would do and get out of this forum.

Go leave the UN like you said you would do and get out of this forum.

No need to go all nasty! I merely expressing my opinion.

(BTW, Baptism is part of Christianity).

Did you mean Buddhism?

I think this is a stroke of genius as far as proposals go! You might want to put in a law about licenses or proof that people are actually samurai, or else we'll have headless people running around evreywhere. You have my full support! :D

Who said people can't carry their swords :?: Why should we pass a law to allow legal activities :?:

The proposal is horribly written, as far as grammar is concerned. Catholic Europe is right, Baptism is a sacrament, not a religion.

Utopian Hope will not support this resolution.

This is a stupid proposal.

Why is it stupid? "Offensive weapons" laws are very important, and we need to be clear about their acceptability. We also need to preserve cultural heritage. If you're gonna slag everyone else off just because they don't happen to agree with everything you say, you might as well piss off and leave the UN, and give the rest of us a break.

I, for one, do not agree with the proposal, as I believe cultural heritage can be retained without allowing people to carry offensive weapons in public. There you go, a valid argument. Now, why was that so hard?

The proposal is horribly written, as far as grammar is concerned. Catholic Europe is right, Baptism is a sacrament, not a religion.

Utopian Hope will not support this resolution.

Leave him alone - his English isn't perfect, but that's no reason to deny him an opinion.

His grammar is not the reason for Utopian Hope's denial to support the resolution. It is a completely ridiculous proposal, and it is for this reason it will not be supported by this nation.

Leave him alone - his English isn't perfect, but that's no reason to deny him an opinion.

We're not denying him an opinion nor did we ver state that we going to or are denyong his opinion. Could you please show me where you got that idea from.

Has anyone even considered the sentiment that perhaps the sword laws differe from country to country or even from ethnicity to ethnicity? To even attempt to standardise them is nothing short of foolish incongruence! Trying to assimilate and rape people's culture from them in the name of world monotony and invariate global tedium. Ah yes, I remember why it was I left...

Neither of you (Catholic Europe/Utopian Hope) have yet given a valid argument for rejecting the proposal - that is why I say you're not giving him a fair go. Your argument so far include:

It is stupid.
It is ridiculous.
Poor grammar.
Ha ha, you think baptism is a religion, you're so stupid.
I do not support this proposal.

None of those qualify as a valid argument.

Has anyone even considered the sentiment that perhaps the sword laws differe from country to country or even from ethnicity to ethnicity? To even attempt to standardise them is nothing short of foolish incongruence! Trying to assimilate and rape people's culture from them in the name of world monotony and invariate global tedium. Ah yes, I remember why it was I left...

Now, that's more like it! Catholic Europe and Utopian Hope could learn a lot from this guy.

Has anyone even considered the sentiment that perhaps the sword laws differe from country to country or even from ethnicity to ethnicity? To even attempt to standardise them is nothing short of foolish incongruence! Trying to assimilate and rape people's culture from them in the name of world monotony and invariate global tedium. Ah yes, I remember why it was I left...

Now, that's more like it! Catholic Europe and Utopian Hope could learn a lot from this guy.

So could you. You didn't answer my question which was where did we say that we were denying him an opinion?!

Please, good Sir, show me where in this "rule book", that is invisible to my eyes, shows that I must have an argument for my beliefs, morals, and ideals? Must I define all that I emphasize for your simple satisfaction?

You're just forgetting that not everyone here has English as their first language. It's not that easy to spell everything correctly, heck, I'm not English, and let me tell you, it's hard.
It is merely my opinion that a proposal, however ridiculus, should not be refused and assaulted due to bad spelling. If it is unclear or unspecific, fair enough, but otherwise leave us alone.

Please, good Sir, show me where in this "rule book", that is invisible to my eyes, shows that I must have an argument for my beliefs, morals, and ideals? Must I define all that I emphasize for your simple satisfaction?

Try looking in some of the "sticky" threads. There you'll find all the information you need about flaming.

Why must all think that the Fair Nation of Utopian Hope is assaulting this proposal for it's spelling and gramatical errors!?

The grammar error was pointed out simply because if someone wishes to obtain the attention for a proposal, they should first check their proposal for such errors.

Because the comments made by Utopian Hope's representative have stirred such controversy over the matter, I will hereby re-review the proposal, and provide an in depth response for why the proposal will not be supported by this nation.

Utopian Hope will not support a proposal of this nature for the reason of religion. We believe that should a group of people such as that of the samurai wish to carry a lethal weapon in a country, it is the decision of that country alone and not that of the United Nations.

Please, good Sir, show me where in this "rule book", that is invisible to my eyes, shows that I must have an argument for my beliefs, morals, and ideals? Must I define all that I emphasize for your simple satisfaction?

Try looking in some of the "sticky" threads. There you'll find all the information you need about flaming.

Perhaps you need to look up what flaming actually is because there's been no flaming in this thread from anyone.

I

I

What's that supposed to mean?

Okay, "flaming" is a bit harsh. I apologise.

But a bit of common courtesy wouldn't go amiss.

Why must all think that the Fair Nation of Utopian Hope is assaulting this proposal for it's spelling and gramatical errors!?

The grammar error was pointed out simply because if someone wishes to obtain the attention for a proposal, they should first check their proposal for such errors.

Because the comments made by Utopian Hope's representative have stirred such controversy over the matter, I will hereby re-review the proposal, and provide an in depth response for why the proposal will not be supported by this nation.

Utopian Hope will not support a proposal of this nature for the reason of religion. We believe that should a group of people such as that of the samurai wish to carry a lethal weapon in a country, it is the decision of that country alone and not that of the United Nations.

thank you.
much obliged

Arrr!!! And what about we pirates?!? Me father was a pirate and 'is father's father was a pirate! We pirates be an important part of cultural stuff and we be needing recognition as friends and neigbors of these great nations. But most importantly, we also be needing our rights to carry swords in public! What if we be needing to defend our ships from other pirates?! What will be protecting us?! Laws?! Yar-har-harr! Help support the Pirate Protection act! Remember, when people be carrying more swords, children be carrying less guns!

Raspberrybeard the Pirate

Remember, when people be carrying more swords, children be carrying less guns!

Raspberrybeard the Pirate

That makes no sense to me, but then, you are very hairy. I rather think bringing back duelling would reduce the crime rate though. What do you think?

King Flubbert III

(OOC: I apologize for my previous post. The thing is, I made the post in school, and the keyboard stopped working right. It only sent in the letter "I". Then, when I switched computers to fix the problem, I ran out of time and was unable to do so. MISO SOLLY!!! )

*ahem* In the nation of Joshu (as is the same with all the nations of Ninjao), swords are a staple of the military. Our samurai never let their katanas (or wakizashi) leave their side. It is absolutely necessary for them to be able to carry them in any place, even outside of Ninjao. If a group of samurai were visiting a foreign nation, they would still bring their katanas. It would create quite a problem if they were forced to remove their weapons for the sake of some foolish utopian ideal.

Thus, I was the first to vote in favor of this proposal, and I hope that many more will do so.

*ahem* *cough-cough*

Okay, it would be unethical to take away your sacred weapons when visiting other countries. But the problem behind it is simply that other people who wish to do the same but are unworthy of the privilege will use it as an excuse to carry swords of their own. So how about if before the samurais left their country, they were assigned special papers entitling them to their rights in other countries, sort of like diplomatic immunity. Therefore, if anyone caught carrying samurai swords without carrying government approved papers on their person can be arrested?

Face it, thanks to the second amendment and similar laws in other countries, you can't stop a person from carrying weapons in public without force. Besides, anyone who would use a weapon in a distasteful manner wouldn't be following the law to begin with. If a person really wanted to kill or threaten, they could easily do it using a garbage can or tree branch as a weapon. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow good people from being able to defend themselves. And if the law forbids a samurai (an honorable warrior of virtue) to be capable of defending himself or other people from those who would break the law, we then wind up in a paradox of legal ethics.

Then again, the odds of being attacked by someone are actually very low. The news likes to blow things way out proprotion to give someone the impression that any person you meet could be your killer, when in fact, every person you meet is actually afraid of the same thing.

So in short, let the samurai keep their swords. I would rather the heroes had the weapons rather than the villains.

*cough* *cough*

I mean... YAR-HARR!!! This practice should also be applying to we pirates as well! Har-har-har!

Im with Raspberry on this one; I will support an amended resolution that allows Samurai who have official documents certifying that they have been fully trained, have no criminal record and that it is part of their cultural heritage.

I dont see why this proposaal is so stupid; after all, many nations allow guns, even concealed firearms. It's easy to mug with a gun, you try it with a sword. And try concealing a decednt sized sword - a knife's about the most dangerous you'll get without them knowing it.

and irealy don t no wy people get so upsett ova spag, its only a reecent invention. thers nuthing special about it! If you know what they mean, the language has done its job.

You're just forgetting that not everyone here has English as their first language. It's not that easy to spell everything correctly, heck, I'm not English, and let me tell you, it's hard.
English is not my first language. However, because I worked at it, I am very good - I am damn good - I speak English like I've lived in the USA all my life, which I have not, and have only traces of an accent when I concentrate.

I understand that the spelling can be difficult, but that's why Microsoft and others did some useful things, like build a spellchecker.

Carrying a sword is also an important part of Sikh religion. Nowadays, they often carry it in the form of jewelry or a tattoo, but this proposal could be modified to allow Sikhs to carry swords.

What about swords?
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Alienware
Description: It seems that everyone is talking about human rights and social justice for religions like baptism and chritianity. The thing that no one pays any attention to is people with samurai heritedge. These people are not allowed to go to public areas with there swords. The katana is a sacred weapon to these people. Why are we oppressing them and not letting them go to public areas with there sacred weapon? People who have samurai heritedge and study the ways of the samurai know how to act. They aren't going to go around and cut peoples heads off.

I PROPOSE THAT WE STOP THIS OPPRSSEION NOW!

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 15 2004

1. How is baptism and christianity social justice ?

2. What do you mean by 'samurai heritage' ?

As a nation in which the majority of citizens carry swords, we fully support this proposal.

-A Random Patoxian Diplomat

I speak English like I've lived in the USA all my life

Huh?? Americans speak English now? :shock:

Please end this stupid argument and getback to the issue being discussed here...

What about swords?
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Alienware
Description: It seems that everyone is talking about human rights and social justice for religions like baptism and chritianity. The thing that no one pays any attention to is people with samurai heritedge. These people are not allowed to go to public areas with there swords. The katana is a sacred weapon to these people. Why are we oppressing them and not letting them go to public areas with there sacred weapon? People who have samurai heritedge and study the ways of the samurai know how to act. They aren't going to go around and cut peoples heads off.

I PROPOSE THAT WE STOP THIS OPPRSSEION NOW!

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jan 15 2004

1. How is baptism and christianity social justice ?

2. What do you mean by 'samurai heritage' ?

It is social justice because it allows people to follow their chosen religion, even though it includes swords.

"Samurai heritage" is possessed by people who's ancestors and country's culture is closely related to samurai. Its like telling Americans they're not allowed to wave guns around wherever they go- not going to happen, is it?

Its like telling Americans they're not allowed to wave guns around wherever they go- not going to happen, is it?

Uh, hate to break it to you, eh? But they already tell Americans they can't go around waving guns around wherever they go. Hence the reason for some of the firearm laws in the States, and the reason school zones are "drug, alcohol, and weapon free" In Alberta, almost everyone owns a gun, it seems, and they must register them. It's mandatory. As aresult, the crime rate is astonishingly low. So, if you feel the need to carry a sword around, maybe you can just roust yourself up off your fat arse and care enough to register it? That way, you cater to those of whom the sword is a part of their culture, and you mollify the John Q Laws. Best of both worlds.

Okay, "flaming" is a bit harsh. I apologise.

But a bit of common courtesy wouldn't go amiss.

Agreed, but I was juts expressing my opinion.

Uh, hate to break it to you, eh? But they already tell Americans they can't go around waving guns around wherever they go. Hence the reason for some of the firearm laws in the States, and the reason school zones are "drug, alcohol, and weapon free" In Alberta, almost everyone owns a gun, it seems, and they must register them. It's mandatory. As aresult, the crime rate is astonishingly low. So, if you feel the need to carry a sword around, maybe you can just roust yourself up off your fat arse and care enough to register it? That way, you cater to those of whom the sword is a part of their culture, and you mollify the John Q Laws. Best of both worlds.

That doesn't really make as much sense as you think. How exactly could you register a sword? They're not the same as guns. Besides that, the samurai didn't register their swords, so it definitely wouldn't make much sense in my nation.

Look, instead of arguing about semantics, shall we instead suggest reasons why this proposal should or shouldn't be taken seriously?

I have no problem with the cultural aspects and all that but surely allowing people to carry swords in public is asking for trouble. I mean, didn't you ever get told off as a kid for running with scissors in case of an accident?
Carrying round a razor sharp sword is just begging for an accident.

Besides, what good use would it serve someone to have a samurai sword with them? Surely a swiss army knife would be more practical for the tasks you are likey to need a knife for?

Leave the culture at home where its safe.

I will not support this proposal because it is racist to say only those of samurai heritage have a right to carry weapons. No one group should have rights not shared by another.

NO-one should be allowed to carry weapons!

If you allow any person to carry a weapon, eventually they will end up hurting someone else or themselves with that weapon. Is a logical conclusion.

The incredibly peaceful and razor sharp nation of Berkylvania disagrees heartily with this proposal. Not because of bad grammar or some weird argument about religious rights or because it completely fails to mention homosexual rights or euthanasia (and as we all know, those two topics seem to be the only ones anyone ever gets fired up about). We disagree because it is tantamount to forcing societies with strict anti-weapons laws to override them in favor of a small, transient minority who could just as easily leave their snickersnees at home.

While we celebrate cultural diversity and eagerly seek to understand ways and traditions that are foreign to us, we cannot allow our own traditions and ways to be ignored on our home soil. We have a history of peace and very stern limits on weapons of all types. To allow foreign visitors the right to break these basic laws of our society by carrying a sword around in public display, regardless of it's status as a holy symbol, would be the same as saying it's all right if a foreign visitor who practices cannibalism as a religious rite decides to chow down on a passing child.

Cultural differences must be appreciated and learned from, but it's a two way street. We respect the samurai and their customs, but they must also respect ours and, if they cannot leave their sword at home or at least in their hotel rooms, then perhaps they should consider the Caribbean for their vacation next year. We understand they are completely lawless down there.

So just modify the issue so that any certified race or religion of people who require swords as part of their cultural practice simply need to register themselves before traveling to location where their weapon isn't normally permitted in public. Just as long as a person can provide proof of their involvement with some kind of certificate provided by their government or church, and as long as that government or church isn't under suspicion of any malicious acts.

In order for a religion to be recognized for this situation, it would have to have certain amount of followers and some sense of history and devotion to it. This is to insure that people don't make up a religion at the last minute just so they can show off their sword to everybody.

The first party would also have to recognize that if they are to travel to an enemy country, but with good intentions, they still can't carry any sacred weapons to maintain an aura of peace and respect for the situation at hand until everything is resolved.

Or if the sword would be considered a fashion statement in one country, but not another, the first party would have to understand and accept that since the sword is not a fashion statement over there, it wouldn't be fashionable to carry anyway.

Any problem with this issue can still be modified, but most of it is really just common sense when you think about it.

Look, instead of arguing about semantics, shall we instead suggest reasons why this proposal should or shouldn't be taken seriously?

I have no problem with the cultural aspects and all that but surely allowing people to carry swords in public is asking for trouble. I mean, didn't you ever get told off as a kid for running with scissors in case of an accident?
Carrying round a razor sharp sword is just begging for an accident.

Besides, what good use would it serve someone to have a samurai sword with them? Surely a swiss army knife would be more practical for the tasks you are likey to need a knife for?

Leave the culture at home where its safe.

I would have to disagree, at the very least with the "running with scissors" comparison, because the katanas are sheathed. And there is a large difference between a swiss army knife and a katana. Regarding the portion about keeping the culture "at home where it's safe", are you in effect saying that the samurai culture is unsafe? (I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just looking for clarity. :roll: )

As for the previous post of the samurai having to remove their swords when visiting a foreign country, it makes little sense, even from a neutral perspective. Although it is not technically part of a religion to have a samurai sword at all times, it is still a way of life. Having a samurai remove his sword in a foreign land would be tantamount to forcing a Christian to remove their crucifix (if they were wearing one), or a Hebrew person being forced to remove their Star of David. It doesn't make that much sense. And, in a diplomatic scenario, it would not be in the best interests to have one party be denied their rights while upholding the other's.

How about this? Weapons can only be carried in public by registered and highly trained upholders of the peace and the law. Any citizen who wishes to carry a weapon to protect themselves must not only get themselves registered, but carry a certificate to prove they're qualified to operate said weapon responsibily (meaning they have to attend class(es) first,) as well as pass a psychological examination. If a registered weapons using civilian is caught exploiting his own weapons rights (like carrying his weapon noticeably as a form of intimidation) they get their weapon and license taken away permenantly (unless future consequences allow otherwise.)

In the case of samurai, they are highly trained upholders of the peace and should be allowed to carry their weapon - but only on the condition that they are not only registered, but are wearing their signature uniform or a recognizable symbol to let the public know who they are and why they are carrying swords. If they walk around with T-shirts, jeans, and a sword, that's just unacceptable.

Maybe if you alter it to say that weapons must remain sheathed at all times, and must be knotted to its sheath

Well, Tsukanta, there's a bit of a problem with your idea. For example, if a samurai has to draw his sword to protect his own life, he would be arrested under your idea.

Raspberryland wrote: "In the case of samurai, they are highly trained upholders of the peace and should be allowed to carry their weapon - but only on the condition that they are not only registered, but are wearing their signature uniform or a recognizable symbol to let the public know who they are and why they are carrying swords. If they walk around with T-shirts, jeans, and a sword, that's just unacceptable."

Samurai wouldn't need to conform to these conditions, as they all do so anyways. If you look at a samurai's traditional garb, it's a signature uniform with a recognizable symbol. Just look at the Shinsengumi-blue kimono with white triangles on the sleeves-distinctive markings. It was the same for any other samurai group, and is still the same in Ninjao. And technically, they are registered, because to be samurai, they have to be "registered" into an army. (Ronin even do, because they have to be samurai before they become leaderless.) If the registration refers to their katanas, it makes little sense to register a katana, due to the small number of distinguishing characteristics between katanas.

I'm not discriminating against samurai, I'm just saying that by the very nature of someone carrying a weapon, someone will inevitably get hurt.

This has no bearing on how trained the individual may be in the use of the weapon. Human error happens even to the best and accidents always happen, irrespective of how careful people are.

Also, "What if the samurai needs to draw his sword to protect his own life?" How many samurai do you actually see walking around the High Street, or shopping in the Mall these days? And what sword wielding foe might a samurai encounter in HMV this saturday while buying the latest Britney album?

My first posts on this subject assumed you were talking about ceremonial dress, but your suggesting this samurai might need to use the sword to defend himself? Madness.

Yes, samurai culture is unsafe if it involves carrying swords around in public.
Of course a swiss army knife is different, it is safer.

"Although it is not technically part of a religion to have a samurai sword at all times, it is still a way of life." So if they aren't required to carry their sword at all times, they could just not carry it while in public. Change their way of life.

Christians do not need to remove their crucifix, nor do Hebrews need to remove their star of david, simply because these are not lethal weapons that could cause serious accidents!!

If you want people running around with swords in your country, by all means allow it. We in Sofa King Country would rather not have citizens running rampant carrying swords. As such we have passed laws against it.

The UN has no business mandating that we must allow people to carry weapons. If you think crossing into our borders limits your religious freedom, then you're free to stay out.

As wepons laws and attatudes differ so greatly between countries and cultures this is not a decision for the U.N. to make, it is up to the indervidual governments and religous groups :!:

This has been touched on, but why not expand the idea to ceremonial dress in general. 1996 Atlanta Olypics, the Georgian delegation had a man and women in traditional costume, including a rather long daggar. As long as it was worn for the opening ceremonies and with the costume, it wasn't a problem. It was part of uniform.

I have a friend down in Oklahoma who married a Scott and one of his wedding gifts was a skein du (my appologies to the Scotts. I have only heard the word, never seen it spelled), a type of ceremonial knife. He was detained by a few police officers at a graduation he attended for bringing a weapon to the ceremony, but after an hour or so, they determined that the knife was part of the costume and let him go.

Carrying a sword as part of an honor guard or a rifle as part of a drill team, even crossing boarders should require some red tape to make sure there is an authentic reason, but I see no reason to deface a societies cultures because they have a military tradition inherent in their costumes.

The samuri, however, might be a sticking point. The reason the Katana has been banned was because of its significance to the Japaneese officer corps during WWII. It may be a few more decades before the real world gets over that. But in NS, hey, go for it.

As for registering swords, my understanding is that both European and Asian swords of importance have names and distinctive markings on the blade and hilt. Excalibur with the hands of the Lady of the Lake, Durendel with the Seal of Charles the Great, and the Imperial sword with the Chrysanthemum hilt. It could be done.

But carrying a saber down mainstreet like this was fuedal Europe is asking too much.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles