NationStates Jolt Archive

The Free Arms Act calls for all nations to loosen their gun laws to the point where citizens of all nations will have access to assault weapons, military hardware, fighter jets, combat tanks, and nuclear weapons. A UN commission will also be appointed to study the feasibility and affordibility of such "consumer WMDs" as minivan death lasers, portable anthrax emmitters, suitcase nukes, and Mini M1A1 Tank: Just Add Water. All nations not abiding by this act will face strict embargoes and even attack by other nations if their gun laws are not relaxed or are tightened.

If anyone values support from the NRA, I urge you to endorse this proposal!

Whenever my faith in the sanity of the gun lobby is shaken, I shall look to this proposal.

I agree that they should be able to have arms, but tanks , jets, and nuclear weapons are pushing it.

I agree that they should be able to have arms, but tanks , jets, and nuclear weapons are pushing it.

Not only that, but that would be expensive...no government could pay for something like that.

We do not support this. Millitary hardware, assault riffles?? It should be illegal to carry any form of weapons, which soul purpose is to kill. It's also a bit paranoid if we say it is for selfdefense. If we truely belive theres is something to protect our selfs against, then that believe may come true.
We will however agree that some people have the rights to carry those weapons, but not civilians. If you want to play with weapons, join the army.

Fibble cake, you piece of shit (yes, I've had quite a few drinks now :wink: ), all firearms are designed to kill. Just because there isn't a present form of visible danger doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to own them. I own a few firearms that you would probably want to ban, and so far I just use them for having fun on the target range. However, if the crap hit the fan, I would use them if I absolutely had to. You never know what's going to happen. Paranoid? No. Just open minded to the possibility of disaster. Thank 9/11

Sorry, change "thank 9/11" to "think 9/11". Stupid beer :D

I agree with the general idea of this issue, which is the loosening of the gun laws, however human nature is to hate thy neighbor...therefore giveing the people access to weapons of mass destruction is not probable. Also the fact that these more expensive weapons would and do cost money which would only further the cycle of "The rich get richer while the poor get pooer" Just think what the rich community could do? This could start another civil war. When you make a proposal with so many things one must think about all of the reprocussions that could happen...so if we had to take all of this idea or none of this idea...i would vote no

Think 9/11
Which had absolutely nothing to do with guns, bombs, nukes or assault rifles, and more to do with plane tickets and box cutters.

In any case, I hadn't laughed so hard in years until I read this proposal.

Fibble cake, you piece of shit (yes, I've had quite a few drinks now :wink: ), all firearms are designed to kill. Just because there isn't a present form of visible danger doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to own them. I own a few firearms that you would probably want to ban, and so far I just use them for having fun on the target range. However, if the crap hit the fan, I would use them if I absolutely had to. You never know what's going to happen. Paranoid? No. Just open minded to the possibility of disaster. Thank 9/11


It is that mentality we dont support. Paranoia does not mix with firearms.
Btw not all firearms are designed to kill. It depends on how you look at it. The military has some firearms which soul purpose is to stop the taget, by inflicting a lot of pain or just making it impossible to move at all. Those we do support.

Bullshit. Are you talking about rubber bullets, stun guns, tasers, or some other non-lethal measure? If so, those arent' firearms. THey're just non-lethal weapons. I still agree with being able to own firearms (short of machine guns or rocket launchers). ANything else is rediculous to call a weapon of mass destruction. My guns are much hated by liberals, but if the government becomes really oppressive in the future, or if something really bad happens that causes social order to collapse (it's happened plenty of times before, so don't call me paranoid), then I'll be grateful to have access to such a lifeline. As for human nature, you have to admit that the majority of legal gun owners aren't going to shoot their neighbors over disputes or whatever. THe criminals who use guns are already skirting the law (stealing them, using black market imports smuggled overseas, stolen law enforcement equipment, etc.), so banning firearms really doesn't do you much good. All my friends in law enforcement agree.

Well we do not agree. Banning forearms do work, and it can be seen around the world. The mentality to it is one of the biggest problems though.
Non-Lethal weapons can still be considered firearms. Why not have those instead of actual bullets, that can actual kill another person.
I have never owned a weapon in my life, and I'vesurvived. I am not unique, so that means anyone can do this.
Again, we do not support this.


Btw: "As for human nature, you have to admit that the majority of legal gun owners aren't going to shoot their neighbors over disputes or whatever. "

Yes they are. This is the human nature, to take the easy way out. In a dispute it would be so much easir to pick up your weapon and either threaten of pull the trigger. In either case, the result mostley is that someone gets hurt, or someone gets killed.

Fibble cake, you're a dumbass. Saying the majority of gun owners are going to shoot each other. That's fucking stupid. If that were true, America would be extinct. Unless I'm on patrol in the police, or in a life-threatening situation, I'm not going to shoot anyone. And banning guns only leads to crime. England didn't have nearly as much crime until after it started banning guns. Fucking moron.

Fibble cake, you're a dumbass. Saying the majority of gun owners are going to shoot each other. That's f--- stupid. If that were true, America would be extinct. Unless I'm on patrol in the police, or in a life-threatening situation, I'm not going to shoot anyone. And banning guns only leads to crime. England didn't have nearly as much crime until after it started banning guns. f--- moron.
And Australia's gun crime was cut drastically by the outlawing of automatic rifles after the Port Arthur massacre. Martin Bryant was not a criminal before that day. Guns kill.

You are very wrong, but we will not go any further. No point other then you will continue calling us names, with no arguments that can change our point of view anyway. Very silly, but thats how you do it apparantly. So you just stick to your guns, and we'll stick to changing the mentality, in order to make this a better and more safe world to live in.

Now we have righties trying to force freedom down the throats of the left ?

People ... these are NATIONAL isuues.... not UN issues.

Oh well, sorry about the name calling. I'm not apologizing for my arguments, just for the name calling. I'm kinda drunk, so I'm in a violent mood right now :D Anyways, that guy is right, these are national issues, not UN issues. Man, this hangover will kill me. I'll see you in the next arguement y'all.

Despite agreeing on the national issue things, I think we can all agree that the part about allowing everyone acess to fighter jets, tanks, WMDS, ect, is rather absurd and dangerous to all of our national securities...

Since we lack facilities for producing motorized vehicles, we would have to import these tanks, planes etc.
That would be prohibitively expensive.