NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the big reasons no pro-gun resolution has yet passed the UN is because the pro-freedom people are not well enough organised.

We welcome all pro-gun UN nations to join our caucus. We will work together to promote pro-gun values and resoluitions.

Please post your nation name and Delegate/Memeber Status here, in the following format:

Allanea, Delegate (Democratic Underground)

Whose Second Amendment? The second amendment to our constitution states 'Outside the Autonomous Territory, the practise of mummification may only be carried out by licensed traditional embalmers'. We're surprised that there's such a wide level of support for preventing the antisocial and smelly problem of amateur mummification, and we're not sure how it's an international issue, but we'll gladly lend what support we can.

Allanea, don't know if you saw this: http://s3.invisionfree.com/DU_Region/index.php?showtopic=42

Allanea, don't know if you saw this: http://s3.invisionfree.com/DU_Region/index.php?showtopic=42

I frankly don't see your point.

Allanea, Mosstania is pro-weapons, but our constitution does not have the right to bear arms as our second amendment. It is in our databases, however, that that amendment is from the United States Constitution. That pro-American view is unfavorable to Mosstania, and we will not join your caucus for the sheer ignorance to the constitutions of other nations when creating this caucus

Whose Second Amendment? The second amendment to our constitution states 'Outside the Autonomous Territory, the practise of mummification may only be carried out by licensed traditional embalmers'. We're surprised that there's such a wide level of support for preventing the antisocial and smelly problem of amateur mummification, and we're not sure how it's an international issue, but we'll gladly lend what support we can.

Hmm, what an interesting idea. I would imagine that the improper use of embalming fluid can also lead to the creation of zombies, which certainly qualify as an international nuisance on the simple grounds that many of them existed before the standardization of UN passports.

I'll bring this Second Amendment to the attention my nation's parliament.
;)

10kMichael

* Pokes another rep,

Pssst. Did I just see another nation making referance to the United States Constitution in here ?

* Other rep nods ...

[ BOOM ]

* The Rep of Komokom's head explodes, he then gets up and walks out.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

The Holy Republic of ErnastCruz refuses such legislation.

An armed people is an unhappy people.

Guns should only be had by the government. If the people were all given the rights to guns then they would run amok in the streets causing problems for peaceful people.

All but a few guns should be destroyed. The few remaining should be held by responsible governments.


------
His Holiness

The Commonwealth's of Rose view on the Second Ammendement Cacaus:

Three words my friend: Are you mad?! Look, isn't the United Nations about bring peace to the world? I disagree with your Cacaus, and so does my people. We are against you fullheartedly. My reasons? One: Sure people kill people, but how do they kill people? With guns! Two: Like I said, we are trying to keep the world intact, not destroy it. Three: I think our money would go better into educating the children, then learning how to make a 500,000 megaton explosion fit into a robotic ladybug. In fact, if I sound insane, we should just ban all weaponry. But a man can dream. And again, I would want to thank the United Nations for accepting me.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of Rose.

His Holiness the Governor-General offers his comments on this matter.

His Holiness first asserts that lawful governments have nothing to fear from an armed population, and further states only an illegal government would seek the disarmament of her lawful and patriotic citizens.

The greater point His Holiness wishes to address is directly rooted from his first. His Holiness must *object* to this legislation as it threatens the sovereignty United Nations Member Nations. His Holiness will not support any such resolution. His Holiness also condemns any and all nations which would likewise threaten the sovereignty of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan by any imposition as a matter of principle dictated by Good Governence.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

We might as well make a pro-gun resolution.

Under Resolution 25A, a resolution isn't valid unless all the words in it are spelled correctly, which gets rid of the one up for vote now.

Dear Delegates and Fellow UN Members,

We will first define firearms to be a type of weapon, generally projectile or explosive based, that is used predominantly to kill other large living organisms, or destroy structures housing said organisms. Stun-based weapons do not fall under the classification of firearms.

Currently, many nations have dealt with the issue of whether to allow their citizens free and unfettered access to firearms. Each nation has its own mix of successful and unsucessful policies on the matter. Those Nations that allow their citizens free access to firearms will be unaffected. The result of this policy, therefore will ONLY affect nations that place restrictions on the posession of firearms.

Let us first consider the affect of activities. Even in the best case scenario, such a mandatory legislation inflicted upon a nation could have drastically destabilizing effects. The future peoples of the Jovian Worlds has a low crime rate, and a significant support network and wouldn't be drastically affected. Other nations, however, might find a drastic destabilization of societal networks in the aftermath of outbreaks of violence following legalization of weaponry. Resulting destabilization of infrastructure could cause a net loss in life and freedom, by destabilizing governments and potentially forcing them from the UN.

In our modern day and age, we must acknowledge certain facts of life. Modern weaponry possessed by any sizable government is vastly more powerful than any citizen or independent will be capable of wielding. The future peoples of the Jovian Worlds are united in that it is our position that heavy explosive based weaponry, bio/chemical, and nuclear weapons are potentially too devastating to leave in the possession of individuals. If the sale of these potentially catastrophic devices were made too easily available, disasterous events such as the 9/11 catastrophe in NYC and Washington, DC, US may become more common. Can you imagine a hand grenade on a crowded subway car? Or perhaps rocket containing VX gas detonating in an airburst over LA, is to be considered a good unintended consequence?

We of the Jovian Worlds think not. Small scale firearms in the hands of individuals are insufficient to the task that you propose this to solve. It only creates havoc for nations who have been successful with a non-violent approach. A better means of holding a government accountable is to reinforce the freedom of information and supporting a structure for free-flowing information, such that groups of citizens who oppose a government may effectively state and promote their viewpoints.

g.e.
Speaker for the future peoples of the Jovian Moons

To the Jovian Inderworlds:

It is interesting to note that you continously speak about "could" while equating it wish "will". Whaat are those outbreaks of violence you're talking about? Most places (including in the real world TM) that have legalized possession or carry of arms, never saw any trouble.

Furthrer, you use a false comparison when conflating conventional weapons with WMD's. THe difference between a grenade and a nuke is not in the blast radius, but in that the nuclear weapon - even a "safe" detonation - is guaranteed to harm innocent people. Grenades are not. As a matter of fact, many nations, such as the USA still allow their citizens to have access to explosives, albeit with some paperworks. No horror ensued. Those who wish to commit murder can still turn to fertilizer - and do.

Moreover, even if we, as per your suggestion, only legalize small arms such as the humble AR-15 (the clock is ticking on that ban, ya know), it will be useful both for personal defense and for maintaining a social structure - obviously in conjuction with free speech. :) It takes no resources to legalize something - just reduce spending on enforcement of yet another needless ban.

To the Jovian Inderworlds:

Furthrer, you use a false comparison when conflating conventional weapons with WMD's. THe difference between a grenade and a nuke is not in the blast radius, but in that the nuclear weapon - even a "safe" detonation - is guaranteed to harm innocent people. Grenades are not. As a matter of fact, many nations, such as the USA still allow their citizens to have access to explosives, albeit with some paperworks. No horror ensued. Those who wish to commit murder can still turn to fertilizer - and do.


Perhaps this is true. I wouldn't want to see any resolution pass, however, that restricted a government from placing regulations around the possession of explosive devices and weaponry. Explosive weapons, naturally, have a far greater potential to harm innocents and other non-combatants. As a result, necessary training to on proper use, storage, and disarmament is essential considering the ramifications of an accident.

What's most important for maintaining low rates of innocent loss of life, is to have legal disincentives for causing the life of innocents and other non-combatant.


Moreover, even if we, as per your suggestion, only legalize small arms such as the humble AR-15 (the clock is ticking on that ban, ya know), it will be useful both for personal defense and for maintaining a social structure - obviously in conjuction with free speech. :) It takes no resources to legalize something - just reduce spending on enforcement of yet another needless ban.

I'm not sure how the intentional infliction of physical harm and loss of life is useful for maintaining a social structure, considering a loss of life is a net loss. As for reducing funds, this is not necessarily the case as changing the status quo always causes a disproportionate cost when imposed on an unprepared nation. Additionally, losses in life and injury due to mishandling of explosive devices suddenly deemed legal within a nation without supporting infrastructure may also cause stress on the health care infrastructure.

Respectfully,

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds
Member, Democratic Underground

The Commonwealth's of Rose view on the pro-gun laws:

Okay so you want self defense eh? You don't need an M2 machine gun post in your front yard. A 9mm beratta would to fine. Look, maybe we do need guns right now... but we don't need M4 Carbines in every home. And like I said before, that money can go into education then in weaponry. People will still kill, with daggers, piano wire, choking, poisoning, drowning, pulverizing, pushing them into subway tracks, and so on. But crime would reduce significantly, you must admit that, if there were less guns. Also, any nation with weapons are dangerous, so excuse me if I sound like a free-loading liberal. And if anyone has something against that, tell your mama I said hey.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of Rose.

A better means of holding a government accountable is to reinforce the freedom of information and supporting a structure for free-flowing information, such that groups of citizens who oppose a government may effectively state and promote their viewpoints.


Very well said. All of your statement, but I wanted to highlight the above, because my nation wholeheartedly agrees with this.

10kMichael

OOC: I notice that when I post in forums, everyone ignores me -.- :cry:

OOC: I notice that when I post in forums, everyone ignores me -.- :cry:

OOC: No, it was a point I was about to make. People kill people, but people with guns kill more people faster than people without guns.
Also, the Second Amendment of the United States says you have a right to bear "arms." Arms can mean anything from brass knuckles to a war axe to an M-16 to a hydrogen bomb. It also says something that the arms are for the purpose of a "well regulated militia." the closest thing to a militia today would be the national guard.

IC: Whose Second Amendment? Callisdrun's constitutional second amendment concerns mainly the setup of the donor system for maintaining peaceful coexistance between Callisdrun's normal citizens and Callisdrunian vampires. It makes no mention of guns or any other form of weaponry.

Cheekiness aside, Callisdrun would regard any attempt by a foreign state or organization to change Callisdrun's gun-control laws as an assault on its sovereignty. The Callisdrunian people want strong gun-control. They voted for it, in fact. Therefore, a foreign attempt to change Callisdrun's laws in this matter would be an assault not only on its sovereignty but also on its democratic system. Callisdrun, for the above reasons, does not support the suggested measure in any way and strongly urges those supporting it to reconsider. Gun-control laws are a national matter.

Oh thanks I’ve got Komokom in my hair.

I don’t have any amendments or guns for that matter. My people seam okay.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

OOC: I notice that when I post in forums, everyone ignores me -.- :cry:

It looks like you've posted only 7 times to date. Give it time. :) Or if you really want to invoke a reaction call somebody a facist or a hippie. That always pulls the old strings. ;)

It looks like you've posted only 7 times to date. Give it time. :) Or if you really want to invoke a reaction call somebody a facist or a hippie. That always pulls the old strings. ;)


**From out of nowhere, someone runs in screaming**
You Fascist Socialist Rightwing Leftie Stalinistic Nazi Plebian Aristocrat!!

...sorry... :oops:

As spokesperson for the Jovian Worlds, I apologize. The person responsible for that comment has been fired, beaten with a rubber chicken, and severely mocked.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but gun control should be a national issue and should not be debated in the UN.

Fewer guns do NOT lead to lower crime rates. In Britain the rate of domestic burglary is much higher than in the United States where guns are legal. Also crime committed with handguns has risen in the UK since they were banned following the Dunblane massacre. Gun control does not work as only law abiding people will give up their guns, but criminals will not and will still be armed.

There should be training programs teaching people how to operate and use firearms safely before people can own them. A national service period for all people at the age of eighteen would be a good idea for this.

Sigh, gun control works for some but not others. Stats don't fully support either side.

Sigh, gun control works for some but not others. Stats don't fully support either side.

I will support it.

I have never seen a convincing argument for gun control. This could be evidence for the fact that no such arguments exist.

I have never seen a convincing argument for gun control. This could be evidence for the fact that no such arguments exist.

I have never seena a convincing argument for relaxing gun controls. Whoopee-doo.

If you haven't seen convincing arguments for relaxing gun control laws, you haven't looked.

If you haven't seen convincing arguments for relaxing gun control laws, you haven't looked.

Forgive me, I'm clearly ignorant and foolish. Thankfully you were on hand to guide me.

Sigh, sigh, sigh.

I'm sick of this subject and sick of having to point out that evidence does not conclusively support either side of the argument. Availability if guns appears to me to be almost irrelevant on the issue of crime. Societal causes are more important. If you'll forgive me stepping in to the real world for a moment, for every Switzerland (much guns, little crime) there is a USA (much guns, much crime).

Ecopoeia: Mon ami, that's simple.

Gun control has a cost, a cost in money (to enforce) and freedom (freedom of choice). Gun control, however, has no proven benefit.

How's that for an argument?

OOC: For God's sake, stop invoking an RL country's constitution IC.

IC: Tobias McLeod, the UN Delegate for the Weegies, stands up.

"Indeed, my honourable friends from Rehochipe and Ecopoeia have a point. Whose Second Amendment are you in favour of here? The Second Amendment to the Weegie Constitution, for instance, affirms the independance of The Weegies from the now defunct Federal Republic of Aperin. I assume this is not what the delegate is mentioning, and I am at a loss to which Second Amendment the delegate is invoking."