NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I have seen arguements that this is only a restriction of illegal sales, but what is legal and illegal? If this council has any power it has to be able to define what is illegal sales amungst the vast amount of nations joined with the UN. The problem being is that inside and individual country, illegal sales mean one thing, and that is control over who gets the guns to make sure that the citizens stay in line with the ideals of the government or that they don't have any power to force the government to do anything. All it really is is about domination. If we take this to a higher scale like the UN; it is still about domination. Only at this point, the UN gets to define what is legal and illegal for your country purchase. Only at this point do just a few nations high up in the UN actually know what you have in stock for your military.

However, if you are to make the case that the UN doesn't concern itself with what the nations buy themselves; then it is a nation's responsibility to control its own markets. It is not the UN's. As I have said, allowing the UN to define legal and illegal sales gives them a lot more power than I'd be willing to give.

Ahem:
REAFFIRMING the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized within United Nations implying that States have the right to acquire arms for defense;

Nothing in this proposal suggests that the established body would have the power to define what's illegal or legal. Its only role is to control such weapons and transfer of weapons as are already illegal within individual nations. In no way whatsoever does it attempt to exert UN control over whatever weapons are legal in your own nation.

The Problem with this arguement is, Rehochipe, is that then you are allowing a useless proposal to go through.
A body of nations that governs the peace and rights within the nations on a worldwide scale is one that sets standards, vague, but wide standards for all countries to follow. It does not govern on an individual basis, but on a worldwide scale. How dare you use the UN to govern the blackmarket in your own nation? Are you that weak?

the term "illegal" is to implement it cannot be performed, acted upon or used without the strict consent of the owner the creation regardless if it is a physical object, physical action, verbal action, or anything else.

all owners have rights which explicitly detail exactly what licensee/outsiders can and cannot do without arguement. if someone is caught out doing something not agreed with by the owner, the owner has the right to instantly cancal all actions upon their creation the outside user is doing without no questions to be asked by the user and no answers required by the owner, but if the owner asks questions its the user's responsibility to announce the truth to the owner regardless of what they have been doing otherwise they can be heavily fined and/or be imprisoned for a certain period of time depending on the severeness of the offence they have caused and how much damage against the terms and conditions and the creation itself they have performed. hence why the function of terms and conditions and warning of rights and responsibilities occur on almost literally anything and everything these days.

as due to the downgrading of the profits towards the owner too, if you were a creator yourself and find out all this is happening you'd kinda feel a little pissed off from whats happened wouldnt you? as for this arguement and issue brought upon the UN, i choose to agree with reduction and prevention of the blackmarket, infact my world already doesnt even have a blackmarket which settles alot of issues for my end.

Also... it wasnt necessary to make a new thread to do with a discussion that is currently still active, make sure you press the "Post Reply" button NOT the "New Thread" button or it would be classed as needless spam, well... spam is needless as it is anyway so make sure next time that you be careful of what you click and not click in the forums.


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Royal Emperor
Imperial Empire of Zortroth
Commander General Zortrothian Army

His Majesty’s Government of Teldia approves of this proposal and humbly requests other esteemed members to follow suit.

This proposal can be a first step in removing the scourge of illegal weaponry that so easily filters through our collective borders. Telidia is a small nation and therefore not able to curb these weapons as easily as larger nations, but now with a collective effort buy all member states we can do so.

The Government of Telidia have noted comments from other smaller nations, in which they state, they make use of illicit trading to help build their individual armies in the face of greater bargaining power by larger nations. We ourselves completely disagree with this statement. In fact in our experience, larger nations are more willing to help smaller nations trade in legal arms sales and arms trading between governments frankly, is where it belongs.

Lets us not be guided by the scaremongering of some rogue nations who see this as an end to an easy way to add millions of currency to their treasuries. Lets us note be guided by hate and fear, but rather be poised to put the security of our citizens and that of larger world first and foremost in our minds.

Charles Steeple
Dept for Defence
HM Government of Telidia.

Reducing arms sales is all "Brilliant" and what not...but then things get less fun. And lets face it- what's a nation without violent gun fights and angry youth tearing up the place? Its a paradise! Seriously- who wants that? So lets get rid of brilliant and go back to the stupid side of life. I say join the regressive party and vote Maddox...but not for president- I wouldn't want to feed his ego.

The Problem with this arguement is, Rehochipe, is that then you are allowing a useless proposal to go through.
A body of nations that governs the peace and rights within the nations on a worldwide scale is one that sets standards, vague, but wide standards for all countries to follow. It does not govern on an individual basis, but on a worldwide scale. How dare you use the UN to govern the blackmarket in your own nation? Are you that weak?


I wholeheartedly agree with your post Fhkewqpic.

and as for this -
Reducing arms sales is all "Brilliant" and what not...but then things get less fun. And lets face it- what's a nation without violent gun fights and angry youth tearing up the place? Its a paradise! Seriously- who wants that? So lets get rid of brilliant and go back to the stupid side of life.

not everyone wants their nation plunged into a state of anarchic warfare all the time.

The Problem with this arguement is, Rehochipe, is that then you are allowing a useless proposal to go through.
A body of nations that governs the peace and rights within the nations on a worldwide scale is one that sets standards, vague, but wide standards for all countries to follow. It does not govern on an individual basis, but on a worldwide scale. How dare you use the UN to govern the blackmarket in your own nation? Are you that weak?

I'll ignore the patronising tone from a first-time poster and get to the point.
This isn't about doing all your black market control for you. It's about establishing cooperation. If you're a nation that already has its black market arms trade well under control, then this will have hardly any bearing on you. If you've got some of it under control but can't nip it in the bud because the arms are all coming from illegal trade in some other nation - then this can help. If your country has just emerged from years of civil war, has illegal arms in the hands of every twelve-year-old, with a violent crime rate to match, and is too poor to effectively do anything about this - then this can help. The reason there's a committee in place is to work out what's appropriate for individual nations, and, with that nation's consent, lend support accordingly.

The Telidian government agrees with the esteemed member of Rehochipe. The proposed resolution clearly defines that all member states will be consulted. I quote paragraph 2 of the resolution for ease of reference.

Charles Steeple
Dept for Defence.

“2. REQUESTS an independent council be formed to continue to consider the matter and report to it at its subsequent sessions on the implementation of this resolution and to seek and consider the views of all Member States on the objective, scope, agenda, dates and venue of an international conference on the illicit arms trade;”

I personally have had some dealing with the model UN in RL. and I would like to say that adding another commitee only adds more Bureaucracy.

Maybe I just don't understand what the resolution is saying.

I personally have had some dealing with the model UN in RL. and I would like to say that adding another commitee only adds more Bureaucracy.

Maybe I just don't understand what the resolution is saying.

[OOC: I also have had some dealing with the model UN and agree with you CONDITIONALLY.]

This resolution actually is focused on authorizing a conference to discuss the matter in detail. My nation volunteered to host the conference, and naturally would take a neutral position while at the conference. Though certainly I think the conference would release some form of paper summarizing the views and findings.

10kMichael

not everyone wants their nation plunged into a state of anarchic warfare all the time.[/quote]

Wait, wait- anarchaic warfare? I didn't say anything about none dem govment stuff! I'z is justa goo' ole boy from de boondocks ya'll. Iz is jusa wantin ta see some crazy youth 'bout the place! Tain't nutin' wong wit dat, GOOD COMRADE.

-Viva la Idiocy!

-Another dumb saying

-Hey visit this site: (Where's the site? No one knows.)

The black market is already illegal. Abolishing it any more won't help.

In addition, in despotic and communist nations, the black market (where things actually cost what they should and where information is spread) is often the last refuge of FREEDOM. It's often the roots of capitalism in a non-capitalist environment. The information spread by black markets likewise promotes democracy in a tyrannical society.

The black market is already illegal. Abolishing it any more won't help.

In addition, in despotic and communist nations, the black market (where things actually cost what they should and where information is spread) is often the last refuge of FREEDOM. It's often the roots of capitalism in a non-capitalist environment. The information spread by black markets likewise promotes democracy in a tyrannical society.

That's odd... we're about to get rid of free markets and no one seems too chilled by it. Maybe that's because we treat citizens with a modicum of decency and once their basic needs are met, what's the point of profit? The absence of democracy does not necessitate tyranny. Moreover, "The black market is already illegal. Abolishing it any more won't help," is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever laid my eyes on. We're not "re-banning the black market." We're looking for constructive ways to collectively fight it.

Yet how are we going to fight the black market without getting into it ourselves?

No, firearms are a crucial right for the right kind of folks. What we don't want are the wrong kinds of people having guns, we have seen what happens when that happens. Look at what happened in Somalia. You can ban guns in most of the third world but the UFE will not abide by any gun regulations.

...look what happened in America.

And, for the hard-of-reading out there, this is not about banning guns. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Most of the opposition towards this proposal generally have one key point: it is a useless.

Think very carefully before you criticize this opinion: you cannot stop black market arms sales. That's like saying you are going to stop dogs from urinating on fire hydrants. They will simply pick another means to their end.

By disillusioning yourselves into believing that you can stamp out black market anything, you are allowing for a more creative "blacker" market.

Now, here is a novel idea for those who actually think about the issue: take the profit out of guns. Drop the price of firearms and make them freely available to anyone who is educated in National Law pertaining to their use. Criminals won't sell what doesn't make a profit.

Curb illicit sales. HA! Good luck.

Baseless rhetoric aside, the point of this isn't necessarily to 'stomp out' the black market by standard confrontational means; it's to find the best solutions to reducing it, and yeah, that includes reducing demand. If a lot of people who don't need guns want them, that's a symptom of something wrong in a country. Find out what's wrong, address that.

Esteemed colleagues, we can banter about the positives and negatives forevermore, the fact remains there are illegal weapons in wrong hands! The first and foremost function of any nation is to the safety and security of its citizens and allowing weapons in the hands of those who will do harm is by no means meeting this basic obligation.

Simply saying that its impossible to control does not mean a government should not try. If it does not, what type of broader social message is it sending to its younger citizens and the criminals for that matter.

We for one would not want to foster an environment in our nation where the government turns a blind eye to illegal activities that ultimately lead to the death of innocent individuals.

Lydia Cornwall
Telidian Ambassador to the UN.

That resolution sucks.

By the way it should say. Intelligent or Not.

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow comrades... We in the People's Republic of Pottopolis feel that this resolution is one that should be passed. It has been said that this resolution is meant only so that "weak" nations may be helped to control crime and chaos within their own borders. But we believe that this resolution looks toward those nations already forced into internal conflict, and where peace is blocked because small arms are so readily available that bloodshed continues without halting. By imposing regulations, powerful and puny nations alike will be able to make the world a safer place, where weapons cannot fall into the wrong hands.

However, we would like to add one thing: Pottopolis will not generally support any measures to further increase military spending, as it is wary of the influence of a military industrial complex. Pottopolis only supports this resolution because it believes firmly in the policy of solving localized problems by a large, faceless bureaucracy.

CONSIDERING that the illicit traffic in small arms impedes development, constitutes a threat to populations and security, and contributes to the destabilization of States;

RECOGNIZING the suffering caused by illicit trafficking in small arms and that States bear the obligation to bolster their efforts in developing practical ways of addressing the problem;

REAFFIRMING the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized within United Nations implying that States have the right to acquire arms for defense;

REITERATING the importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, especially under alien domination or foreign occupation;

CONVINCED of the need for a thorough approach to control and reduce small arms and light weapons in a balanced manner to ensure international peace and security;

1. ADOPTS the following recommendations for the curbing of illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons with respect to the definitions of this weaponry articulated in the annex of this resolution;

2. REQUESTS an independent council be formed to continue to consider the matter and report to it at its subsequent sessions on the implementation of this resolution and to seek and consider the views of all Member States on the objective, scope, agenda, dates and venue of an international conference on the illicit arms trade;

3. DECIDES to convene an international conference on all aspects of the illicit arms trade no later than 2005;

4. WELCOMES the offer by the Government of Mikitivity to host in Miervatia, no later than 2005, an international conference on all aspects of the illicit arms trade;

5. ENCOURAGES the establishment of national programmes to combat the illicit transfer of small arms and ensure the collection thereof within the suggested parameters of paragraph 6 and invites the international community to render technical and financial support to strengthen the ability of States to take these actions;

6. RECOMMENDS that participating States should implement programmes of action which would:

a) employ regulations to control the production of small arms and light weapons within their jurisdiction, and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons;

b) generate agencies responsible for policy guidance of efforts to prevent illicit trade, including aspects of illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering, trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms;

c) ensure responsibility for all small arms held and issued by the state and create measures for tracing such weapons;

d) and enact, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms, particularly in post-conflict zones, as well as address the special needs of children affected by armed conflict.

ANNEX

DEFINITIONS
In the present resolution and its aspects:

a) “Small arms” means man-portable firearms and their ammunition primarily designed for individual use by military forces as lethal weapons; the term shall be used interchangeably to also denote the aggregate of small arms and light weapons;

b) “Light weapons” means some man-portable firearms and their ammunition, light artillery guns and rockets, and guided missiles for use against armored vehicles, aircraft, or fortifications.

Votes For: 8591

Votes Against: 3406

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Wed May 12 2004

Note the bold headings.

This resolution recommends, encourages and requests. In short, it does nothing but ask nicely. This will sawy the countries who are already innocent but not effect those who profit much from illegality.

Ergo, it is pointless.

Anyone see the logic? Anyone see sense?

If so, welcome to the 1/3 minority. If not, you have just helped pass a resolution which is more than pointless, it is counterproductive by making the UN appear weak and unable to command or demand anything of it's member nations.

Bravo,

*single, sarcastic applause*

TNE

You really can't win, can you? If you're not infringing on people's precious, precious national sovereignty, then your resolution DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Sorry, buddy, but your arguments carry less water than a sieve.

Don't you 'buddy' me boy.

Just like the big wide world if you join the UN you have to surrender a degree of your national sovereignty, I know that just like everyone else in the UN should.

So, buddy, you can keep your foundationless point and stop holding the rest of us back from seeing some sort of sense and trying (despite the fools) to sort out these ridiculous resolutions..

Regards,

TNE

Some of these debates have been interesting, but perhaps you all come from very different regions than my own homeland, because one important issue has been neglected so far in this discussion.

In my region, wars and strife are frequent occurances. While governments will do their best, my own included, the fact remains that sometimes, a government falls. After the fall of Old Gwyneth, our King himself spent a year engaged in guerilla warfare against the invaders. Without the proliferation of privately held weaponry, such acts of patriotic self-defense would never have been possible. That is why we of New Gwyneth oppose any measure to limit the trade in small arms.

We have noted, of course, the claim that this bill would only oppose already-illegal arms sales, and that such complaints as ours would be best addressed by internal laws. But the UN is a body that sets standards and precedents; even when its laws and treaties do not directly affect a nation's condition, it influences national and international opinion on an issue. Regardless of its direct effect, this bill will serve as a step against the cause of private weapon ownership. Any who wish to make a stand in favor of non-governmental military preparedness will surely be wise enough to see that this bill will bring international disfavor down on their -our- practices, regardless of legal details.

This, my fellow delegates, is why New Gwyneth opposes this bill. In order for a nation to adequately defend itself against enemies and invaders, broad private ownership of weaponry is essential, and this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

Some of these debates have been interesting, but perhaps you all come from very different regions than my own homeland, because one important issue has been neglected so far in this discussion.

In my region, wars and strife are frequent occurances. While governments will do their best, my own included, the fact remains that sometimes, a government falls. After the fall of Old Gwyneth, our King himself spent a year engaged in guerilla warfare against the invaders. Without the proliferation of privately held weaponry, such acts of patriotic self-defense would never have been possible. That is why we of New Gwyneth oppose any measure to limit the trade in small arms.

We have noted, of course, the claim that this bill would only oppose already-illegal arms sales, and that such complaints as ours would be best addressed by internal laws. But the UN is a body that sets standards and precedents; even when its laws and treaties do not directly affect a nation's condition, it influences national and international opinion on an issue. Regardless of its direct effect, this bill will serve as a step against the cause of private weapon ownership. Any who wish to make a stand in favor of non-governmental military preparedness will surely be wise enough to see that this bill will bring international disfavor down on their -our- practices, regardless of legal details.

This, my fellow delegates, is why New Gwyneth opposes this bill. In order for a nation to adequately defend itself against enemies and invaders, broad private ownership of weaponry is essential, and this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

Wow, you take this really seriously don't you?

Yes, the proliferation of weapons has to be stopped, even in the local area. But how do you fight a black market? It's a black market and it will stay a black market. Even "blacker", if the police-controls increase. I voted "Yes", but it doesn't really make sense. A black market will always exist. :x

This has brought up a good argument but how is one government supposed to determine what should be illegal for the entire world. Imagine a struggling nation smashed inbetween two superpowers ready to engulf as much land as possible. This nation has no way of making weapons at the current time and therefore its only option is to buy the weapons. They look to other powers to buy guns, missiles, planes andother war machines but they have been outlawed. Without the guns this country is englufed by the two larger nations. Its people are now oppressed due to their resistance and inocent civilians are dying.

I understand that this is not always the case but this would be an awful situation if it were to happen. The larger nations have a duty to use their power to help not make it even harder for struggling nations to get on their feet.

This has brought up a good argument but how is one government supposed to determine what should be illegal for the entire world.

Well, seeing that the resolution DECIDES to hold a conference to exchange ideas on controlling / dealing with the illegal flow of arms, I have to points to raise:

- This isn't about one nation.
- It sounds like a number of nations have ideas (admittedly different) about what is already illegal.

Basically it sounds to me like there is much that can be talked about.

10kMichael

On a scale of one to awesome, I'm super great!

Sorry, just tired of debating about this.

Sorry, just tired of debating about this.

I move that the assembly clear way for the representative from Galdago, or at least clear a straight path to the Strangers Bar. I think that is the places name.

10kMichael