NationStates Jolt Archive

The following proposal by the Confederacy of South Puyallup is currently listed. Voting ends Saturday, 24 July 2004. I would appreciate your support for this proposal.

-------------------
The United Nations resolves:

1. That the right of individuals to own, maintain, bear, and use arms is tied to the basic right of self-defense and defense of property.

2. The right of individuals to own, maintain, bear, and use individually-operated firearms, including, but not limited to rifles, handguns, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns, shall not be infringed, except in the following cases:
a. Convicted felons.
b. Non-citizens.

3. That no nation shall maintain a registry of individually owned firearms.

In Vendi, we fully support out righ to bear arms. The emphasis I make to you is that we support this in Vendi. This proposal suffers from the issue of jurisdiction. This issue is one for local governments to tackle or to avoid all together. What we seem to forget is that not all nations are the same. While some of us value basic rights to self defense some of us do not. Also in some countries the right to use deadly force in the protection of personal property is expressly prohibited. Deadly force is to be used in protection of one and one's family and only after all other measures have been taken.

Individual weapon registries could be a very beneficial thing to member nations. Suspects on terrorist watchlists having to register weapons could be a good thing as governments could act early to prevent atrocities within their lands.

Under what consequences should member nations operate? Some nations may find it completley essential to the stability of their givernment to impliment registration programs. We nations who support such programs are not against guns, we are aginst those who would bring harm to others and in turn, to our nation itself. Thank you for your time.

Yours in Fellowship,
Nigel Rightly
Prime Minister of Vendi

I throw up my hands and appeal to the heavens. How many times must we be faced with the demand for unfettered gun ownership? How many times will nations pursue this most peculiar of ideological stances in this hallowed institution?

I have no wish to see the UN pass legislation that would enforce gun registration or even ban guns. That would be an unacceptable infringement of national rights. You see, there is no compelling reason to make it a right to bear arms, my friend. Different nations have different cultures that make such a universal approach to legislation not only unwise but dangerous.

This is a national issue. It belongs not here.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

- 22 july 2004 -

Antor has decieded NOT to accept this proposal. It is foolish to give people the right to own unregistered weapons. By doing so, there is no real form of control on this dangerous objects. There is no telling in what kind of situations this might end. Every citizen has the right to bear arms, but only if registered and lisenced. Which means, any individual must be hold able to responsibly own a weapon by their governement and their medical attendant. People who have already used weapons in crime, have serious problems in controlling theirselves or have been involved in heavy crime, are not allowed to bear arms!

As an example to what situations this can lead; Terror in the United States of Canada (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339703)

The Peoples Republic of Antor

Finnish Technocracy iquires that how does, say, disposable anti-tank weabonry - that can be theoretically considered a "individually-operated firearm" in a liberal interpertation of the word "firearm" - aid public safety?

Also, why does this proposal give underaged children the right to bear arms? Does the goverment of South Puyallup really feel that angsty teenagers are to be trusted with high powered assaut rifles? Also, the proposal does not consider the risk involved in giving the mentally ill firearms.

- 22 july 2004 -

Antor has decieded NOT to accept this proposal. It is foolish to give people the right to own unregistered weapons.

As an example to what situations this can lead; Terror in the United States of Canada (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339703)

The Peoples Republic of Antor


I'll check out your link later, but in principal my government agrees.

What is troubling is I don't see this as being anything but a domestic issue. I'd like to see the author of the proposal make a strong case for why a mere law should be standardized throughout the international community. Because if there is a death toll in the millions without such a law (as supported by facts), then he may have a case. May. But I seriously doubt this is the case.

The government of Telidia fully concurs with the statement by the honourable Mr Vergniaud of Ecopoeia. This is matter for individual nations to decide at a local level alone.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

We believe that all citizens with no felony record have the right to bear semi automatics with the size of fifty caliber or less with a pistol and 49 caliber or less with a rifle. All semi automatic shotguns are good. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

No matter what kind of gun it is, even the smallest type of gun, is made to kill. How do you know a person is crazt or not? A perfectly normal person, who has never before done something wrong, can have a reaction to something, use a gun to harm, and you can't predict! Actually, the governement of Antor is against this kind of proposal. We would even forbid civilians to own weapons. We are strongly AGAINST this proposal.

The Peoples Republic of Antor

Slashdot has decided not to support this proposal.

We are hunters, but we don't hunt with machine guns, and we don't need them for protection either. Perhaps without that little detail, you could garner our support.

Gurning Junior agrees with the sentiment, but feels the resolution can be simplified to: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However since its up for the vote we'll see what we can do.

To the naysayers who say OMG people could totally like flip out and kill stuff reminds me of this:

http://www.realultimatepower.net/

To the hunters saying we don't need machine guns, following that logic it would go, you don't need a gun to hunt, wait you don't need a bow and arrow to hunt, hell why don't you got the shops like everyone else, say why you even need meat you can eat soya!

We second Ecopoeia's thoughts. For some societies, guns are an absolute necessity. For others, they're nothing more than a socially dangerous prestige item. And there are stages in between, deserving different levels of legislation. It is pointless and dangerous for the UN to legislate on such an issue.

We agree, however, that we can see no possible eventuality in which the private ownership of machineguns would be necessary for personal protection. The formation of private armies by a warlord, mercenary or gangster, perhaps, but I doubt any level-headed government here would want to encourage that.

To the naysayers who say OMG people could totally like flip out and kill stuff reminds me of this:

http://www.realultimatepower.net/
Have you had your head under a rock for the last decade or so? Questionably sane children killing people (and able to do so because they had access to guns) is no laughing matter; it's reality.

(That said, Rehochipe doesn't permit hunting except with spears and atl-atl. Great white hunters are welcome, but unless they're marathon-runner fit they shouldn't expect to catch anything).

Nusku Capleton
Special Liason to the UN
Rehochipe

While the Fish Emperor supports children murdering people, it strongly opposes any measure that would undermine the power of the Secret Police. How can you guarantee that your pro-gun law won't undermine our ability to oppress our citizens?

To the hunters saying we don't need machine guns, following that logic it would go, you don't need a gun to hunt, wait you don't need a bow and arrow to hunt, hell why don't you got the shops like everyone else, say why you even need meat you can eat soya!

That's why we have domesticated cows, we don't need to hunt, thus, we don't need guns. Especially, those countries - like Finnish Technocracy - who don't have guns easily available for the public.

It is much more sensible to allow each country to choose their own way of dealing with the issue. Instead of pushing your own agenda without consideration of the global ramifications.

While the Fish Emperor supports children murdering people, it strongly opposes any measure that would undermine the power of the Secret Police. How can you guarantee that your pro-gun law won't undermine our ability to oppress our citizens?


OOC: This I found funny!

So many good points raised and so few counterarguments to be seen. This appears to be a one-sided fight. Anyone want to venture a guess as to who's winning?

We the people of The United States of Lipton Tea strongly agree with the right to bear arms.

The Council of Enn does not believe in the right to bear arms. Within Enn, there is no need for firearms, and they are not accessible by the general public. Only the Enn Security Corps uses firearms, and they are fully trained in how to use them.

And, as mentioned this is already a national level issue.

BECAUSE THE GAME HAS SEVERAL NATIONAL ISSUES ALREADY HANDLING ARMS.

In fact, you could almost say proposals regarding arms are made redundant. I honestly wish we had a science development option instead. Something to add to [violet]'s big long list of things we want I suppose,

;)

our bears already have arms! along with teeth and claws.
as do our kittens and puppies.

we neither mass produce nor permit the mass importation of
balistic ordinance (nor combustion powered vehicules nor
any wider or taller then 30" (760mm) except those which run
on some sort of guideway)

as with all things hobbiest are permitted to make up to
for their own amusement and exercise of their skills with
machine tools. in the case of balistic ordinance these
may not however be bought and sold as machined, completed
and in working order. (black powder machinist clubs do
exist of course)

where the usual excuse and use for balistic ordinance exists
we employ instead nonleathal (well mostly nonleathal and not
manufactured or intended to be lethal) energy divices such
as energy beam soldering and welding tools, excavating
impliments and sleep inducing devices.

in short: "we don't need no stinking guns",
but we sure do have mighty fine 'pitchforks'!

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

The Kingdom of Cullenus opposes the right to bear arms. We feel that giving our citizens the right to lethal weapons, that they may try to actually use them in ways other than shooting cans. We fear that they may try to rebel against their severely limited rights. We do not like for our citizens to get too comfortable with "rights". I mean, isn't their only purpose to feed the economy and vote? Mind you we may tweak the vote outcome, but they dont need to know that. ;)

While we're at it... The Kingdom of Cullenus proposes the burning of all unauthorized books. These include all books that have not personally been written by the king of Cullenus... King Me. The purpose of this simple action is so that our citizens will falsely believe they are living a good life, rather than the severely oppressed life they are actually enduring. We believe this may increase our economical growth by giving us the chance to be unopposed when placing ridiculously high taxes on things such as food, supplies, vehicles, water, walking rights, talking rights, breathing rights, and so on.

bump

We believe that the right to bear arms is neccessary in order to counteract any government that we the people do not agree with. Our founding fathers gave us this right because they knew that the possibility of an oppresive government is always there. We also feel that all weapons should be registered so that if they are stolen and or used to commit crime even if it was not the original owners doing, the police would have an easier time of tracking down the suspect.

The proposal does NOT appeal to The United Socialist States of Voroziniya. We believe that any firearms should be restricted only to the army, police force, and to anyone whose occupation absolutely requires one, such as a hunter, and even then guns should only be used during work hours. What need would a civilian have for a firearm? People could argue that it is self-defense, but if guns are illegal to citizens then it will make it much more difficult to obtain one. And security technology has advanced enough so that it is nearly impossible to steal one without activating alarms and having the ARMED police arrive. Casualties will decrease, crime will decrease, and trust will increase, if guns are kept out of possibly untrustworthy hands. What is the purpose of having self-defense if it increases the offending crime in the process?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya call upon all UN members reading this message NOT TO SIDE WITH THIS SENSELESS AND VIOLENT IDEA! We must put an end to violence as much as we can, and putting guns in new, potentially dangerous hands will NOT bring peace!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

First I musst say that my nation believes guns to be good.
We also believe forcing others to not ban them is infringing on national sovreignity, but then, what isn't? Could Komokom or Rehochipe please tell me, cause they actually know what makes this heavenly place work.
Anyway there is more to guns than hunting and killing. Pardon me for sounding like some white trash from tenesee or texas, (even though i am from that damned bible thumpin state TX) but some people in my nation enjoy just shooting cans. its better than watching TV all day, or rioting, or smoking dope all day (in a sense of having a liife).

Now if we're going to say ban things that make people do dangerous crap, why not ban pot, and alcohol, and crack, hash, heroine, meth, etc? Someone who is high on speed can actually rip seatbelts in half, break handcuffs, and (ive seen it) take a baseball bat to the head and keep running.

Or girls? men often fight over women, you know. Frankly I don't care.

But if you ban guns for being killing machines that make people lose judgement and do stupid crap like killing people, you should ban speed, pot, alcohol, bows and arrows, knives, ninja stars(dont know the right word now), and other stuff, right?

WHatever,
Dictatoor LG

PS realultimatepower is so stupid it actually is funny. the kid that wrote it needs a life big time, but whos to stop him?

guns:violence :: 1:?
a. 1
b. 2
c. a goat
d. b and c

First of all, i was not forcing anyone to vote against it. i was suggesting it.

Second of all, I DO believe in banning all non-medicinal drugs. I do not believe in banning tobacco or alcohol because, even though they are horribly bad, there are too many people who desparately enjoy them and the law would be rebelled against. look at prohibition. However, that is not the case with guns. people are not as dependant on shooting cans.... It hasnt integrated into daily life, well, at least not in my nation of Voroziniya.

As for your example on baseball bats, and "girls", it is always possible for ANYTHING to erupt into a conflict, but you have to be realistic and accept the fact that guns encourage crime and violence much, much, much more than baseball bats. When the armies use baseball bats i will be proven wrong.

Unfortunately, the proposal failed to make quorum. However, the Confederacy of South Puyallup appreciates the contructive criticism regarding the proper content of UN resolutions, etc. The Confederacy of South Puyallup is committed to the right to bear arms, as it believes wholeheartedly that the only truly free people is an armed people.

Oh, yes, of course. Guns equals freedom. What an ingenius philosophy....


Do you honestly think society will improve if every citizen is a gun-totin', potentially dangerous person? Is anyone even reading my responses?

Please, crime will skyrocket is this proposal is passed. Please, Im begging that you do not support this idea or the United Nations will face even bigger problems.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Unfortunately, the proposal failed to make quorum. The Confederacy of South Puyallup is committed to the right to bear arms, as it believes wholeheartedly that the only truly free people is an armed people.

Next time perhaps you'll want to find some facts to justify your position, because to be honest, what you've suggested thus forth is no different than the "go plant a tree" proposals. They are feel goods for people.

If you want to seriously expect the UN to consider an idea, present some of your facts in the proposal itself and present others here.

Otherwise the UN is no place for domestic issues, which your proposal was.

Second of all, I DO believe in banning all non-medicinal drugs. I do not believe in banning tobacco or alcohol because, even though they are horribly bad, there are too many people who desparately enjoy them and the law would be rebelled against.
And of course, nobody rebels against anti-marijuana laws.

And I find the 'armed populace = freedom' argument utterly spurious. Did anyone see gun-waving hordes attacking the White House when Enron broke?

And I find the 'armed populace = freedom' argument utterly spurious. Did anyone see gun-waving hordes attacking the White House when Enron broke?

The great part of being Australian, I can say " Can we ? Please ? :D "

To Komokom and Rehochipe,
Yes you do have a point but that is the problem with this country people love to bitch and moan but when it comes time to do something they would rather sit on thier fat asses and watch friends. We have become lazy and apathetic,
too long have we lived the good life. It seems that as long as we have our cable tv, cheap gas, big cars, and a ridiculous amount of choice in consumer goods this all we care about. Mark me well on this at some point people will get totally sick of the way things have become and a revolution will take place. I know that sounds unthinkable or insane but I believe it will happen, maybe not in my life time but eventually we will either come to our senses and protest like hell or we will be attacked by someone and remember why it is we do have the right to bear arms. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. I am a civil war reananctor and own a few black powder weapons. I enjoy firing them and thier antiquity. I also have a loaded colt black powder pistol right next to me when my wife and I sleep. If someone comes into my house they are in for a rude awakening. I have no children and am very aware of gun saftey, If something ever were to happen in this country where it was pure chaos, I like knowing I have a fighting chance to defend myself and my family. I hope this will never happen and probably will not, but you never know. Rome never lasted forever and neither will this power with which we now hold over the globe. I stress that I am not some Texas hillbilly who belongs to the NRA and likes carrying a pistol on me so I can threaten people with it. But I do not trust our government and I beleive it is essential to be able to obtain a weapon in case we ever had to use it against a government we no longer support or has become oppresive. Never let that freedom to bear arms be taken away because then we the people become alot less of a concern by our govermnet and we all know what that could lead to. I'm not a sepratist or anything weird like that I just feel that it is neccessary for civilians to always be able to defend themselves from oppressers.

And I find the 'armed populace = freedom' argument utterly spurious. Did anyone see gun-waving hordes attacking the White House when Enron broke?

Enron had what to do with freedom?

Also, have you heard of the battle of Athens, Tenessee? Of the Deacons of Defense?

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/yoursenator.sized.jpg

Well done ma'am it is nice to know some us realize that stripping us of our potential to fight or defend what we believe in is wrong

Depends on what you mean by freedom. If your version of freedom includes the freedom to cheat, lie, swindle, rob blind and pay off, then nothing.

Polish Warriors: if a government is so bad that you need to fight in order to get your views represented, then whether they let you have arms or not is the least of your concerns.

The right to bear arms should be decided on the domestic level. In the United Socialist States of Vanua, our people shall not have this right, as it facilitates too many harmful actions and brings too much danger into our homes, schools, streets, and places of business.

-The United Socialist States of Vanua

Depends on what you mean by freedom. If your version of freedom includes the freedom to cheat, lie, swindle, rob blind and pay off, then nothing.

Polish Warriors: if a government is so bad that you need to fight in order to get your views represented, then whether they let you have arms or not is the least of your concerns.

The more you restict the more you repress which in some cases is good such as murder, theft, rape etc etc. Sometimes you have to fight. Sure it would be nice to peacefully resolve anything but that is not the reality we live in.
Too many people are not rational in thier actions therefore sometimes talking does no good reasoning is futile some only respond to force. It sure as hell is important(bearing arms)!

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Ok, then, how about the army stops using guns?
People are the ones who have the intention of killing people, but you honestly dont think guns make it much more possible?

I'm willing to sacrafice your passion to re-enact the civil war in your spare time to save the lives of those who have been killed because people can buy guns.

Also, I previously said that occupations that require guns, such as a hnter, may use guns in their profession. If you happened to be a professional civil war reenactor, than you can use guns.

And if people are really that desparate to rebel through violence, they can rob guns or create them illegally. And guns are not absolutely necissary for a revolution. If the revolution is so important will gain enough support that the opressor must back down. But if it is a pandemonious shootout between two halves of a disagreeing nation, no one wins. There will never be a way to completely silence a revoltion, if it is really so important that a great deal of the nation supports it. That is what happened in Russia in 1917.

There have to be certain freedoms taken away to protect a great deal of innocent lives. Freedom at its purest form is anarchy, so freedom will always be restricted. You can't live on a principle, you have to be flexible and do what is best even if it isn;t what you wanted to be best. Certain freedoms and rights are good, and others are bad. Please, no fruitless principle is worth lives.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Enron had what to do with freedom?

Also, have you heard of the battle of Athens, Tenessee? Of the Deacons of Defense?

I've not heard of the Battle of Athens, TN. Care for a recap or to explain in a sentence or two why this supports / justifies gun ownership?

As for Enron, I believe the point being made is that the company basically screwed many people out of their retirement plans, jacked energy markets, thus screwing tax payers out of their tax dollars, and very little of the money that was stolen has nor will be recovered. Owning a gun wouldn't have changed that.

The larger lesson in the Enron example is, that while we are bickering over something that is a domestic, not international, policy matter, that large issues are passing by completely ignored.

This is the United Nations, the laws that are passed here influence much of the world. Altough it is true that there are bigger issues, many of which concern international policies, the smaller, domestic ones cannot be ignored. What is the point in helping a nation internationally if its people are not as happy as can be domestically?

For example, the AIDS crisis is a large conflict that deals with domestic, national health.

Plus I wouldnt be talking about the importance of an issue, as it was you who endorsed the insanity of UNSETI.

This is the United Nations, the laws that are passed here influence much of the world. Altough it is true that there are bigger issues, many of which concern international policies, the smaller, domestic ones cannot be ignored. What is the point in helping a nation internationally if its people are not as happy as can be domestically?

For example, the AIDS crisis is a large conflict that deals with domestic, national health.

Plus I wouldnt be talking about the importance of an issue, as it was you who endorsed the insanity of UNSETI.

Could you clarify to whom you are responding. My nation supports SETI programs, and feels more is to be gained by nations sharing information. The same was true for the NEO (Near Earth Objects) resolution, and I don't see why my nation would change its position a month later?

As for AIDS, yes, it is a domestic problem ... until it grows so large that 30% of a country is impacted by it (which is the case in several southern African nations). When your nation's life expectancy drops by 30-years, and when a significant portion of your work force is unable to work, that is not just a domestic problem, but since nations actively trade with one and another and since people travel from country to country, there is both an economic and political incentive above and beyond the humane incentive to responding to this situation.

[OOC: If you look at real UN actions, you'll see that the UN is very active in promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, and the UN has specifically addressed IDU's as well. While you can argue that NationStates isn't real world, there *are* African nations playing this game and they certainly have voted no on resolutions because they felt the rest of the world was ignoring their HIV/AIDS crisis. And they were right ... the rest of the NationStates world has been living too long in a drug control / sex control / gun control world, which frankly are three issues that I think while close to the hearts of rural Americans, isn't really something many people come here to be so completely dominated by. I honestly hope in a *few* months time that another HIV resolution concerning sexual transmission is debated. I would have tackled that problem first, but it is hard enough advocating on the behalf if IDU, but to next tackle the NS taboo of sexuality ... whoa! If another nation beats me to the topic, they'll have my complete support! :) If they don't, I can see in October that I'll give it a try. In any event, the SETI idea is a welcomed change of pace. I actually like it when our resolutions alternate in topics, because if they all are social justic or human rights issues, more players will get bored and leave the game ...

Recently we've had:

? (Freedom of Press) <-- I'll have to double check that one
International Security (Tracking)
Human Rights (Refugees)
Environmental (Logging)
Social Justice (HIV/AIDS for IDUs)

Not a bad balance actually. If anything, the category most underused as of late is the moral descency (sp?).

To underline what Mik said: health issues, particularly issues of contagious disease, are international issues. Both because they're humanitarian, which is an undeniable role of the UN, and because diseases spread from country to country.

Epidemics are a strange thing; reaction is rarely proportionate to threat. When a new, exciting epidemic like SARS crops up, everybody hops up and down in a panic and fusses about the importance of preventing the spread of deadly epidemics; compared to AIDS, SARS is nothing. Compared to multi-strain-resistant malaria or tuberculosis, SARS is laughable. Diseases don't respect borders. They're a truly international issue.

In RL, AIDS started in West Africa. It managed to spread from there largely because health programs in West Africa weren't advanced enough to identify it before it spread further, and it managed to take hold in the West largely because misinformation about the disease was endorsed by powerful figures. Never mind that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are neither drugs-users nor gay (the overwhelming majority are and always have been heterosexuals in Africa): because perspective was limited to how the disease acted in one part of the world, and because of gross prejudice, it was disregarded.

Nowadays, in the West the population among whom AIDS is spreading the fastest are heterosexuals who don't inject drugs.

In reply to this redicoulous proposal, Antor shall launch a campaign to hype it's newest proposal; "The Individual Right to Arm Bears!"

1. Slimrovia supports the right of individuals to own, maintain, bear, and use arms as a right of any individual, unless that individual is a danger to him/her self or others.

2. Slimrovia supports the right of individuals to own, maintain, bear, and use individually-operated firearms, including, but not limited to rifles, handguns, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns, shall not be infringed, except in the following cases:
a. Convicted felons.
b. Certified lunatics.

3. The Government of Slimrovia reserves the right to monotor the sale and supply of weapons, firearms, ammunition, explosives, primers, projectiles and any part or constituent thereof within Slimrovian territories and borders!