NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to stop to the free trade of weapons.
I think that is bad for all citizens of the world have storefronts that sell weapons for all nation without control.
It's not right.
And I will stop with this reality.

I highly disagree with this proposal.

Although I am firmly against Invidividual Right To Bear Arms, I do believe that arms are necissary for enforcing law and order. I believe that guns should be guaranteed to the police and the army.

The truth is that Arms Trade, along with all other international trade, is necissary for a nation's economy. Guns are not evil, they are not useless to a nation. The armies and police force need newer, cheaper, and more effective firearms. Nations need to import foreign guns if they do not have the resources or technology for gun manufacturing to match that of their trade partner.

Some other nations may be world leaders in firearm technology, and it could be an amazing boost for their economy if they could capitalize it in the Global market. Some nations' economies may be primarily focused on international trade of firearms.

If you take away Gun Trafficking from the global market, you might as well take guns away from the human race.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I want to stop to the free trade of weapons.
I think that is bad for all citizens of the world have storefronts that sell weapons for all nation without control.
It's not right.
And I will stop with this reality.

Good. You have a belief, a firm stand, and some good lines (well, you might want to clean up the syntax a lot a bit). Now you just need a compromise. In order to sell this to other nations you have to be compassionate and give the proposal a little less backbone. Okay a lot less backbone. Yes this hurts its ability to display your views, but it makes it tolerable for the rest of the UN as it doesn't force them to do anything which they don't like to do. And besides, if it's to prickly, it won't go anywhere.

Launch as many drafts in the forum as you can (post it and ask for suggestions) and tweak it until enough say they'll support it. Then you make as much noise about it in the forum then send it in. And don't forget to send telegrams to regional delegates.

I am also for the ban of Gun Trafficing. I will support you in any resolution you make on this morally correct issue.

Ahem.

We're all for the banning of certain weapons (flamethrowers, landmines, napalm) on humanitarian grounds. We would also support a complete ban on weapons trading to nations with a record of human rights abuses. However, the banning of all weapons trade is never going to happen.

Nusku Capleton
Special Liason to the UN
Rehochipe

We shouldn't ban weapons, we need them to enforce the laws. I think when we registered the gun, make sure the person have no crimnal background or have been in jail for murder etc..

I hate to be one of the few mean people, but um...:

Where's the preambulatory clauses 'n' such? Wheras, Therefore, etc. That doesn't matter too much, but if you make it pretty it will be much more appreciated.

Enforcement? Otherwise you banned the white market and doubled the black one.

I do believe that this is not an infringement on national sovreignity, however it is possible to view it as such. (Issues banning guns already exist on a national level) Someone else will have to tell you that. For a good opinion ask Komokom.

Desription? Category? Submitted by?

Now grammar (which doesn't bother me much, but is worth pointing out) and other nit-picky things... [please note I've never written a proposal, trying to remember info off proposal stickies]

Category: Gun Control
Idustry Affected: Arms Manufacturing
Submitted by:Ersilia

I want to stop to the free trade of weapons.
In light of the recent spike in weapons trading,
The UN realizes the need to ban the weapons market,

I think that is bad for all citizens of the world have storefronts that sell weapons for all nation without control. It's not right.
As firearms and other weapons are no longer needed by humanity or the worldwide economy, especially without surveillance,

And I will stop with this reality.
The UN will therefore ban the weapons market,
Defined as the trade and barter of items pertaining but not limited to:
Guns, knives, bows and arrows, warships, flamethrowers, warplanes, tanks, etc.
To be enforced by a UN agency, UNWBE (UN weapons ban enforcement or something to that effect)
And then something to end it

I wouldn't trust that too much, though. Like I said, it's my first time writing one.

But I wouldn't support this proposal if I were in the UN. Cause I'm personally against it. But keep trying, and I'm sure you can pass it with some effort.

Good luck,
His Gladness DW

The ban of arms traffiking is impossible because nearly anything that exists on Earth can be used as a weapon. In order for it to be effective, you'd have to define what weapons are banned, and at that point the resolution becomes severely limited because of loopholes and such. Nevermind that the vast majority of delegates wouldn't approve of the proposal, and a resolution to clone Hitler and give him his own army of super-people stands a better chance of passing a floor vote.

I agree with the sentiments raised by a few other nations: ban certain weapons specifically, ban trading to specific types of countries, or make other small steps that would lead to a safer world. Nothing important in the international community happens overnight, but you'd be suprised how far you can walk if you take it one step at a time.

Trading would continue in the storefronts of many nations, where the UN has little to no power. Such a ban would be ineffective and cause more underground trafficking like Prohibition is to Alcohol.

! SHA - BAM !

Does this strike any memories ?

Reduce Black Market Arms Sales

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Galdago

Description: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 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: 11239

Votes Against: 4287

Implemented: Wed May 12 2004

! SHA - BAM !

Does this strike any memories ?

That for the record is one of my nation's favorite resolutions to date. I remember that the debate was fairly one sided though. "But I like guns!" "Um this isn't about the right to bear arms." "But I want to bear arms." "This is not about that issue." "You imperalist, I want to bear arms. Your resolution will bankrupt the world." "No, it isn't about arms, and no."

I think it is now time to deciding if the conference (from the resolution) will be held *here* on this forum, or an off-site forum, because obviously there is new interest.

Since I'm not an actual committee member, is there going to be a "research" package provided? As I would like to educate my government more on this issue as well.

Last I recall, Galdago was working his little socks off setting up a site to host the conference. I'm not sure if it ever started up, though; I'd inquire of him.

Last I recall, Galdago was working his little socks off setting up a site to host the conference. I'm not sure if it ever started up, though; I'd inquire of him.


instead making a site, why won't he just everyone in the UN you get and have a chat there

instead making a site, why won't he just everyone in the UN you get and have a chat there

Because the "Reduce Black Market Arms Sales" resolution did more than just make a statement:


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;


Komokom or Galdago would be better able to answer your question, but Galdago's resolution introduced something new to NationStates (sorry Mod's it is there now): a future action.

Basically, Galdago's off-site conference is an international conference. It was created by a UN decision, but the council formed in item 2 ultimately gets to decide how to run this show. One of the reasons I'm *not* planning on dropping in my environmental nor my fur. democracy proposals (which are only concepts right now) between now and Dec. is that I'm honestly hoping to start contacting any nation interested in the conference and making "arrangements" for their delegations to attend the council's conference.

Off-site forums offer a bit more flexibility in how things are set up, and the debate will be less likely to have what I'd call "drive-by" interest. While it is nice that people are free to scream their opinions while driving by the UN forum, some of the *best* NationStates discussions occure in off-site forums where people actually strive to find working solutions to problems.

A recent example: defenders giving Great Bight the big black pirate boot in the seat of the pants. They coordinated this in telegrams and off-site forums.

FYI: The UN Space Consortium (sp?) IIRC also includes off-site roleplay.

I think it would be great that for all off-site UN forums, if a mod would stickie and add a list of links to non-sanctioned resolution spawned sites. I also think that some players / resolution authors would follow the lead here and continue to stick with their resolutions. If there were any NS UNAIDS group founded, you'd better believe that my nation would *fund* and participate aggressively in the program. Ditto for any UN Office of Drugs and Crime.

Ah yes, forgot about that.

Mikitivity: Enn would be interested in taking part in the planned conference, should it occur.

Well,
" Son of a B ... ! "
* At this point, my house - SHOOK - from a fire cracker ( ? ) going off up the road.

Ahem,

Well, actually I'm on that committee myelf, not that I've been very active at all. I think, sweet soul that he is, Galdago might just kill me. My death aside, I'll dig up a link to the very, very, very nice off-site forum he made and such.

I'll put it in my next post, I've still got to organise my links from IE into FF ...

I'll ask Galdago about things raised here next I chat with him too, and see if he has time to drop by and talk about this.

* Insert expansive gesture at the glory of his passed resolution.

:)

Link :

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

There you go. :)

D'you expect technology to develop on its own? By allowing free trade of weapons, we can improve both the quality and quantity of our weapons within the world, which is needed.

Link :

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

There you go. :)

OMFG!

That is a wonderful page ... and I can see that I've got a lot of work to do.

Maybe we can rope him in to making a general UN page as well? Official-looking stuff might scare off the more undesireable posts, while attract those who are serious about getting their UN on.

I didn't read any of this except the first post because I'm busy opressing my populace ,But if no-one trades weapons what will Bruinata do?

I think you sir are highly inconsiderate.

Next maybe we can ban junk-food then make taking your morning vitamins compulsory!!!! The U.N. need to be an organization to help keep the world peace, not infringe on a nations fundamental rights. The great nation of New Virgina is lucky to have a thriving weapons industry and our uranium mines are second to none. Why would you deprive other nations of being almost as well armed as we? Are the other nations less deserving of protection?
New Virgina proudly stands side by side with the small developing nations and their God given right to buy the land-mines,short range nuclear missiles and tanks need to protect their borders.
Roderick UPS
Ambassador for New Virgina
Vox Populi, Vox Dei :mp5:

Next maybe we can ban junk-food then make taking your morning vitamins compulsory!!!! The U.N. need to be an organization to help keep the world peace, not infringe on a nations fundamental rights. The great nation of New Virgina is lucky to have a thriving weapons industry and our uranium mines are second to none. Why would you deprive other nations of being almost as well armed as we? Are the other nations less deserving of protection?

New Virgina proudly stands side by side with the small developing nations and their God given right to buy the land-mines,short range nuclear missiles and tanks need to protect their borders.
The colony of powerhungry chipmunks recognizes that there are good gun owners and bad gun owners. There is little that you can do against the bad without restricting the good. We need to stop the bad gun owners though. This is not an option, it's a necessity. So, good gun owners are going to have to suck it up. Whether this resolution effectively sets forth and enforces proper legislation toward this end, I cannot say. But people with deadly weapons need restraint, The good gun owners administer restraint upon themselves; the bad need us to give it to them

Maybe we can rope him in to making a general UN page as well? Official-looking stuff might scare off the more undesireable posts, while attract those who are serious about getting their UN on.

I'm sure he is just wanting people to show support for his current project. Let's consider is a beta-test and give him our support! :)

For me, that means I need to finish the World Factbook Entry for my country and then I'm gonna run through my summer vacation slides and start writing up some "Mikitivity Attractions" or maybe finish construction on my countries primary international conference center.

or maybe finish construction on my countries primary international conference center.

As in, don't " pull an Athens Games " on us ? ;)

The colony of powerhungry chipmunks recognizes that there are good gun owners and bad gun owners. There is little that you can do against the bad without restricting the good. We need to stop the bad gun owners though. This is not an option, it's a necessity. So, good gun owners are going to have to suck it up. Whether this resolution effectively sets forth and enforces proper legislation toward this end, I cannot say. But people with deadly weapons need restraint, The good gun owners administer restraint upon themselves; the bad need us to give it to them

Yep, makes alot of sense. Let's put down all our guns so those not in the UN with guns can walk over us with .22s. Yep, makes lots of sense.

Administering morality based on your ideals is not realistic. My population has to deal with real dangers best suited to be dealt with with firearms. Polar Bears don't consider pieces of paper anything more then napkins.

The shorter link is http://unciat.official.ws. I'm afraid that things have been crazy personally and I've got three RPs to wrap up that I'm doing poorly to keep up with. I'm hoping to get back on the UNCIAT bandwaggon at some point but I'm going to need to round up everyone again. Caras Galadon is finally getting back from vacation, as is Menelmacar, but Knootoss is presently in transition to his new place of residence and university. I think once everything settles I can get back in touch with everyone, make a huge apology, and see if we can get back on the trek to finishing this thing up.

Yep, makes alot of sense. Let's put down all our guns so those not in the UN with guns can walk over us with .22s. Yep, makes lots of sense.

Hold on one second, grasshopper. I never said that. I said that good gun owners are going to have to suck it up and deal with regulations caused by bad gun owners, not the banning of guns altogether. I believe that the outright banning of guns should only be enacted by individual nations anyway. That's much more national, as you point out.

Plus this proposal, when drafted, will probably be much more interested in stopping irresponsible/illegal gun traffic between nations, not within them (which, now that I think about it, has already been codified into law in the UN hasn’t' it?).

So, yep, actually it DOES make a whole lot of sense.


Administering morality based on your ideals is not realistic.

I don't have the slightest clue what you're getting at with this. The debate in the UN over morality in government is like a D.C. bachelor party: hot, violent, and mostly unlicensed. I wouldn't dare set foot in that debate. Too many people too set in their opinions to do that.

Simianonian Trade Seceratary had this to say:

"Given that the arms trade makesup alarge percentage of out gross yearly income, Simianonia will fight as long as it takes to shoot down this proposal."

Yep, makes alot of sense. Let's put down all our guns so those not in the UN with guns can walk over us with .22s. Yep, makes lots of sense.

Hold on one second, grasshopper. I never said that. I said that good gun owners are going to have to suck it up and deal with regulations caused by bad gun owners, not the banning of guns altogether. I believe that the outright banning of guns should only be enacted by individual nations anyway. That's much more national, as you point out.

Plus this proposal, when drafted, will probably be much more interested in stopping irresponsible/illegal gun traffic between nations, not within them (which, now that I think about it, has already been codified into law in the UN hasn’t' it?).

So, yep, actually it DOES make a whole lot of sense.

George, my nation doesn't make guns. No gun factories. We buy them from people who are very good at making guns. All sorts, from pistols to howitzers (we have really big polar bears to deal with out here).

So what are you going to enforce? Proper trade? They sell it, I buy it, that's the nature of trade. What do my citizens buy? Whatever firearm they want to carry, makes no difference to me.

My laws are centered around personal responsibility. As in "Buy any gun you want, we don't care. Commit murder, and you're swimming with the Great Whites with razor burn". In other words, no regulations on ownership of any firearm up to and including assault rifles with full automatic capability.

Get into military gear, and the military has full license to make you a target, and does. This keeps the terrorists on their feet - running. Works damned well, particularly as I can field more, faster, and really don't care about taking prisoners at that point.

Finally - if there's ALREADY a ruling on this, why would you clutter up the floor with another proposal that does the same damned thing???

How about you do some research and find out if anything already put into effect does what you're proposing before you inflict paperwork on us?

The Empire of Dracoinus while not a UN Member would like to add some coments to this debate. The real fact of the matter is that our nation has taken the liberty, out of concern for all Nation's of the planet Terra. To destroy severl merchant vessels of what it deems to be illegal and excessive armament shipments originating from Grays Hill.

The Empire has deemed that trades from Grays Hill not only represent an unrealistic and potentially deadly excess of military power, it also verges on the realm of Godmod in both quantity and unrealistic delivery. Its may be ordered for example in quantities of thousands of units of M1A Main Battle Tanks, paid for and shipped within 1 RL day. I think this is outside the realm of acceptable practice and therefore The Empire of Dracoinus has decided to take action and to sink as much of this "illegal" weaponary as possible.

The Empire of Dracoinus hereby would like to petion the UN to construct a broad reaching resolution that would allows for realistic construct times, raw material shipping requirements and the need for Weapons Inspectors to monitor the proliferation of not only Nuclear weapons but of excessive construction of battle armorments.

If needed the legeslative body of Dracoinus could draft a formalized plan to the UN for its review.

Maybe we can rope him in to making a general UN page as well? Official-looking stuff might scare off the more undesireable posts, while attract those who are serious about getting their UN on.

That is my thought as well. I've now added a link to his page immediately following the formated text of his resolution in the United Nations Association archive notes.

The "United Nations Association" is actually a NGO that was formed by citizens of my country talking with citizens from Tuesday Heights. While both our governments have encouraged private citizens working together and forming an NGO, the NationStates UNA is not an organization designed to carry out the agenda of either of our nations. Instead, the NGO is working to pick up the pieces of the UN and begin recording its history in a somewhat more organized fashion.

On a similar note, if any of you has authored a UN resolution, and would like a link to your government's homepage in the UNA Resolution Archives, please telegram me, and I'll edit the "Proposed by:" field to include a hyperlink to your government's homepage.

I would most definitly be AGAINST any proposal that goes against my nation's populous thier freedom and right to bear to arms. Why does the UN keep coming up with more and more proposals that take away individual nationstates rights and freedoms? The UN is not a world policing organization! I am proud of my nation's utter lack of prisons! I am proud of my civil rights and political freedoms! I will protect those rights with every weapon at my disposal. :D

Typically, it won't come to having to defend your "2nd amendment right". Democratic bodies, as governing forces, tend to move only very slowly towards poles of belief. They are almost always moderate. In them, there ARE always moderates. There are usually enough moderates to keep mindlessly one-sided legislation from making any sort of a stand. There are some exceptions (cough--certain part UN resolutions--cough) but, simply stated, exceptions aren't rules.

Arguments in the UN tend to be much more of the slippery-slope/angle of declination (or, more appropriately, curve of declination) oriented. I've seen very few cases where hard lines need to be taken (such as the one you've adopted). The UN won't decide in a day to "outlaw all weapon traffic". Rather, most UN debate involves minor changes and issues, which could be manipulated in the future to have lasting outcomes.

Suffice it to say, any proposal involving weapon's traffic that would have even a slice of the slimmest chance of passing through the UN wouldn't call for anything that would drastically change your country. In fact it might not even affect you country at all.

Just a technical note: this debate ended months ago, but I "bumped" the thread because the web page for the UN Committee on Illicit Arms, though still under construction, goes to illustrate that sometimes resolution authors should *maintain* an interest in their subject.

As an armed nation that is proud of its military strength, Seket-Hetep is against banning the sale of all weaponry, on any level of commerce. not only does the transfer of arms boost economy, it also aids nations with inadequate resources to support large armed forces by offering them a quicker way to build up their defenses.
However, Seket-Hetep is <I>for</I> banning the trade of the following weapons for humanitarian reasons:
1: Flamethrowers and similar weapons
2: Biological weapons (including, but not limited to, neurotoxins, artificially developed diseases)
3: Nuclear weapons
4: Long-range warhead delivery systems
5: "Chain shotguns" and other similar rapid-fire devices that utilize shot instead of bullets