NationStates Jolt Archive

I Urge you to support my proposal: Right to Bear Arms

I Urge you to support my proposal: Right to Bear Arms

Could you post a copy of it here so that we can fully discuss, debate and - well do something else that starts with a "d" about it?

Thanks :}

The right to Bear arms?? Do the Bears have any say in this? What about the claws, should we have a right to them too?

Could you post a copy of it here so that we can fully discuss, debate and - well do something else that starts with a "d" about it?

Thanks :}

ok.

Right to Bear Arms

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Description: All people over the age of 18(eighteen); no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual orentarian, will have the right to own firearms.

To the right honorable Mabulia,

As worthy and well intended this resolution might be, it is missing a major factor to make it a whole.

You first state that you have a resolution based on the concept of the "right to bear arms." Aside from the obvious misspelling of the word "bare", there is the secondary fact that nowhere in your resolution does it say people should actually HAVE that right! Only... ownership is mentioned.

Thus, if you will amend said resolution thusly, you may be on to something:

Description: All people over the age of 18(eighteen), no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual orentarian, will have the right to own and bare firearms.

On behalf of his Majesty, King Faalcon, I would take your resolution one step further and EXCLUDE those individuals found guilty of the crimes of Treason against the State/Kingodm/Nation/etc. and all crimes commited against said ruling government. That is of course dependent on whether your nation(s) lets such people live. Our kingdom does not, but that is a matter best discussed at a later time.

Best of luck to you in your endevors.

Rufus J. Snivel
Chief Osculator D'erriere
to his Majesty, King Faalcon

ok.

Right to Bear Arms

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Description: All people over the age of 18(eighteen); no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual orentarian, will have the right to own firearms.

First, and this is with the most polite voice I can use, it is general custom to post the whole thing - including the Category (which, okay, is self-evident) and the decision (again - self-evident). I just thought I would mention that for any future proposals you might submit to the UN.

Secondly - I believe the best way to reduce gun crime, and accidental deaths, is to restrict gun ownership to the military. What can you show me or tell me that will make me think otherwise? (This is not a "I hate your proposal, it bites!" comment - I am just asking!)

To the right honorable Mabulia,

As worthy and well intended this resolution might be, it is missing a major factor to make it a whole.

You first state that you have a resolution based on the concept of the "right to bear arms." Aside from the obvious misspelling of the word "bare", there is the secondary fact that nowhere in your resolution does it say people should actually HAVE that right! Only... ownership is mentioned.

Thus, if you will amend said resolution thusly, you may be on to something:

Description: All people over the age of 18(eighteen), no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual orentarian, will have the right to own and bare firearms.

On behalf of his Majesty, King Faalcon, I would take your resolution one step further and EXCLUDE those individuals found guilty of the crimes of Treason against the State/Kingodm/Nation/etc. and all crimes commited against said ruling government. That is of course dependent on whether your nation(s) lets such people live. Our kingdom does not, but that is a matter best discussed at a later time.

Best of luck to you in your endevors.

Rufus J. Snivel
Chief Osculator D'erriere
to his Majesty, King Faalcon

Actually bear is spell right. Spelt the other way it implies this proposal relates to nudity :}

Or possibly both are right. Eh - isn't English a fun language?

And in anyway - just because a person has used weapons against the elected government is no reason to prevent them from carrying a gun. The elected government might be evil and need shooting :}

I think there need to be exceptions for convicted criminals and the mentally ill.

First, and this is with the most polite voice I can use, it is general custom to post the whole thing - including the Category (which, okay, is self-evident) and the decision (again - self-evident). I just thought I would mention that for any future proposals you might submit to the UN.

Secondly - I believe the best way to reduce gun crime, and accidental deaths, is to restrict gun ownership to the military. What can you show me or tell me that will make me think otherwise? (This is not a "I hate your proposal, it bites!" comment - I am just asking!)

well in many nations, like my own; we are self-policed, and have a small police force.

and you have a better chance of dieing from falling off a bike than you do being shot. (heh, i actually looked that up)

the obvious misspelling of the word "bare"

actually; it is spelled bear

well in many nations, like my own; we are self-policed, and have a small police force.

and you have a better chance of dieing from falling off a bike than you do being shot. (heh, i actually looked that up)

That is certainly true in my nation, since we have no guns. Even the police are not armed. This has made crime unknown in my country.

How will bringing guns back change this? It can't make it better - what is better than no crime?

This would cause problems, as in my nation it is legal for a person of any sex or race to bear arms from the age of 16 as long as they are a legal citizen. My citizenship standards are not exactly that high either (Tiamat Taveril, my nearest neighbor in standards, has three times the requirements I do, and they're far more friendly).

All people over the age of 18(eighteen), no matter what race, religion, gender or sexual orentarian, will have the right to own and bare firearms.

So, no matter what condition a person over the age of 18 is in, they can own a gun?

What about criminals over the age of 18? What about the mentally handicap? What about those who haven't actually mentally and emotionally mature enough to handle a gun?

I don't want any bear arms! I like my human arms better!!!
j/k

In all actuallity, since this proposal is inline with the concepts of freedom as expressed in the Constitution of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania... we would support such an endeavor.

While every citizen within our fair underground city is permitted, no, EXPECTED to bear arms, and be competent in their use, to actually commit murder is punishable by a slow, painful death. As such, we have a low rate of murder.

While every citizen within our fair underground city is permitted, no, EXPECTED to bear arms, and be competent in their use, to actually commit murder is punishable by a slow, painful death. As such, we have a low rate of murder.

As do we in TilEnca. Except we have no death penalty, and we have no guns.

Who knew?

First, and this is with the most polite voice I can use, it is general custom to post the whole thing - including the Category (which, okay, is self-evident) and the decision (again - self-evident). I just thought I would mention that for any future proposals you might submit to the UN.

Secondly - I believe the best way to reduce gun crime, and accidental deaths, is to restrict gun ownership to the military. What can you show me or tell me that will make me think otherwise? (This is not a "I hate your proposal, it bites!" comment - I am just asking!)

No one should have to. If thats what is believed why not look at data on gun deaths in countries, particularly the UK, that have enacted resolutions restricting and or eliminating the right to bear arms. Some questions to ask: Do they actually lower gun violence, do they actually lower gun deaths (intentional and accidental), in cases where they do lower, is it statistically significant, or cyclical? Then proffer reasoning based on such analysis as to why such a right should not be granted, ie, the effect it could be expected to have on gun crime and accidental deaths, which are not reasons its adoption is being advocated.

If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything.

The group that spearheaded legislation in the UK maintains such data. So does the Government.

No one should have to. If thats what is believed why not look at data on gun deaths in countries, particularly the UK, that have enacted resolutions restricting and or eliminating the right to bear arms. Some questions to ask: Do they actually lower gun violence, do they actually lower gun deaths (intentional and accidental), in cases where they do lower, is it statistically significant, or cyclical? Then proffer reasoning based on such analysis as to why such a right should not be granted, ie, the effect it could be expected to have on gun crime and accidental deaths, which are not reasons its adoption is being advocated.

If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything.

The group that spearheaded legislation in the UK maintains such data. So does the Government.


I was basing in on TilEnca (my nation). I took guns out of the hands of the people. And I took guns out of the hands of the police. And now I have no crime. So what other conclusion am I supposed to draw from that other than taking the guns away was a good thing?

With regard to the definitions of the words Bare and Bear, I did not take into account that the Kingdom of Faalcon uses a governmentally mandated dictionary from which I took the defintion from. It is not without understanding that other countries would use other dictionaries... I can forgive everyones ignorance to the true spelling and definition of these words.

Secondly, further confusion can be seen in the fact that the Kingdom of Faalcon has not inferior concepts of modesty. A good majority of the population spend their time in the nude, both publicly and privately... though depending on their occupation, some are almost required to use clothing for protection (i.e. automobile assembly, resturant food preparation, etc.)

Still, the concept of bearing or barring arms is a good proposal. Many have come forth with deliberation on maturaty, mental stability, concern over age, etc. But I ask you, would a mentally unstable person be a threat to the nation in question? The very definition of insanity: be a danger to oneself as well as others, implies the fact that this person could not be trusted and therefore would not be allowed. As for minors, how do you expect them to learn responsibility if they are living a sheltered life? They must be trusted at some point. We trust them to drive cars... which are far more deadly and take more lives than guns do on a yearly basis.

Criminals, however, would never be allowed guns until they have served their time and proven themselves loyal, in our case, to his Majesty King Faalcon. Treason is met with the death sentence. Murder too is punishable by death. All others are given a harsh sentencing and if deemed worthy of release at the end of it, can be trusted to resume life again with all rights and privlidges thereof. I believe that a lack of armed civilians is a prominant reason for the crime we see in the world today and his Majesty plans on taking further actions in the future to ensure the arming and protecting of his populace.

In the distant nation known as the "United" States of America, several cities are known to require the population to arm themselves. In such cities, a particular one in the Utah state though the name escapes me, but in such cities... crime does not exist! If one KNEW... that every individual they could see had a gun on them and in their home, how likely would it be that a criminal would think he could easily take that persons money and belongings and live to tell about it? Not very. They would move on to the easy targets such as countries where even the police are not armed.

No my friends, arming your subjects is a good action to take if common sense (which is anything but common) is used throughout the process.

Rufus J. Snivel
Chief Osculator D'erriere
of his Majesty, King Faalcon

bear is the proper, bare is the archaic past-tense of bear. But "bear" has always been the present tense transitive verb form in english. Rooted in Middle-English "beren" from Old-English "beran", originating from Indo-European roots, as opposed to the more common latin-rooted words found in English. As such. "The right to bear arms" is proper, in english, as used in the form of a present tense transitive verb. The present past tense is "bore" as opposed to "bare".

I'm gonna bore through that bear with my bare hands!

It's times like this that I really hate the English language...

I'm gonna bore through that bear with my bare hands!

It's times like this that I really hate the English language...

Well, english is one hell of a mutt, as far as language goes, with roots in brythic, norse, latin, and cyrillic tongues.... the only other language that comes close, in terms of drastic mixes is krayole (creol)

The right to bear arms (yes, a "bare" arm is one without a sleeve covering it) is undoubtly a controversial topic. The problem is the broadness of the wording. Any good lawyer can pick apart the first description you mentioned and distort it for their own demise. Not allowing persons with tainted criminal records to bear arms is a good idea, yet the enforcing bit is questionable. Will first-time shoplifters who used a pistol be unable to bear arms, just as a terrorist? How will these rules be regulated? An easy solution, I think, would be to allow pistols, rifles, and other guns that "shoot one bullet at a time" should be allowed in an effort to support self defense and sport hunting purposes, yet mass killing weapons should be banned, for their sole purpose is to kill people, and that is always unfortunate in my opinion. This can be easily enforced!

I may be an ignorant fool, but killing people by masses is not good. As "cool" as the Matrix movie is...

I was basing in on TilEnca (my nation). I took guns out of the hands of the people. And I took guns out of the hands of the police. And now I have no crime. So what other conclusion am I supposed to draw from that other than taking the guns away was a good thing?

AP stands corrected. And notes the available market for our underground arms dealers:)

The Council of Enn does not see firearms as a right, but instead a responsibility. Only fully trained members of the Ennish Security Corps are allowed to carry firearms. All others, including the police, do without.