NationStates Jolt Archive

The resolution is as follows:

Recognizing that gun control is a sensitive subject, The Republic of Zerevok would like to propose the following:

Article I: All nations have control over the gun regulations in their own country and should be determined by each nation.

Article II: The United Nations does not have authority over the personal security of citizens in member nations. However, that in the interest of civil rights, that all gun rights given to one race, sex, etc. shall be given to all other groups within that country, within the realms of common sense.

Article III: Any citizen must follow the gun control regulations of the country they reside in, unless exceptions are made by the government.

Article IV: This resolution does not address assault weapons, or any type of army weapon.

Article V: All resolutions that are for or against universal Gun Control that are in direct violation of this resolution and should be eliminated unless they call for the repeal of this resolution.

Gun control is both in the realms of security and civil rights. To ban frearms would be a violation of civil rights and to allow all firearms would violate the security of citizens. Presented with this dilema the only possible solution is to allow individual nations to determine gun control.

The Republic of Zervok would also point out that the fact that there is a category for Gun Control shows how devisive this issue is and therefore a moderate position should be taken.




This thread is suppposed to draw support for the resolution and to provide an active debate so that should the resolution gain large, but not sufficient support, it can be re-proposed with amendments.

My UN puppet proposed it.

Finally, a piece of common-sense legislation.

I think this is something we all can agree on, both those in favor of gun control and those who are against.

I personally, am against gun control. And I'd like for the people of my country to be able to possess firearms.

But if other countries are for gun control and would like to ban guns, by all means.

To each his own. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I also would like to note that this resolution does not address assault weapons so that nations can still propose resolutions about that.

I figured that I wanted to make the least amount of enemies, so that this can be passed.

This resolution will allow each individual country to determine their own gun control laws, correct?

Then it has my full support.

This resolution will allow each individual country to determine their own gun control laws, correct?

Then it has my full support.
Yes I was just pointing out Aritcle 4.

Did you know that Japan and Switzerland have the same murder/crime rate, yet Japan does not allow any guns, and Switzerland has them in abundance?

I thought that was very interesting, but it does not surprise me much. An armed citizenry is better than an unarmed one, as history has proven, seeing as Switzerland was never invaded, having had an active milita of 200,000. ( I am referring to world wars 1 and 2)

In my opinion, armed citizenry is better than not, but I agree that it is for the nations to decide, because, as I've mentioned earlier, it is not in the right of the, say, EU to dictate what everybody in Europe does.

Hands off, government, (ninja smiley)

Dresophila Prime, I agree.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin

Right now its on page 18.

There was a case where an 18-year old suspect tried to hold up a breakfast diner, when two senior citizens opened fire on him. Tell me that isn't awesome. Stop crime in its tracks...(nobody was killed)

There was a case where an 18-year old suspect tried to hold up a breakfast diner, when two senior citizens opened fire on him. Tell me that isn't awesome. Stop crime in its tracks...(nobody was killed)

lol! That's pretty awesome, sometimes the police will not be there when you need them - cut out the middle man and protect yourself. Heh.

Sometimes! HA! the taskforce is not nearly good enough to be there to resuce every single person in need...

If a woman is abused by her boyfriend and wants to buy a gun but cannot, what is she left to do when her door is being rammed? Call the police and hope they will come in three hours? No. Simply: Get a gun.

In our society, however, heroism is frowned upon and people who would actually save a woman like this by shooting the suspect are immediately frowned upon, sued, jailed, you name it. And if the suspect is a minority, say goodbye to your freedom.

I would just like to say that I am against gun violence in general, however there are situations which require personal protection. In my personal opinion, I would hope that the police would come and bring the criminal to jail, but if your security is threatened obviously you should be able to protect yourself.

Well it is important to understand, a gun - like a knife, hammer, etc. - is a tool.

It is the person who is using the gun that must be accountable, not the gun itself.

If it is not gun violence, it'll be knife violence - as is the case in Britain.

This is why The Armed Republic of Aliste is against gun control - but is in favor of this resolution which will allow all individual nations to choose whether they want stronger gun laws or not.

Has anyone read "7 myths of gun control" by richard Poe? Great book...very informative...

And yes, gun violence is not liked by anyone, but by legalizing guns in every home, it will act against gun violence. Think about it: Would you try to mug somebody if you knew that there was a 95% chance they had a gun? Face it. A lot of criminals are cowards, and in most cases where a gun is involved in stopping crime, the gun ISN'T EVEN FIRED. It only takes pulling out the gun to stop most cases.

Considering I hand out military-grade assault rifles to people 16 and older (it was either them use those or continue to burn people at the stake, and it surprisingly caused crime to drop a bit), I am for it.

'Guns don't kill people, people do'

Couldn't agree more. And think: If you outlaw guns, who has guns? Answer: outlaws...and not just guns, but better guns than the police has.

And about the Britain comment: hot burglary (victim is in the home) in Britain is 50%. SO: A person could be locked in their room, not able to do a thing, while a burglar ransacks their home, knowing that he is completely safe for about an hour till the police arrive. In the US this percentage is only 13...

Personally I think that burglars are more scared of possible guns than knives and makeshift clubs.

Hopefully, some people who are for gun control will also support this resolution. The more people the merrier and also, I would hope that this resolution would pass by lager margins than "Legalize Euthanasia" and "Legalize Prostitution"

[QUOTE=Dresophila Prime]Couldn't agree more. And think: If you outlaw guns, who has guns? Answer: outlaws...and not just guns, but better guns than the police has./QUOTE]
One of the prime reasons I am against Gun Control.

Yeah you know I've read several articles a while back pointing out that crime overall has increased in Britain since the gun control laws were passed.

It could be a coincidence I suppose if it were only a few percentage points. But the numbers I saw were outstanding, the articles were saying that crime had doubled and maybe trippled in some cases.

And these were not articles by the NRA or anything of the sort, these were articles from the UK "Guardian".

As you said, Dresophila Prime - if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

And also as you said, a criminal will be much more likely to commit a crime in a country with an unarmed population. This is just my opinion but I think the situation in Britain gives my opinion some sort of credibility - if only a little.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Suprisingly this resolution is the only resolution I know of that addresses ethnic cleansing. The second article states that gun rights must be extended to all ethnic groups etc. I think that in a few days I might propose a resolution about ethnic cleansing.

Dresophila Prime and Aliste and DemonLordEnigma and any other supporters, please presure your delegates to support the proposal.

The resolution is as follows:

Recognizing that gun control is a sensitive subject, The Republic of Zerevok would like to propose the following:

Article I: All nations have control over the gun regulations in their own country and should be determined by each nation.

Article II: The United Nations does not have authority over the personal security of citizens in member nations. However, that in the interest of civil rights, that all gun rights given to one race, sex, etc. shall be given to all other groups within that country, within the realms of common sense.

Article III: Any citizen must follow the gun control regulations of the country they reside in, unless exceptions are made by the government.

Article IV: This resolution does not address assault weapons, or any type of army weapon.

Article V: All resolutions that are for or against universal Gun Control that are in direct violation of this resolution and should be eliminated unless they call for the repeal of this resolution.

Gun control is both in the realms of security and civil rights. To ban frearms would be a violation of civil rights and to allow all firearms would violate the security of citizens. Presented with this dilema the only possible solution is to allow individual nations to determine gun control.

The Republic of Zervok would also point out that the fact that there is a category for Gun Control shows how devisive this issue is and therefore a moderate position should be taken.




This thread is suppposed to draw support for the resolution and to provide an active debate so that should the resolution gain large, but not sufficient support, it can be re-proposed with amendments.

Hate to say it but this should probably be removed from the list. Article 1,2, and 5 offending... You cannot legislate what the UN may consider. Therefore I beleive you'd do better not to bother trying... And did we ever pass the right to bear arms in NS? If not then I'm not sure how you get off saying this is a civil rights issue...

Hate to say it but this should probably be removed from the list. Article 1,2, and 5 offending... You cannot legislate what the UN may consider. Therefore I beleive you'd do better not to bother trying... And did we ever pass the right to bear arms in NS? If not then I'm not sure how you get off saying this is a civil rights issue...
Well Article 1 basically is the whole proposal. And no we didnt pass the right to bear arms, but that comes up every other week.

Well Article 1 basically is the whole proposal. And no we didnt pass the right to bear arms, but that comes up every other week.

Basically then you proposal would accomplish nothing since the UN may of course legistlate whatever it bloody pleases because the option to do so exists (something called rational empiricism... never understood it but it's apparently what makes gaem mechanics tick)... and this would be game mechanics... perhaps you should getthe opinion of a mdoerator?

What Category and Strength was this proposed under?

This is an illegal proposal - click here for ruling. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7566712&postcount=9)

All be it that this is a great idea that we controll our own well fair, but should we be united in against the fact that somebody could at one point abuse this trust between peoples?

You can repeal the resolution, I put that in because otherwise you can have conflicing resolutions. I could write a resolution demanding abortion be illegal and then UN nations have to allow and prohibit abortion. Or does the newest resolution overide the past one.

I can understand 2. but not 5 or 1.

The resolution is as follows:

Recognizing that gun control is a sensitive subject, The Republic of Zerevok would like to propose the following:

Article I: All nations have control over the gun regulations in their own country and should be determined by each nation.

Article II: The United Nations does not have authority over the personal security of citizens in member nations. However, that in the interest of civil rights, that all gun rights given to one race, sex, etc. shall be given to all other groups within that country, within the realms of common sense.

Article III: Any citizen must follow the gun control regulations of the country they reside in, unless exceptions are made by the government.

Article IV: This resolution does not address assault weapons, or any type of army weapon.

Article V: All resolutions that are for or against universal Gun Control that are in direct violation of this resolution and should be eliminated unless they call for the repeal of this resolution.

Gun control is both in the realms of security and civil rights. To ban frearms would be a violation of civil rights and to allow all firearms would violate the security of citizens. Presented with this dilema the only possible solution is to allow individual nations to determine gun control.

The Republic of Zervok would also point out that the fact that there is a category for Gun Control shows how devisive this issue is and therefore a moderate position should be taken.




This thread is suppposed to draw support for the resolution and to provide an active debate so that should the resolution gain large, but not sufficient support, it can be re-proposed with amendments.


Does this actually do anything? Other than say "the un is letting the nations decide"? Cause if that is the case, what is the point of it?

There was a case where an 18-year old suspect tried to hold up a breakfast diner, when two senior citizens opened fire on him. Tell me that isn't awesome. Stop crime in its tracks...(nobody was killed)

And the next time it happens one of the senior citizens accidentally shoots the guy behind the counter, who dies.

Yeah.
Awesome.

And the next time it happens one of the senior citizens accidentally shoots the guy behind the counter, who dies.

Yeah.
Awesome.

Ok so...stopping crime is not worth it because...people might get hurt...(of course you know nothing about the placement of the people in the diner...it could have very well been a free shot at the suspect with nobody in the line of fire).

Heh, TilEnca's right.

Let's just all disarm ourselves and allow the criminals to do their job - it's not an easy job you know.

And with us running around with guns, it makes their job a lot harder, you know?

Oh wait a minute! :eek:

I guess that means, gun control...kind of...sucks? lol!

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Criminals are just liek doctors, lawyers, dentists and construction workers. They have jobs, but they were just disadvantaged in the past. Let them do their job and they won't kill you...they're nice people... ;)

Heh. Yup - good people.

Oh and Dresophila Prime! Nice to have you apart of my region and thanks for the endorsement.

Telegram me anytime you want if you would like my support for a certain proposal or repeal.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Ok so...stopping crime is not worth it because...people might get hurt...(of course you know nothing about the placement of the people in the diner...it could have very well been a free shot at the suspect with nobody in the line of fire).

That's why I said *next time* it happens.

That's why I said *next time* it happens.

Oh right. I'll be sure to give him a heads up.

People have discretion...if you see the guy pointing a gun in your general direction, but duck under the counter. If you see a guy right behind the felon, you take careful aim. OR you just point the gun...that works in most cases of hindered gun violence.

Despite all that less that convincing arguement, I am not convinced this resolution does anything.

And hasn't it been ruled illegal?

Despite all that less that convincing arguement, I am not convinced this resolution does anything.

And hasn't it been ruled illegal?

Yep.