NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to propose this, seeing how the anniversary of the Holocaust is near, but it says I need two endorsements. How do I get endorsements? If anyone else wants to submit it in my place, feel free.

Here's the text of the resolution:
Recognizing that:

Firearms have been used world-wide for several centuries to protect individuals from those that would seek to harm them;

That history has shown us that the first step of any dictator is to disarm the populace;

That Adolf Hitler pronounced a ban on individual firearms ownership prior to the systematic genocide of over 6 million individuals;

That the disarmament of the general populace is a nececessary precursor to any systematic genocide;

It is resolved that the right of the individuals within each member state to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't really think Nazi's took over by taking away weapons, but more likely by getting better ones. But being able to have weapons is vital to stop totalitarianism. For instance Greece largely started Democracy because the people had weapons and were stronger than the ruling king...I'd also just imagine the assault you'd get from UN members in a debate, geez...

Also the Holocaust (despite largely being the reason why the Real Life UN was formed) is a nonNationstates event. So you'd probably be unable to get this proposal on the floor.

By the way, there is a resolution all ready regarding genocide.

I'd like to propose this, seeing how the anniversary of the Holocaust is near, but it says I need two endorsements. How do I get endorsements? If anyone else wants to submit it in my place, feel free.

Here's the text of the resolution:
Recognizing that:

Firearms have been used world-wide for several centuries to protect individuals from those that would seek to harm them;

That history has shown us that the first step of any dictator is to disarm the populace;

That Adolf Hitler pronounced a ban on individual firearms ownership prior to the systematic genocide of over 6 million individuals;

That the disarmament of the general populace is a nececessary precursor to any systematic genocide;

It is resolved that the right of the individuals within each member state to bear arms shall not be infringed.


I don't mean to be insensative or rude, but this is the most insane thing I have seen. Taking someone's gun off them is not going to lead to genocide. It might stop them shooting their neighbour.
Secondly - you say that you can not stop someone owning a gun. You don't say if that person is a criminal, or a lunatic, or a child. This act would mean you can not disarm a person even if they are in the process of robbing a bank, because you are then infringing on their right to own a gun.
Thirdly - we don't let our people own guns. The police are not armed either. And we have no crime.

Finally - you can't reference real world events in proposals, so this will be deleted by the moderators cause it's illegal. But even if that were not the case you can't possibly accept that genocide can be linked to arms control.

you can't possibly accept that genocide can be linked to arms control.

It is tough to kill people who are armed Tilenca :)

It is tough to kill people who are armed Tilenca :)

Really? Cause I am pretty sure that both sides in World War One were armed, and that was maybe the biggest slaughter in history.

I don't really think Nazi's took over by taking away weapons, but more likely by getting better ones.

Actually, the Nazis took over by mass propaganda campaigns and terrorist scare tactics. If this resolution is based off of the German Holocaust (which it can't be anyway because that's illegal) then it should be more concerned prevention of those practices.

It is tough to kill people who are armed Tilenca :)

Really? Cause I am pretty sure that both sides in World War One were armed, and that was maybe the biggest slaughter in history.

That is taking my quote out of context...The context is oppression and genocide. Genocide and Oppression occur on people who don't have the power to stop it (b/c of lack defense be it weapon etc.) The Nazis did use propaganda etc but would have not gotten so much power over the majority German population by propagand alone (what sealed the deal was them being threatening.) Weapons do kill people and thats not good, but they do deter as well. Think of the Rwandan genocide where one tribe pretty much just used knives to kill thousands...this can't happen when the potenial oppressed have weapons. As long as the world is how it is, weapons (and freedom to have weapons) is necessary.

Think how long any fascist dictatorship would last with a disgruntled and well armed populus. The fact is 'the dictator' uses force and propaganda to make sure it doesn't happen...A disgruntled unarmed force can't do much, an armed can get things done.

This is not a good proposal because it deals with a RL occurrence...but the main idea is true.

Firearms would have had very little effect ont he Holocaust because there were alot more German Soldiers with faster and stronger weapons if the people they came for fought back it would possibly lead to more death because a fight may take part in a local street and more people would be put at risk.

More to the point, the real-life references make this resolution illegal.

That is taking my quote out of context...The context is oppression and genocide. Genocide and Oppression occur on people who don't have the power to stop it (b/c of lack defense be it weapon etc.) The Nazis did use propaganda etc but would have not gotten so much power over the majority German population by propagand alone (what sealed the deal was them being threatening.) Weapons do kill people and thats not good, but they do deter as well. Think of the Rwandan genocide where one tribe pretty much just used knives to kill thousands...this can't happen when the potenial oppressed have weapons. As long as the world is how it is, weapons (and freedom to have weapons) is necessary.

Think how long any fascist dictatorship would last with a disgruntled and well armed populus. The fact is 'the dictator' uses force and propaganda to make sure it doesn't happen...A disgruntled unarmed force can't do much, an armed can get things done.

This is not a good proposal because it deals with a RL occurrence...but the main idea is true.

Firstly - if I did cause any offence by taking it ouf of context, I do apologise. But my point was to indicate that if the population is armed, the government can just get bigger guns. And then instead of a one sided genocide there will just be civil war.

Secondly - we have no guns in TilEnca. The police don't have them, the population doesn't have them. And we like it that way.

And the whole arguement is based on a logical fallicy. If you are going to commit genocide, first you disarm the people. That does not mean everyone who disarms the people is going to commit genocide.

So even if this were a legal proposal, I would still oppose it on the grounds that the whole arguement is just a twisted attempt to use emotions to support a position that at any other time of the year would be totally untennable.

Recognizing that:

Firearms have been used world-wide for several centuries to protect individuals from those that would seek to harm them;

That history has shown us that the first step of any dictator is to disarm the populace;

That Adolf Hitler pronounced a ban on individual firearms ownership prior to the systematic genocide of over 6 million individuals;

That the disarmament of the general populace is a nececessary precursor to any systematic genocide;

It is resolved that the right of the individuals within each member state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
first, hitler kill more than 6 milion individuals. 6 milion is only the number of the jews who killed. the nazis killed also jypseys, wackos, gays, sicks, and others.
second his first step wasn't disarm of population. his first steps were propoganda, illegalization of his opposite, and creation of strong police force that obey to his commands (the SS).
third, guns wouldn't help to much to the population. good propoganda could eliminate their wish to revolute. lack of opposition (and democracy rights as speach,organization and others) would make the population be weaker compare to his organized police. and those police could easily eliminate gun holders.

I recommand you learn more history before you made "history events proposals" (that many already told you are illegal).

Sorry, we elect to be armed to the teeth and any resolution attempting to disarm a nine year old school boy in our nation will be ignored, and probably shot.

I despise Hitler and everything he did to the Jews, but this would never pass.

Communist Collectives this won't pass because it is illegal...just wanted to answer a few points though....

second his first step wasn't disarm of population. his first steps were propoganda, illegalization of his opposite, and creation of strong police force that obey to his commands (the SS).
third, guns wouldn't help to much to the population. good propoganda could eliminate their wish to revolute. lack of opposition (and democracy rights as speach,organization and others) would make the population be weaker compare to his organized police. and those police could easily eliminate gun holders.
Firearms would have had very little effect ont he Holocaust because there were alot more German Soldiers with faster and stronger weapons if the people they came for fought back it would possibly lead to more death because a fight may take part in a local street and more people would be put at risk.

Secondly - we have no guns in TilEnca. The police don't have them, the population doesn't have them. And we like it that way.

And the whole arguement is based on a logical fallicy. If you are going to commit genocide, first you disarm the people. That does not mean everyone who disarms the people is going to commit genocide.

So even if this were a legal proposal, I would still oppose it on the grounds that the whole arguement is just a twisted attempt to use emotions to support a position that at any other time of the year would be totally untennable.

These quotes all bring up a similar point...
1st to Green Israel: You are stating my argument unintentionally. The fact he stomped out the oppostion and that is how he maintained power is true. Though the idea that propaganda can be so good to stop opposition is a poor argument. If a situation gets to something serious (mass genocide even just oppression etc.) the people will rebel if they are stronger than the gov't. The reason people don't usually, is because they are powerless.

2nd to twitin: You are right to say that the German Solidiers had more weapons, but that does not mean the people could have had more if they were able too. If for instance in America, the president tried to overthrow the government...the arms of the people of America would stop it.

Finally to Tilenca: Tilenca has a 'persuasive police force' so it is not exactly weaponless. The idea that everyone who disarms their populus will commit genocide or widespread oppression is a fallacy, but anyone who does can commit it. Thats why the 2nd ammendment is so important in the RL American Constitution...its so that the idea the government cannot force the population into a totalatarian(sp?) regime.
Tilenca you might be a peaceful leader, but many of worlds population (RL and NS) are not in such kind hands...

Finally to Tilenca: Tilenca has a 'persuasive police force' so it is not exactly weaponless. The idea that everyone who disarms their populus will commit genocide or widespread oppression is a fallacy, but anyone who does can commit it. Thats why the 2nd ammendment is so important in the RL American Constitution...its so that the idea the government cannot force the population into a totalatarian(sp?) regime.
Tilenca you might be a peaceful leader, but many of worlds population (RL and NS) are not in such kind hands...

And yet the UK does not have a second amendment and there has been no attempt to force a totalitarian regime.

And yes - I am a peaceful leader, as are my ministers. And we have no crime, and no guns in the police. (According to my page we have a well funded police force, and progressive policies in education and welfare). And quite honestly I believe that forcing guns on my nation under the pretense of preventing genocide is one of the most appalling things I have seen people try to use the UN for.

And - by the by - if you give everyone guns then there is a lot better chance they will use them and, if properly motivated and directed, use them to commit genocide. Which kind of invalidates the whole arguement really.

1st to Green Israel: You are stating my argument unintentionally. The fact he stomped out the oppostion and that is how he maintained power is true. Though the idea that propaganda can be so good to stop opposition is a poor argument. If a situation gets to something serious (mass genocide even just oppression etc.) the people will rebel if they are stronger than the gov't. The reason people don't usually, is because they are powerless.
the propaganda is the main typical of the dictatorships (aside the secret police forces).
the history prove that alot of times- when the people think the situation is good they don't revolte. when little childs raised to believe the leader is more important than their parents, when people could die because something they said, when secret police forces you even can't know how much power they have exist- few guns in your hands can't do too much.
try to read "1984" to get the idea.
maybe all the dictatorships disarm the population, but this isn't their main aim.
your arguments are problematic. you can't resist to goverment that make horrible things when you aren't know them. you can't be stronger than the goverment when even meeting friends could be reason for death penalty. you can't get power when the goverments control everything (even if they let you had some guns). and in USA (as countrey with long time democracy) their is press, opposition,rights and many other thing that has enough strength to resist the goverment acts, and doesn't exist in dictatorships (or in the weak democracies that can't defend themselves as germany before the Nazis).

This is rapidly becoming a conversation better suited for General. Locked.