NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanted to call to attention a new proposal I have put forward and needs support. It is called No guns across borders and its goal is to decrease crime and terrorism please consider it.

In the future, please post a text of the proposal here or provide an up-to-date link to your proposal in the proposals list.

This has been a Texan Hotrodders Public Service Announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programme.

If you provide firm evidence of this reducing terrorism then you shall have the backing og Isate.

This could prevent violent criminals/terrorists from traveling between our countries, and if other criminals were caught with weapons more detailed background checks could be made and they could be caught, besides what good will come out of weapons flowing freely through our nations?

The Proposal in Question:
No guns across borders
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Desartha

Description: This resolution will prevent guns of any kind from being brought across the borders of UN member nations. This would drastically lower crime and terrorism.

Approvals: 11 (Maruvia, UntamedFangirls, Punrovia, Darth Mall, MegMayhem, Hendo001, Bernardi, Ancients Tomatoes, Gaiah, Eelegium, Rolling Stone)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 18 2005

The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

My Comments:
As with other proposals. This one has too many open holes. Any terrorist nation can find hundreds of loopholes in this proposal if it ever becomes a UN Resolution.

What might you suggest adding to it? All suggestions welcome.

What might you suggest adding to it? All suggestions welcome.

For one thing, assuming it's passage you'll have just outlawed the military conventional arms trade since you didn't make an exception for the government being allowed to bring guns across it's borders. Also, your army is no longer allowed to leave your nation with their weaponry so it's a novel way of reducing wars I suppose... except for the ones that involve non member nations coming to visit. Of course, I suppose you could send your army to war unarmed and then have them buy their weapons from their intended target once they're inside their borders... ;)

Originally Posted by Desartha
No guns across borders
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Desartha

Description: This resolution will prevent guns of any kind from being brought across the borders of UN member nations. This would drastically lower crime and terrorism.Another well meaning but seriously flawed proposal.

June must be "Global Disarmament Month", the month in which we try hard to pass the largest number of brain-dead proposals aimed at achieving world peace through the curious tactic of slitting our own throats. As worded, this proposal will prevent nations from importing arms from other nations for defencive purposes. Do you run an arms storefront? You'll no longer be allowed to sell to N.S.U.N. Members, and they'll no longer be able to buy.

Which means that nations without a domestic arms industry will be unable to acquire new arms or replace them when they wear out (or, more likely, become obsolete). Expansionist regimes everywhere must be licking their chops at the thought of going to war with N.S.U.N. members who haven't managed to expand their own arms industries to the point where they can supply their own needs. But at least those poor, defenceless N.S.U.N members at the bottom of the economic pecking order can arm themselves with swords, pikes, and quarterstaves.

In fact, an even more interesting consequence of this will be the fact that it will render any and all defencive agreements between N.S.U.N. Members null and void. Members will not be able to permit allies to come to their assistance - unless, of course, they wish to arrive unarmed. Then they can help all they please.

And, outbound, no N.S.U.N. Member will be able to send troops overseas to assist any other nation, Member or no, in its own defence - again, unless they wish to travel without their guns.

Combat aircraft and ships that seek to patrol international waters and airspace can still carry missiles, thank God. But no auto-cannon on the fighters or bombers - those are guns - and no artillery or point-defence systems on the warships. Those, too are guns. And, by the way, the MP's and marines aboard those ships? They can carry billy clubs and pepper spray - no, wait - we just banned pepper spray in the last resolution. That's a chemical weapon, after all. Pilots and crews aboard planes will also have to leave their pistols at home. We hope they're provided lots of chocolate, silk stockings, and money in case they get shot down (no Dr. Strangelove jokes, please). They'll need it.

We in the United States of Allemande think a more appropriate title for this legislation would be, "The Evisceration of Member Military Organisations Act". At least that would be more descriptive of its effects than the current title.

"Drastically lower ... terrorism?" Yes, the terrorists - who will smuggle their arms across our borders anyway - or acquire them internally through black-market sources - will be shaking in their boots at the thought that we can no longer send our armies, navies, and air forces over our borders against them. They can sit back and thumb their noses at us openly, and we'll be powerless to stop them.

The Members' ambassadors simply must put a minimal amount of thought into these proposals that they seem to develop over cocktails in the Lounge - from the looks of them several cocktails in the Lounge - and try to deduce the logical consequences of what they send to the floor. This is a dangerous world in which we live, and idiocy will get us killed. Those of us who choose to remain Members of this body, anyway.

Edith Mayenne
Secretary of State
The United States of Allemande

June must be "Global Disarmament Month", the month in which we try hard to pass the largest number of brain-dead proposals aimed at achieving world peace through the curious tactic of slitting our own throats.
Oddly enough, the first attempted nuke ban occured in June 2004.

Those are all good points, but if there was a government exception, would that be right? It might help corrupt governments persecute its citizens. How will we solve those problems? We need some more suggestions if we want to improve the proposal.