NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just submitted the following proposal, it needs your support, I will be willing to answer any questions.

No guns across borders
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
*

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Desartha

Description: PURPOSE: The purpose of this resolution is to prevent the transportation of dangerous firearms and highly explosive materials across the borders of UN nations.

IT IS ILLEGAL to transport any firearm(s) across the border(s) of any UN member nations without a UN designated permit for any such behavior(s) at any such occasion(s).

IT IS ALSO ILLEGAL to transport any highly explosive material(s) across the border(s) of any UN member nations without a UN designated permit for any such behavior(s) at any such occasion(s).

IT IS ALSO ILLEGAL for any non-governmental individual(s) to commit any of the behavior(s) previously mentioned in this resolution regardless of a permit.

The UN reserves the right to determine the definition(s) of highly explosive material(s) and firearm(s)

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jun 23 2005

I aprove. No-one wants unregulated transport of wepons in thier country.

I question regulatability across unregulated borders. I suppose though, one may question "does it matter?"

Won't work. The majority of weapons traffick originates in nonmember nations, who are automatically immune to all UN resolutions.

Might not deal with guns getting out of your nation, but you still control the entryway to your own nation.

Won't work. The majority of weapons traffick originates in nonmember nations, who are automatically immune to all UN resolutions.
That is a good point but there are still problems with nations in the UN, and crime and terrorism exists in UN member nations.

I here some good support but nobody has approved it yet, seach through the proposals for No guns across borders.

i do support you, but to many people will not obey. I do not think it will work

Two points:

I think that extending a gun control proposal to include high explosives in general is kind of a cross-category violation (read: illegal, should be Global Disarmament).

I like that you manage to address gun control as an international issue rather than a domestic issue. Kudos. :)

Two points:

I think that extending a gun control proposal to include high explosives in general is kind of a cross-category violation (read: illegal, should be Global Disarmament).

I like that you manage to address gun control as an international issue rather than a domestic issue. Kudos. :)
Couldn't it be categorized as both Gun Control and Global Disarmament?

This brings up the question of a state's right in the UN. I can see no reason why this should be passed. If both nations are fully aware of the trade taking place, there is nothing wrong. What exactly does this proposal plan to prevent from occuring?

Couldn't it be categorized as both Gun Control and Global Disarmament?

Not according to the proposal submission rules stickied at the top of this forum. :)

You could, however, split the proposal into two separate proposals.

This brings up the question of a state's right in the UN. I can see no reason why this should be passed. If both nations are fully aware of the trade taking place, there is nothing wrong. What exactly does this proposal plan to prevent from occuring?

Excellent point. Perhaps the author could add a stipulation that the trafficking of private firearms across international borders is only a crime if one of the nations involved is opposed to it.

Originally Posted by Texan Hotrodders
Excellent point. Perhaps the author could add a stipulation that the trafficking of private firearms across international borders is only a crime if one of the nations involved is opposed to it.

From what I understand of this resolution, that would probably require the entire resolution to be extensively rewritten. This resolution uses too many absolutes in its wordage. And just who is in charge of these U.N. permits? Does this now mean that I need the U.N.'s explicit permission to go to war?

What I find most concerning is the fact that, under this resolution, none of my private citizens would ever be allowed to cross a border with a gun or any type of "highly explosive material." Well, I suppose we'll have to put a stop to all international flights; after all, jet fuel is extremely combustible (it has to be, after all). Not to mention natural gas pipelines, those will definitely have to go. Hell, matches are made out of gunpowder and designed to be explosive, so we'll end up cracking down on those. Or I suppose we could simply nationalize all those industries and beg the U.N. to allow us to keep our air industry alive and our homes heated over the winter.

Or not. What we would probably do is reclassify all our "guns" as "miniature howitzers" and ignore this resolution.

Greetings.

We note that this is potentially a good deal for smaller nations. Any other nation which attempts to move firearms across into their sovereign territory has committed an act which is illegal to the NSUN and the smaller nation now has legal recourse. The question is then, recourse to what? What action will the NSUN take if such a breach is reported?

However, two small matters need to be corrected. One is mutuality. National sovereignty should allow states to transfer such materials without requiring a UN permit if the deal is mutual. The other is definition of combustible material. Perhaps limiting it to gas-propelled projectile weapons is sufficient. One step at a time. We can worry about rail-guns, lasers, ballistae, and other genres of weaponry at another instance.

We are all for the amended legislation if it covers these points adequately. In the meantime, we make discreet inquiries as to whether anyone is in the market for our latest models of semi-sentient golem automata.