NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Fellow nations,

Delegates please vote to pass the resolution to Ban Assault Rifles in the hands of the common people. This does not include the military nor the law enforcement, only the public. It is for the safety of all.

Text please

Here's the whole text:

"Dear United Nations,

We the people of the United Socialist States of Cubapia wish to ban the public sale and distribution of military assault rifles to the common peoples. This does not include the military and law enforcement personnel, but forbids any and all non-armed forces people from possessing any assault rifles. This is only for the protection and safety of the people themselves."

That's not a proposal, that's a letter...

You'll have to forgive my unorthodox form, seeing as I am new at this, but the proposal itself does have credability and sensibility in my opinion. :)

How does it protect the people? I fail to see that. What I see is the people being stripped of weaponry they could use to defend themselves against illegals who won't obey the law. Perhaps mandatory training in proper use of the weapons, to preven people from mishandling them.

If you eliminate the assault rifles from being in the people's hands, then they won't need to protect themselves in the first place because criminals would have no access to the rifles. The Law Enforcement is full of highly trained professionals who can take care of crime, especially when they have assault rifles and the criminals do not.

[Note: That logic fails to hold up. The United States passed a similar piece of legislation with a similar intent. It was recently allowed to expire because, according to Congress, it had failed and had actually led to an increase of deaths caused by assault rifles. I am unsure of the success rate in other nations, but in any case the citizens usually end up helpless in cases where assault rifles are used against them.]

You'll have to forgive my unorthodox form, seeing as I am new at this, but the proposal itself does have credability and sensibility in my opinion. :)


To BAN any item that is abused is not going to stop the harm that might be done by those who choose to abuse anything.. A simple kitchen butter knife can do grave harm if used for more than it was intended. We believe that the solution here is not to BAN the item but to first teach proper safe use of such items then punish those who choose to abuse the intended use of such. To ban a kitchen butter knife because some crazy person used it to force a pilot to fly a plane into a building doesn't stop them from finding other items to use. We need better education of how to use weapons and the safety need to use them.... Then if people don't use them safely we need laws that BAN them not the butter knives they might use.

Dave Morgan
First Clerk to
Zeldon UN Ambassador

[Note: That logic fails to hold up. The United States passed a similar piece of legislation with a similar intent. It was recently allowed to expire because, according to Congress, it had failed and had actually led to an increase of deaths caused by assault rifles. I am unsure of the success rate in other nations, but in any case the citizens usually end up helpless in cases where assault rifles are used against them.]
OOC: While that may be the case in the US, here in Australia automatic and most semi-automatic weapons were banned after the Port Arthur massacre. The ban was phased in after a police-run buyback scheme with a period of amnesty. We haven't had a serious incident involving either type of weapon since then.

OOC: While that may be the case in the US, here in Australia automatic and most semi-automatic weapons were banned after the Port Arthur massacre. The ban was phased in after a police-run buyback scheme with a period of amnesty. We haven't had a serious incident involving either type of weapon since then.

[Which suggests to me a 50% success rate. A case where you can literally flip a coin to get the actual results of the action does not suggest a reliable rate of success. What it does suggest is that this should be tried at the individual level and left up to the discretion of the nation about whether or not they wish to attempt it.]

[Note: That logic fails to hold up. The United States passed a similar piece of legislation with a similar intent. It was recently allowed to expire because, according to Congress, it had failed and had actually led to an increase of deaths caused by assault rifles.

According to Congress in what statement made by that body, just out of curiosity?

[It was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a piece of legislation that found it's way into the books after the North Hollywood bank robbery. The problem with that legislation was that it banned guns based on cosmetic appearances and magazine capacity, and also delivered a flawed definition of semiautomatic vs. automatic firearms. The legislation was passed on the condition that it would expire in ten years unless renewed. It wasn't renewed because it had no measurable effect whatsoever on crime rates. Before the AWB, there had only been one or two gun crimes committed with "assault weapons" anyway - it was an ineffective piece of legislation, and if anything, was a blatant infringement on Second Amendment rights.]

What it does suggest is that this should be tried at the individual level and left up to the discretion of the nation about whether or not they wish to attempt it.]


Due to the nature of each nation to have certain rights that may restrict what their own government may do to protect them; we feel that it is best left to individual nations to decide what is a banned weapon and how they deal with those who try to bring them into a nation or even come in and use them. No two nations are equal simply because of the citizens of each nation and what they expect of government and let government do. If a national govrnment has the consent of a majority of the people to follow some procedure to ban say butter knives then the citizens will be safe from those who might abuse a butter knife to do harm or kill. Here we prefer not to ban anything simply because it may be used as a weapon thus when abused do harm or kill... We bring to trial those who abuse and then sentence them to proper punishments for their crimes. To prevent abuse we try to identifty the dangers and made it public what they are so that all know how to use items safely,, thus education to save lives not ban everything we use because somebody chose to abuse it's use.

No gun or rifle ever kills a person alone so to ban it is not the right path to take... Ban those who abuse guns or rifles, educate those who need and want to use them in a safe manner to do just that, making them aware of what happens if they abuse these so called weapons.

OOC: I suppose the Aussies who they got for trading in those weapons are doing long prison terms.. Thus it's understood why the process worked.. Lock up those who abuse and it will stop them from abusing again.. What they may have used will never go away so long as somebody can make a buck off them, and they can get them from anywhere outside the area they are banned in. Punish the people who abuse not and item that has no sense of what it's doing.

OOC: I suppose the Aussies who they got for trading in those weapons are doing long prison terms.. Thus it's understood why the process worked.. Lock up those who abuse and it will stop them from abusing again.. What they may have used will never go away so long as somebody can make a buck off them, and they can get them from anywhere outside the area they are banned in. Punish the people who abuse not and item that has no sense of what it's doing.
Incorrect assumption. There was an amnesty in place during the trade-in, so many people who had guns through less-than-legal means were able to let the police handle them without fear of arrest.
Anyone found who hadn't traded them in, however, likely would have got a lengthy prison sentance.

Should also be pointed out that we don't have a right to bear arms in this country, so laws such as this aren't in any way unconstitutional unlike in the US.

Would this not be more suited to a national issue? Afterall, our nation has never been daft enough to allow our citizens to own firearms in the first place.

Me no like guns! ban them.

We don't even legislate this on a national, let alone international level. The various autonomous townships and communities of Ecopoeia are left to determine their own rules on this issue, though our approach is not without its problems, especially where a community elects to grant its residents access to 'heavy' weaponry. Fortunately, we simply don't have much in the way of armaments in the nation, so the problem, while not moot, is of minor consequence.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: I've always thought that, given the bickering and uncertainty over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the US would probably be best served by rewriting the bloody thing and putting the matter to rest.

. Should also be pointed out that we don't have a right to bear arms in this country, so laws such as this aren't in any way unconstitutional unlike in the US.


This in US has been a problem just as much as some of the other so called rights as each has come to be abused at the cost of other groups. Be it free speech, press, or whatever in order for one group to say assemble/speak for a religion to protest another assembling/speaking on a religion, then somebody has to keep the peace between the two and do it to not violate rights of either group so police and state are in middle. So it can be a real pain... Leading to suits and time in court to settle which side got their rights violated if the police and state step in to keep peace.. Seen it here at a major golf event a few years back.. Protestors suied city/county cause they only allowed them to protest about a mile from the main gates. Seems also local folks owned the property didn't want them on their property and asked county to keep them off it. County won in court but still it went that way.

IC:

We in the Confederate States of Allanea are happy to hear about this resolution - we're happy we're not in the UN.

OOC:
OOC: I've always thought that, given the bickering and uncertainty over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the US would probably be best served by rewriting the bloody thing and putting the matter to rest.

There is no uncertainty. :)

OOC:


There is no uncertainty. :)

Oh please. It says the right to bear arms (not guns mind you), yet protestors aren't asking for nuclear devices (hello Michael Moore) and the US certainly wouldn't give it to them - so where is the line drawn on what is an arm that the US has a universal right to possess?

--------------------

IC: I would have to agree with my fellow Delegate Reformatia: this is not a resolution, it is a letter. There is little in forms of arguments and just a "what should be done". As such, I shall hold back on supporting it until a better version exists.

[Note: That logic fails to hold up. The United States passed a similar piece of legislation with a similar intent. It was recently allowed to expire because, according to Congress, it had failed and had actually led to an increase of deaths caused by assault rifles. I am unsure of the success rate in other nations, but in any case the citizens usually end up helpless in cases where assault rifles are used against them.]

Perhaps if the American Government had properly funded law enforcement and removed all guns from its private citizens, then the number would have declined. Giving people the ability to own a gun, let alone an assault rifle, is bound to cause problems and in fact increases the crime rate, because there is ready access to the tools used to conduct criminal acts with violent intent.
The Brady Bill, was left to rot, because militant Republicans, appeasing their corporate backers, simply refused to either enforce it properly or give it the necessary means to, nor funding to actually work.

Even aside from this specific issue, banning assault rifles is sensible. What use can you have for owning one? Hunting? (As Robin Williams said "somewhere out there, there's a deer wearing a kevlar vest"). Self-Defence? Do you really want a private vigilantes running amok with the means to kill people they don't like? What happened to the police? A gun is statistically more likely to be used to murder a family member, than a robber, so protecting ones property and life doesn't hold up either.

In short, no one should need or be pemmitted to own a dangerous weapon such as an assault rifle, or gun for that matter. If you want to protect your citizens and reduce crime, target crime's causes and put more police on the beat and in the cars to be able to catch the criminals. Don't arm your civillians.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live assault-rifle free Compadria!

Perhaps if the American Government had properly funded law enforcement and removed all guns from its private citizens, then the number would have declined. Giving people the ability to own a gun, let alone an assault rifle, is bound to cause problems and in fact increases the crime rate, because there is ready access to the tools used to conduct criminal acts with violent intent.

[Which would be nice, but legally the U.S. cannot do that as long as the interpretation of the Second Amendment is to allow civilians to have guns. Besides, the U.S. has tried it before with alcohol and did try the funding thing. Instead of being rid of it, they created the most power crime syndicates ever seen in the history of the nation. The society of the nation has evolved into one that supports weapons and pretty much includes them in daily life in some way, and that is not something that can be changed in a decade. In addition, the large majority of frequently-used illegal weapons were actually smuggled into the country. If funding were the only issue in the U.S. when it comes to legal problems, you would have a point.]

The Brady Bill, was left to rot, because militant Republicans, appeasing their corporate backers, simply refused to either enforce it properly or give it the necessary means to, nor funding to actually work.

[They also would have had the Supreme Court breathing down their necks and throwing out cases left and right, and everyone knows it. They could never fully disarm the American public as long as the Supreme Court could override them.]

Even aside from this specific issue, banning assault rifles is sensible. What use can you have for owning one? Hunting? (As Robin Williams said "somewhere out there, there's a deer wearing a kevlar vest"). Self-Defence? Do you really want a private vigilantes running amok with the means to kill people they don't like? What happened to the police? A gun is statistically more likely to be used to murder a family member, than a robber, so protecting ones property and life doesn't hold up either.

[Guns are only statistically more likely in the U.S. because they are easier to use. In nations without them that available, it's simply something else. The fact is, using your logic we should simply strip people naked, pull out their teeth, and then chop off their arms and legs. Why? Because of the number of people you can potentially kill. If you bothered to read history, you would find the gun is actually the cause of the minority of deaths in spite of its frequent use in the modern era. More people have been killed by the sword than the gun, and no one knows how many have been killed by bare hands.

The reason the Second Amendment exists isn't for any of those reasons. It's in case you need to protect the U.S. once it gets invaded or, worse, need to revolt against the government. This nation was founded to stand against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic. And, before you speak of this as treason, keep in mind the military is not sworn to protect the government and can, if the need be, choose to go against it.]

In short, no one should need or be pemmitted to own a dangerous weapon such as an assault rifle, or gun for that matter. If you want to protect your citizens and reduce crime, target crime's causes and put more police on the beat and in the cars to be able to catch the criminals. Don't arm your civillians.

[Uh huh. Tell that to those people who have had to use one to save their own lives. When you make guns against the law, outlaws will use them. When you make booze against the law, outlaws will drink it. When you make smoking against the law, outlaws will sell cigarettes. It's always been part of America, and idealism won't change that.]

You raise some interesting points in your post. Nevertheless, I still support this proposal vigourously and wish to challenge some of your contentions that you have set out in the above post.

"Which would be nice, but legally the U.S. cannot do that as long as the interpretation of the Second Amendment is to allow civilians to have guns. Besides, the U.S. has tried it before with alcohol and did try the funding thing. Instead of being rid of it, they created the most power crime syndicates ever seen in the history of the nation. The society of the nation has evolved into one that supports weapons and pretty much includes them in daily life in some way, and that is not something that can be changed in a decade. In addition, the large majority of frequently-used illegal weapons were actually smuggled into the country. If funding were the only issue in the U.S. when it comes to legal problems, you would have a point."

This is all the more reason for attempting to change the system of perceptions surely. It was once said that the greatest politicians tried to change public opinion, instead of letting it dictating their policies. Perhaps it is time for similar resolve from a national figure?

"They also would have had the Supreme Court breathing down their necks and throwing out cases left and right, and everyone knows it. They could never fully disarm the American public as long as the Supreme Court could override them."

The Supreme Court is alas, an un-resolvable problem, (if current trends continue). Still, quoting back the old conservative adage about 'legislating from the bench', could change this.

"Guns are only statistically more likely in the U.S. because they are easier to use. In nations without them that available, it's simply something else. The fact is, using your logic we should simply strip people naked, pull out their teeth, and then chop off their arms and legs. Why? Because of the number of people you can potentially kill. If you bothered to read history, you would find the gun is actually the cause of the minority of deaths in spite of its frequent use in the modern era. More people have been killed by the sword than the gun, and no one knows how many have been killed by bare hands.

The reason the Second Amendment exists isn't for any of those reasons. It's in case you need to protect the U.S. once it gets invaded or, worse, need to revolt against the government. This nation was founded to stand against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic. And, before you speak of this as treason, keep in mind the military is not sworn to protect the government and can, if the need be, choose to go against it"

Your point in the first paragraph is hair splitting in the extreme. Arms, legs, teeth and other commonly cited objects, i.e. axes, were never intended to be used primarily for killing other individuals. Guns, for all their advocate's beating round the bush, are designed for precisely that purpose.

The Second Amendment was not designed to protect against tyranny:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was created in 1789: America had been independant for 8 years. There was every risk that someone (probably the British) would start another war and attempt to regain their former colonies. Remote farmsteads needed defence against hostile Indians and other settlers. The Wild West had not even been explored, let alone colonised. These were dangerous times. Having a militia in permanant reserve, pre-armed by allowing all citizens to own a gun, was sensible at the time. 200 years later it is at very least in need of a re-drafting to clarify and adapt it to the 21st century and the stable internal state, police force and law enforcement.

As for your final point, the fact remains that most crime comes from the fact that guns are so available. If anything, owning a gun is even more dangerous than not, because it means criminals feel that they need to carry a gun (usually a bigger, nastier one) in order to have more fire-power than their victims. In a situation involving a threat to your life, it is equally likely that having a gun will get you killed, as much as save your life.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

You raise some interesting points in your post. Nevertheless, I still support this proposal vigourously and wish to challenge some of your contentions that you have set out in the above post.

Goody. Been awhile since I had this discussion outside of a foxhole.

This is all the more reason for attempting to change the system of perceptions surely. It was once said that the greatest politicians tried to change public opinion, instead of letting it dictating their policies. Perhaps it is time for similar resolve from a national figure?

No can do. You have to get a Constitutional Amendment in this case. Every time Congress has tried to use a regular law to limit the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has slapped it down. And, really, no one can be bothered to get organized enough for an Amendment simply because of politics. You don't appease the public, you lose your job. The Supreme Court has been effectively running the nation for years in certain areas.

The Supreme Court is alas, an un-resolvable problem, (if current trends continue). Still, quoting back the old conservative adage about 'legislating from the bench', could change this.

Been there, tried that. See above.

Your point in the first paragraph is hair splitting in the extreme. Arms, legs, teeth and other commonly cited objects, i.e. axes, were never intended to be used primarily for killing other individuals. Guns, for all their advocate's beating round the bush, are designed for precisely that purpose.

Actually, wrong. Guns are just designed to kill, period. You see, they don't care what they kill. You can use a pistol on a deer as easily as a human, and if your lucky you can kill the deer with it.

The Second Amendment was not designed to protect against tyranny:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was created in 1789: America had been independant for 8 years. There was every risk that someone (probably the British) would start another war and attempt to regain their former colonies. Remote farmsteads needed defence against hostile Indians and other settlers. The Wild West had not even been explored, let alone colonised. These were dangerous times. Having a militia in permanant reserve, pre-armed by allowing all citizens to own a gun, was sensible at the time. 200 years later it is at very least in need of a re-drafting to clarify and adapt it to the 21st century and the stable internal state, police force and law enforcement.

Notice the use of the word "free" in there, and the fact that military personal take an oath to protect against all threats, whether foreign or domestic. It's no longer a free State if the government takes your freedoms away. You have to watch your back in the U.S. as well, as there are those who would love to take your freedoms away and have you unwittingly agree to it. Not all threats come from outside.

As for your final point, the fact remains that most crime comes from the fact that guns are so available. If anything, owning a gun is even more dangerous than not, because it means criminals feel that they need to carry a gun (usually a bigger, nastier one) in order to have more fire-power than their victims. In a situation involving a threat to your life, it is equally likely that having a gun will get you killed, as much as save your life.

Actually, wrong. Most crime comes from human need and human passions. Study history sometime. The only thing that has changed since the invention of the gun is that it has been put to use as crime. What you think is that the gun causes the crime. What you fail to realize is that the crime was always there, and the gun is merely the latest tool of it. Take away the gun, they will merely use something else.

The proposal was never to take away guns in general (nor butter knives for that matter) but to take away the more powerful guns, the assault rifles, which no citizen in their right minds should ever consider owning. They can still possess pistols and revolvers, but not military attack rifles. It makes no sense that any regular person should be able to have an assault rifle, unless they plan to stage some kind of militant attack. The military and law enforcement are highly trained professionals that can quell any outburst of crime, the only thing this proposal does is empower the police and emasculate the criminals. There should be no need for the people to "protect" themselves from criminals if the police already have the vast upper hand.

The proposal was never to take away guns in general (nor butter knives for that matter) but to take away the more powerful guns, the assault rifles, which no citizen in their right minds should ever consider owning. They can still possess pistols and revolvers, but not military attack rifles. It makes no sense that any regular person should be able to have an assault rifle, unless they plan to stage some kind of militant attack. The military and law enforcement are highly trained professionals that can quell any outburst of crime, the only thing this proposal does is empower the police and emasculate the criminals. There should be no need for the people to "protect" themselves from criminals if the police already have the vast upper hand.


The trouble is in US history the military of 1770 was not 'of the people' but 'from the crown' thus it was a militia 'of the people' that fought for their freedom against an army 'from the crown'... The events of 1760-1771 called the Regulator Rebellion gave rise to the fact that armed citizens could defend themsleves well enough without an army 'from the crown'.. Thus many of those who fought for the crown in the Regulator Rebellion came to fight for their own freedom in the American Revolution with their own weapons as an armed militia. Thus guns were seen as needed to be held by 'the people' to prevent a loss of freedoms won with them 'by the people'. Since they saw that a government/crown army might not always be their to do this. It proved out in many following US wars up to and including the Civil War..

I would kindly ask that the extensive OOC be moved to an OOC forum where you can debate real-world laws to your heart's content.

It's fine to cite RL information briefly, but it should not become the cornerstone of NS debate I should hope.

Firstly, not every gun control issue has to revolve around the example of the US. That in itself is self-evident. Secondly, once again, it is not to take away ALL guns, but ASSAULT RIFLES, which should be considered as being far too powerful for the possession of the common person. Just as normal people should not be allowed to keep nuclear, chemical, biological, and other strong weapons such as tanks, artillery, and bombs, so should they not be allowed to keep assault rifles. These weapons are simply too strong to be in the hands of the everyday citizens.

I would kindly ask that the extensive OOC be moved to an OOC forum where you can debate real-world laws to your heart's content.

It's fine to cite RL information briefly, but it should not become the cornerstone of NS debate I should hope.

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Firstly, not every gun control issue has to revolve around the example of the US. That in itself is self-evident.

The U.S. is a prime example of how this kind of legislation can fail. Just because the example is not liked doesn't mean it's invalid.

Secondly, once again, it is not to take away ALL guns, but ASSAULT RIFLES, which should be considered as being far too powerful for the possession of the common person. Just as normal people should not be allowed to keep nuclear, chemical, biological, and other strong weapons such as tanks, artillery, and bombs, so should they not be allowed to keep assault rifles. These weapons are simply too strong to be in the hands of the everyday citizens.

I would say assault rifles are necessary in nations where citizens are expected to be able to defend the nation at a moment's notice or to have the capacity to overthrow a government that fails to do its job. In both cases, the weapons are perfectly necessary.

I would say assault rifles are necessary in nations where citizens are expected to be able to defend the nation at a moment's notice or to have the capacity to overthrow a government that fails to do its job. In both cases, the weapons are perfectly necessary.
In what country would an everyday citizen be called to defend the nation? Even if there was such a country, the government would provide said citizen with the rifle, the citizen should not already possess one. As for having the capacity to overthrow the oppressive government, I'm sure if the entire population of a country went against its government, even without rifles, they would win, or else the government would have no one left to oppress. Also, there are lots of people in almost every country that think their country is doing a terrible job, but that doesn't necessarily give them the right to bear arms against their country, or else think of how many armed rebels there would be everywhere.

In what country would an everyday citizen be called to defend the nation? Even if there was such a country, the government would provide said citizen with the rifle, the citizen should not already possess one. As for having the capacity to overthrow the oppressive government, I'm sure if the entire population of a country went against its government, even without rifles, they would win, or else the government would have no one left to oppress. Also, there are lots of people in almost every country that think their country is doing a terrible job, but that doesn't necessarily give them the right to bear arms against their country, or else think of how many armed rebels there would be everywhere.

Nations do get invaded from time to time, and sometimes before they can start to pass out weapons to the civilians.

Nations do get invaded from time to time, and sometimes before they can start to pass out weapons to the civilians.
At any rate, the chances of that incident killing more people than the incident of criminals getting the weapons and killing to steal things are very low. More lives would be saved by taking away all assault rifles from the civilians than by handing it out to them. Also, if a country does get invaded, I'm sure the civilians can protect themselves if necessary with their handguns. Since the example of the US is so favorable, then lets use it. The chances of a country invading the US are very slim, but if it happened, I'm sure the everyday citizens would run away from the fighting as the military rushes in with their awesome attack force. Not that I'm bashing the US, this would probably happen in every single country in the world. Though there would be a couple of militant civilians that would join the fight, they are a vast minority.

At any rate, the chances of that incident killing more people than the incident of criminals getting the weapons and killing to steal things are very low. More lives would be saved by taking away all assault rifles from the civilians than by handing it out to them. Also, if a country does get invaded, I'm sure the civilians can protect themselves if necessary with their handguns. Since the example of the US is so favorable, then lets use it. The chances of a country invading the US are very slim, but if it happened, I'm sure the everyday citizens would run away from the fighting as the military rushes in with their awesome attack force. Not that I'm bashing the US, this would probably happen in every single country in the world. Though there would be a couple of militant civilians that would join the fight, they are a vast minority.

Um, this is NS. Invasions happen on a much greater frequency.

In any case, arming all of the citizens creates a MAD policy. The thief gets trigger happy, someone gets trigger happy with him. It's pretty much a case of them thinking and wondering if the citizen they see will shoot them.

IC: This resolution/angry anti-gun letter would not effect Central-Eastern NJ, as we already have it well established that all people with guns are honorary members of our Armed Forces' Militia-wing, for extreme defense and occasionally disaster relief (however we've to some extent centralized that power, at that point the Militia falls under our control temporarily).

Furthermore, the resolution does nothing to classify what these "assault rifles" are, the use of the phrase "military type" would imply whatever weapons are used in most modern militaries, that says nothing about semi-automatic rifles. (OOC) Such as all Colt, Armalite, Bushmaster, and Barret rifles commonly sold in the United States.

Nations do get invaded from time to time, and sometimes before they can start to pass out weapons to the civilians.

Even if true, surely you would be better off relying on professional armed services for defence, rather than un-trained or inadequately trained auxilliaries.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live assault-rifle free Compadria!

Even if true, surely you would be better off relying on professional armed services for defence, rather than un-trained or inadequately trained auxilliaries.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live assault-rifle free Compadria!

You approach this as if everyone has professional armed services armed and ready for every war that can hold their own as a defensive force. What you don't understand is that these weapons are a fallback for when the professional armed services (if any) fail. Not all countries have the kind of military forces, economic power, and strategic intellegence as yours and mine. Failing that they need assault rifles

This really sucks. My proposal was deleted for "branding" whatever the heck that is.... Should I try again but this time make it not "branding"?

This really sucks. My proposal was deleted for "branding" whatever the heck that is.... Should I try again but this time make it not "branding"?

* Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of...").

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

Something in your proposal qualified as listing more than one co-author, I didn't see it in your original letter, obviously exclusive to your submitted proposal.

You approach this as if everyone has professional armed services armed and ready for every war that can hold their own as a defensive force. What you don't understand is that these weapons are a fallback for when the professional armed services (if any) fail. Not all countries have the kind of military forces, economic power, and strategic intellegence as yours and mine. Failing that they need assault rifles

If you lack adaquate professional armed services, then you should avoid military conflict. If you are invaded and cannot do so, then you should avoid civillian resistance. Some appalling massacres and genocides have resulted from such tactics and for humanitarian reasons, giving largely un-trained irregulars guns for resistance purposes, should be avoided.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If you lack adaquate professional armed services, then you should avoid military conflict. If you are invaded and cannot do so, then you should avoid civillian resistance. Some appalling massacres and genocides have resulted from such tactics and for humanitarian reasons, giving largely un-trained irregulars guns for resistance purposes, should be avoided.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is akin to saying if someone is pointing a gun at you and asking for your money you should just give them whatever they want because if you fight back they might kill you.

You know, one of the easiest ways to defend a country is to make it strategically inviable to invade, by having an armed citizenry you make it a very difficult invasion, other ways are to scuttle roads and airports so that the invaders can't move in vehicles.

Also, one more point, standing armies can easily be absorbed by new big powers. (OOC) When Hitler invaded Hungary the Hungarian police did a lot of his policing for him, the same was true for Norway. (IC) By allowing you regular forces to be defeated you make the invasion even harder on the invading power, going back to the second paragraph.

This is akin to saying if someone is pointing a gun at you and asking for your money you should just give them whatever they want because if you fight back they might kill you.

You know, one of the easiest ways to defend a country is to make it strategically inviable to invade, by having an armed citizenry you make it a very difficult invasion, other ways are to scuttle roads and airports so that the invaders can't move in vehicles.

Also, one more point, standing armies can easily be absorbed by new big powers. (OOC) When Hitler invaded Hungary the Hungarian police did a lot of his policing for him, the same was true for Norway. (IC) By allowing you regular forces to be defeated you make the invasion even harder on the invading power, going back to the second paragraph.

With regards to your first paragraph, this is not what I said at all. You have ignored my caveat in the latter half of my response. Starting a war is not sensible, even if threatened. Most nations that point the gun at you, do so assuming you will point the gun at them, giving them an excuse to attack you. If you don't and they still attack you, resist, but not suicidally as you advocate.

With regards to the second paragraph, I will say only that destroying your country simply to sabotage an invasion should be used as a last and not a first resort. I note you have not answered the humanitarian issues I raised.

With regards to the final paragraph, I would like to point out that the resistance movements in many countries (i.e. Yugoslavia) as well as the sources of many plots, came from individuals who were former regular military officers, some of whom had been absorbed into the occupying army's garrison.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

With regards to your first paragraph, this is not what I said at all. You have ignored my caveat in the latter half of my response. Starting a war is not sensible, even if threatened. Most nations that point the gun at you, do so assuming you will point the gun at them, giving them an excuse to attack you. If you don't and they still attack you, resist, but not suicidally as you advocate.

In most cases, if you do not get your military into a defensive position, when they invade you end up having to rely on your citizens and scattered military and police forces to resist. And, really, if they are smart they merely annex your military and police forces or disarm and disband them. See how the U.S. handled Iraq for an example.

With regards to the second paragraph, I will say only that destroying your country simply to sabotage an invasion should be used as a last and not a first resort. I note you have not answered the humanitarian issues I raised.

The humanitarian issues are a problem. Why? You can't rely on humanitarian actions to help your people fight off a nation that just invaded you, executed your government, and annexed your military.

Keep in mind that having a smaller military force has not stopped people from being invaded in the past.

With regards to the final paragraph, I would like to point out that the resistance movements in many countries (i.e. Yugoslavia) as well as the sources of many plots, came from individuals who were former regular military officers, some of whom had been absorbed into the occupying army's garrison.

And I would like to point out that the majority of the resistance in those nations were the civilians with little to no military training, most of whom learned what to do while resisting.

This is so stupid, the only name I mentioned was my own. I said "We the Socialist States of Cubapia....." That's MY name. That is such a lame excuse to remove a proposal. Should I try again, but not do the so-called "branding"?

... I like the term, "Public Assault Rifle." Sounds.... yummy.

:sniper:

Mentioning your name in a proposal you authored is against the rules. It's pretty clear who authored it.

This is so stupid, the only name I mentioned was my own. I said "We the Socialist States of Cubapia....." That's MY name. That is such a lame excuse to remove a proposal. Should I try again, but not do the so-called "branding"?
That is the branding.

... I like the term, "Public Assault Rifle." Sounds.... yummy.

:sniper:
Hmmm, Public Assault Rifles? I'm envisioning something similar to public restrooms or public water fountains. There could be a sort of kiosk containing 10 - 15 assault rifles on every street corner. Any citizen is free to use them, but if you fire one you must clean it before returning it. Otherwise there will be a $25 maintenance fee.

Hmmm, Public Assault Rifles? I'm envisioning something similar to public restrooms or public water fountains. There could be a sort of kiosk containing 10 - 15 assault rifles on every street corner. Any citizen is free to use them, but if you fire one you must clean it before returning it. Otherwise there will be a $25 maintenance fee.


Hey! This is what we can use all those old telephone booths we took out when cell phones came in... as they would with modifications work well.. Think will send this idea to our engineers to come up with then now.

OOC: As for the issue of Citizens having weapons at home in case of them needing them to defend the country. Several years ago I made a suggestion on the US Army allowing each person to take home with them their NBC protective gear.. being NBC suit and mask. As it was well established that it would take up to six hours to get everyone in to post and have them issued from there. My reason was if the post is attacked and chemicals used then nobody gets in as they don't have the gear to do so safely... Nor the weapons to fight their way in since they are also secured on post.

The answer I got back was like any WEAPON such as an M-16 rifle the NBC PROTECTIVE Gear is a sensitive item and needs to be secured when not in use. They failed to see my reason as I had noted about securing WEAPONS but why secure PROTECTIVE gear that allows them to get WEAPONS in an area they are secured.. This is why a military unit might fail to stop an assault... They don't have the gear to fight with or protect themselves at hand.. Most invading forces know where these items are secured and that is a key point to take over these areas first... Preventing trained forces from getting to them.... Thus if all citizens were trained and had basic weapons and protective gear at home it would make an invasion much harder as the attacker would not know were to hit and do the most damage..

Putting all ones eggs in a basket means all I have to do is knock it off the table to break as many eggs as possible maybe even all of them.

Armed citizens trained to defend themselves and equiped to do so makes it much harder to inslave them. The key is to train them in basic military skills so they can use them properly and effectively.. in the defense of ones own freedoms..

In what country would an everyday citizen be called to defend the nation? Even if there was such a country, the government would provide said citizen with the rifle, the citizen should not already possess one. As for having the capacity to overthrow the oppressive government, I'm sure if the entire population of a country went against its government, even without rifles, they would win, or else the government would have no one left to oppress. Also, there are lots of people in almost every country that think their country is doing a terrible job, but that doesn't necessarily give them the right to bear arms against their country, or else think of how many armed rebels there would be everywhere.

The common Afghan has always possessed a firearm! Beginning with the Jezail(a slender Arab musket with lots of ingravings) which they used against the British in 1839-42 and that remained in use during the second Anglo Afghan war of 1878-81 and many were still around during the third Anglo Afghan war of 1919, by then it had been supplemented by Lee Enfield .303s and Sniders. In each case the Afghan rule possessed a small professional army of only a few thousand men, these armies were always strengthened by Tribesmen.

Afghanistan had no military budget, so couldnt supply its people with weapons, the Afghan troops in 1919 sometimes had to go into battle with Muskets (Against ten-round magazine .303s). The tribesmen, always looking for some loot, volunteered to fight with their government.
In fact one of Afghanistans biggest victories was achieved by armed civilians and cost the Brittish 15.000 men.

When the Soviets entered Afghanistan, they did so to support a not very popular and weak communist government. There is no doubt about the government will to suppress those who were against the communists.
luckily for the Afghans the .303 was still around, and with that they started a struggle that would take 12 years, in that time they got their weapons from China, the US, UK, Egypt, Saudi Arabia with CIA and Saudi Arabian funds.

Many central Asian republics have armed civilians, they keep outsiders outside and cost nothing to the taxpayer. I am happy now that Tadjikistan never got into the UN for banning these rifles would be a big mistake (both for the real Central asian republics as well as for NS Tadjikistan.

[Garnilorn has hit on an important subject. During my three tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, there were times when we'd think we were being fired on, only to find out it was the local civilians celebrating by shooting their weapons into the air. It was a good thing my commander was also a trained sniper. Otherwise, we would be responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians.

The point is, I know from experience how effective this tactic is at making your nation dangerous to invade. Even if the invaders win the battle, they will always be nervous as they won't be able to tell the difference between civilians on their side and rebels fighting against them.]

I'm not arguing this anymore because I can't even pass my proposal due to "branding". :mp5: Oh well, no sense crying over spilt milk. :headbang: I'm going to sleep.

I'm not arguing this anymore because I can't even pass my proposal due to "branding". :mp5: Oh well, no sense crying over spilt milk. :headbang: I'm going to sleep.
If you resubmit it without putting your nation's name in the text of the resolution, you won't break the rule about branding. I wouldn't count on getting any support from me but at least your proposal would be legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Only a fool believes banning something will prevent criminals from obtaining that which was banned.

We support a well armed citizenry and vow to fight against any globalist attempts at disarmament.

The Commonwealth of Simonovastan would wholeheartedly support such a resolution if put up to vote. Our society is ruled by law, not firearms. But, rather than merely banning assault rifles, might I suggest a complete ban on all firearms and projectile weapons (bows, crossbows, harpoon guns)?

I urge your ambassadors to tour the streets of our cities and try to find a well-armed criminal.

It is the belief of this government that a subject of the State should never be empowered to the point where political dissidents could undermine the government's authority, or destabilize or overthrow the governing administrators.

An orderly society is defined by the degree of obedience of its subjects.

no matter what types of ban you put on weapons, it will fail. A.) It takes less than 15 minutes to surn a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon, using parts found at home. 2.) gun smuggling. you can buy a Kalashnikov Ak-47 in China for around 30 USD.

no matter what types of ban you put on weapons, it will fail. A.) It takes less than 15 minutes to surn a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon, using parts found at home. 2.) gun smuggling. you can buy a Kalashnikov Ak-47 in China for around 30 USD.

You're sadly misinformed....as are most anti-gun people. Rather than waste an inordinate amount of time explaining to you the errors in your judgement I'd like instead to reccomend that you do some more research.

This proposal should never reach the floor for a debate, so preposterous is it. Our nation will not now nor in the future surrender our citizens rights to keep and bear arms and nothing or nobody will ever change our position on that.

An orderly society is defined by the degree of obedience of its subjects.


This may well be true if all people living here in this world were subject to your orderly society... At present you can figure for every ONE in this so called orderly society of yours there are at least THREE outside wanting what you might have inside. They will use whatever they can to get it..


Also I beleive saw somebody wants to ban harpoons... Better not if the get the ban on whaling repealed as then you will need them for hunting whales. The idea of banning any so called weapon simply because a sick mind will use it for evil is not going to stop those sick minded from finding a weapon to use. We must deal with them; as here the only cure for such a sick mind that would kill without reason is a swift hanging.

This may well be true if all people living here in this world were subject to your orderly society...

Long ago, the Commonwealth of Simonovastan determined that the best course of action was to barcode our subjects and monitor them closely for any signs of dissent.

A comparison of Simonovans to cattle was depicted in an amateurish cartoon in an underground newspaper's editorial page, but our agents were able to peacefully convince the author to adopt a different political stance.

By disarming them as well, we have ensured that this government will be a stabilizing force in its region and last in perpetuity.

We are a safe and productive society.

Also I beleive saw somebody wants to ban harpoons... Better not if the get the ban on whaling repealed as then you will need them for hunting whales. The idea of banning any so called weapon simply because a sick mind will use it for evil is not going to stop those sick minded from finding a weapon to use.

If the soverign Commonwealth of Simonovastan could secure 50.000001% of UN Member Nation votes on total disarmament of citizens, from private ownership of firearms to restricting access to resources such as propane and gasoline (which could be used in incindiary devices) we would put it up to vote.

Harpoons can be used to kill law enforcement officers, foreign dignitaries, and children. Thus, citizens must be prevented from ownership of such dangerous devices.

Humanity isn't even ready for simple bludgeons; why should our subjects be trusted with firearms, which have more potential to kill?

Or sharp and pointed instruments, for that matter. Weaponry should be constructed to be large, expensive, and unwieldy, that only the wealth of a nation-state allows for ownership of them.

Remember, a government that provides its citizen-subjects with the means to revolt is only asking for trouble.

We must deal with them; as here the only cure for such a sick mind that would kill without reason is a swift hanging.

On this, Simonovastan agrees with you.

Long ago, the Commonwealth of Simonovastan determined that the best course of action was to barcode our subjects and monitor them closely for any signs of dissent.

A comparison of Simonovans to cattle was depicted in an amateurish cartoon in an underground newspaper's editorial page, but our agents were able to peacefully convince the author to adopt a different political stance.

By disarming them as well, we have ensured that this government will be a stabilizing force in its region and last in perpetuity.

We are a safe and productive society.

Well, if we're comparing our NS nations...

My people were once part of a safe and productive society that thought like yours does. We enjoyed peace, managed to prevent most crime, and even began advancing rapidly. Then, an outside force attacked us, wiping out our colonies one by one until our main was attacked. We fought bravely and with all of our might, but in the end we lost and our nation was destroyed. Now, we're wandering around with a multitrillion credit fleet looking for money and supplies while trying to support a growing population.

So, you sure that's such of a good idea? After all, arming your citizens may be the one difference that prevents you from ending up like us.

But, to bring this back from the realms of social engineering, which is the individual soverign state's responsibility, and to the international scope:

State-sanctioned disarmament means there's little to fear from foreign fighters infiltrating our country, or our citizen-subjects causing chaos in foreign lands. No Simonovan has the means to pick up arms and attempt a coup in neighboring nations or neighboring regions, unless they are active-duty soldiers ordered to by military commanders (though war, being detrimental to trade, is always the last resort).

Land mines have been outlawed by a previous resolution. Barcodes and RFID chips, though sophisticated, can still be forged or spoofed by sophisticated and determined terrorists. Our borders are that much more vulnerable.

So, you sure that's such of a good idea? After all, arming your citizens may be the one difference that prevents you from ending up like us.

Military service is compulsory for Simonovans. If legislation passes, this mandatory service will be even more effective in deterring hostile nations.

But our subjects will never be allowed to assemble a militia or any other organization that is not under direct command of the State, for the reasons we already mentioned.

Military service is compulsory for Simonovans. If legislation passes, this mandatory service will be even more effective in deterring hostile nations.

But our subjects will never be allowed to assemble a militia or any other organization that is not under direct command of the State, for the reasons we already mentioned.

You really need to go to the Roman Empire and have a nice chat with them about how well that worked out. Keep in mind they were the superior military force up until the very end.

The Roman Empire didn't have RFID, National ID, closed circuit cameras, or an intelligence bureau equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance gear.

We are comfortable, and appreciate your concern. ;)

No, but we did. We also had a battlefleet that was respected or feared depending on which side of its cannons you were on. That battlefleet, in a reduced size, is what remains.

My point is this: Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work internationally.

My point is this: Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work internationally.

Of course, and we agree with you on this point. If a nation wishes to be foolish enough to allow its populace to overthrow it, that should be decided by them, not the United Nations. It remains to be seen how the citizen-subjects of neighboring countries in the region sleep, knowing that an uncontrollable army could very well form...

We fear that armed foreign nationals could infiltrate our nation. Their government could always disavow any knowledge, essentially turning such rogue soldiers into deniable assets.

Perhaps Simonovastan is going about this in the incorrect way, as the most that can be passed is a resolution urging a ban on private ownership of firearms (anything more would infringe on national soverignity). A repeal of the land mines ban would strengthen our borders, and a resolution passed that guarantees nations' rights to defend and patrol its borders using whatever means possible would ease our fears.

(Simonovastan's NSUN delagate will split this into another communiqué as this idea becomes further developed.)