NationStates Jolt Archive

i think they should allow citizens the right to bear arms. if they citizens bear arms they have the ability of protection for those nations with low military values. and not give the right to criminals with records in crimes. :sniper:

Desire noted. Do you have a proposal to go with that?

i think they should allow citizens the right to bear arms. if they citizens bear arms they have the ability of protection for those nations with low military values. and not give the right to criminals with records in crimes. :sniper:

You already have the possibility of giving YOUR citizens the right to bear arms. Here you should present arguments for why you think it should be implemented in all UN members, even if their leaders don't agree.

In any case, my answer is no.

You already have the possibility of giving YOUR citizens the right to bear arms. Here you should present arguments for why you think it should be implemented in all UN members, even if their leaders don't agree.

In any case, my answer is no.
Come, now, at least let them tell us if they have an actual proposal or not. Give them a chance to present themselves properly before you blow them out of the sky.

a nation can already do this. they can have reserve armies made up off trained citizens and whatever name you call them (militia forces, Territorial armies etc).

a proposal would be nice to see although.

a nation can already do this. they can have reserve armies made up off trained citizens and whatever name you call them (militia forces, Territorial armies etc).

a proposal would be nice to see although.

Nations can, yes. Not all citizens can, though. In many countries, the right to bear arms is infringed upon by governments. It makes sense, though: right to property is like so last century.

Come, now, at least let them tell us if they have an actual proposal or not. Give them a chance to present themselves properly before you blow them out of the sky.

OK, I will rephrase:

My personal view is that the safety of our citizens is better served by heavy restrictions on ownership of weapons. Our citizens have full confidence in the police and the military to protect them against external and internal aggressors. They do not believe in taking justice into their own hands. For these reasons, I am unlikely to support any resolution that forces us to to relax our legislation in this matter.

But you are entitled to present a proposal in that direction, and I would welcome the discussion.

I do not believe that bearing arms is a right at all. I cannot support any proposal that seeks to establish this as a 'right'.

To clarify, I wouldn't submit (or even approve) a gun legalisation proposal, as I don't really consider it an international matter. If individual governments want to deny their citizens, then that is ultimately their prerogative. This is why I'm not always keen on basing proposals on 'fundamental rights': we tend to define them differently. Some people believe the right to own property is a right; others don't.

To clarify, I wouldn't submit (or even approve) a gun legalisation proposal, as I don't really consider it an international matter. If individual governments want to deny their citizens, then that is ultimately their prerogative. This is why I'm not always keen on basing proposals on 'fundamental rights': we tend to define them differently.

Ditto.

Some people believe the right to own property is a right; others don't.

To be clear, I dont think the gun ownership debate is mainly about property rights. Ultimately, it all boils down to (more articulate) versions of:
- It is nice when the good guys have guns,
- It is nasty when the bad guys have guns.
People then go on to put different weights on each of these, and form their opinions accordingly.

To be clear, I dont think the gun ownership debate is mainly about property rights. Ultimately, it all boils down to (more articulate) versions of:
- It is nice when the good guys have guns,
- It is nasty when the bad guys have guns.
People then go on to put different weights on each of these, and form their opinions accordingly.

I tend to put my citizens in the 'good' category; one would almost speculate it'd be worrying if one didn't.

Nonetheless, this isn't a gun debate, so I'll stop.

ok i will make a proposition. (this may be already made but....I am young so) =P maybe that there should be an age limit both for the young and the old. we do not want the adolescents to be running around with guns. and the elderly shouldnt because what if they shoot themselves. so maybe the congress should make an act like this.

ok i will make a proposition. (this may be already made but....I am young so) =P maybe that there should be an age limit both for the young and the old. we do not want the adolescents to be running around with guns. and the elderly shouldnt because what if they shoot themselves. so maybe the congress should make an act like this.

Again, this is something you're welcome to do in your nation. However, I don't really feel it's an international issue. Granted, there are some who like to legislate from basic rights up, and granted, in Gruenberg, the right to own property and to defend oneself are basic rights; however, there are simply too many cultures where gun ownership wouldn't be appropriate, because governments are too weak to deal with citizens who arm themselves, or because allowing civil rights in one area would set a dangerous precedent, and so on. So, I don't really think I'd support such a proposal. Part of the problem is also the age suggestion: not all countries have age limits on gun ownership, so you probably wouldn't get the strongly pro-gun parties to support you either.

Nations can, yes. Not all citizens can, though. In many countries, the right to bear arms is infringed upon by governments. It makes sense, though: right to property is like so last century.

But the right to own property is guaranteed (with no clause alowing national governments, even Communist ones, to set limits on this ;-) in the Resolution that bans slavery...

But the right to own property is guaranteed (with no clause alowing national governments, even Communist ones, to set limits on this) in the Resolution that bans slavery...
Agreed, although what constitutes a 'possession' is not defined, rendering the clause rather useless. As an aside, I've never been clear on how that resolution actually bans slavery: it bans the slave trade, but not actually possession of slavery, so far as I can see.

Agreed, although what constitutes a 'possession' is not defined, rendering the clause rather useless.
Thankfully.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN