NationStates Jolt Archive

It's just been submitted. It's just been submitted. It's just been submitted. Please approve. Please approve. Please approve. (Geez, I just can't stop repeating myself for some reason...) (Geez, I just can't stop repeating myself for some reason...) (Geez, I just can't stop repeating myself for some reason...)


Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UN Gun). Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UN Gun). Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UN Gun).

Here's the proposal. Here's the proposal. Here's the proposal.

The United Nations,

SUPPORTING families and individuals in environments of gun possession--illegal guns or not--who struggle to leave such environments,

RECOGNIZING an increase in personal freedoms and human rights when a citizen is allowed to renege upon gun possession without legal repercussion,

NOTING a gun amnesty with United Nations oversight could be more credible among citizens than one with local backing,

DETERMINGING this added credibility may ensure more rights to citizens to remove themselves from violent lives:

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:

a) Citizens may turn in guns only: unloaded and with no ammunition on any citizen’s person; Security at UN facilities is maintained by UN personnel;

b) Citizens who turn in guns may not be prosecuted for the possession of that gun (should possession of that type of gun be illegal), though they may be prosecuted if evidence shows they used that gun in another crime (other than illegal gun possession);

c) Nations may examine any gun collected for forensic evidence, and retain any gun for an indefinite period of time while investigation of crimes possibly committed with that gun are investigated;

d) UNGA personnel completely and promptly destroys all received guns not retained for investigation--preferably by incineration or severe enough defacement of the gun to assure it can not be repaired without extreme and costly measures;

2.ALLOWS for nations to request more than one UNGA for their nations, and make any request regarding operations at one or all UNGAs within their national boundaries, but MAINTAINS the right of the UN to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs, including initial requests for a UNGA, and requests for additional UNGAs;

3.PLACES the entirety of operations at UNGAs under UN oversight, meaning:

a)The UN may disallow or allow any practices, funding, or persons from the UNGA, exercise jurisdiction over any other matter involving a UNGA, and remove any UNGA at any time and for any reason from any host nation;

b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA, at which time the UNGA will close immediately and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner;

c)Funding for the UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel (the UN personnel are funded strictly by the UN), funds for forensic investigation or storage facilities for retained guns, and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by negotiated agreement between both parties before a UNGA is placed in the host nation;

4. SUPPORTS National gun amnesties that strive for the same goals as UNGAs, and which operate on the same basic premises.

I hope no one confuses this with me saying "Gun aMnesties are bad and Corrupt and horrid"--just because my actual message, "gun amnesties are good and helpful", is really similar to that, and I figure that some out there today might mix it up.

Ok - Having Opt-In in the title (which immediately sends up warning flags due to optionality) means that I think 3a which would probably survive on a standalone scenario may actually make the resolution illegal (well.....not so much make it so but get mods to interpret it as such).

I hardly think the title matters, unless it's grossly misleading or offensive. The mechanics of this system seem to me to akin to several legal, passed resolutions, by PC and by others. I don't follow how that links to 3a; I assume, though, that that point relates to some overall body, rather the general assembly.

Needless to say, we support this resolution, although we have not yet decided whether to establish any UNGA centres, should it pass.

Ok - Having Opt-In in the title (which immediately sends up warning flags due to optionality) means that I think 3a which would probably survive on a standalone scenario may actually make the resolution illegal (well.....not so much make it so but get mods to interpret it as such).
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

LAE will approve this sensible proposal, as it's an easy solution for people wanting to get rid of their guns, and can even invites people to get rid of their guns.

Ok - Having Opt-In in the title (which immediately sends up warning flags due to optionality) means that I think 3a which would probably survive on a standalone scenario may actually make the resolution illegal (well.....not so much make it so but get mods to interpret it as such).
I'd better clear this up before some trigger-happy mod decides to shoot first (get it? this being a "Gun amnesty" Message, heh), Content to ask questions later No, Dirty Harry, I'm not feeling lucky.

First, Greunberg's right, the title has nothing to do with whether it's in rules or not. I mean, a proposal named "Duplication Ban", about banning cloning isn't violating Duplication rules.

Second, 3a is exactly the reason this isn't violating optionality rules (which you might be saying in your post--it's hard for me to say), and other clauses like 3a. There's a precedent--"Microcredit Bazaar", "The UN Small Business Classroom"--to allow a proposal to offer a service which isn't universal among nations. That service is optional in the sense that it isn't required in all nations. And that "optionality" is allowed, or so have the mods ruiled in the past.

The clauses which control that service (like 3a and co.) are not optional. And since the first type of "optionality" has been allowed (where not all nations are effected--not really optionality), and there are no other cases of optionality, I really don't see a case for optionality violation.

We could make a friendly wager on it, though, if you like. Say, the lives of four moderately-aged nations (the young are just too easy nowadays)...;)

Looks like "someone" can't seperate their personal dislike with me from their moderating:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10237967#post10237967)

Dirty Harry, I hope, get's his balls twisted off with a vice.

Looks like "someone" can't seperate their personal dislike with me from their moderating:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10237967#post10237967)

Dirty Harry, I hope, get's his balls twisted off with a vice.

I don't know either why it's been deleted.

Anyway, I think it's better to be deleted before your TG campaign than after, 2 of the resolutions I co-authored where deleted after our TG campaign;)

I don't know either why it's been deleted.

Anyway, I think it's better to be deleted before your TG campaign than after, 2 of the resolutions I co-authored where deleted after our TG campaign;)
That's just it.

First, it's unjust to have been deleted at all, so I'm hardly in a mood to count my blessings.

Second, I'd already started my telegram campaign, I had between 100 and 150 delegates telegramed when the mod whacked it.

Yeah, it could've been worse. But that it should've been not an occurence at all is what has my buns in a toaster.

That's just it.

First, it's unjust to have been deleted at all, so I'm hardly in a mood to count my blessings.

Second, I'd already started my telegram campaign, I had between 100 and 150 delegates telegramed when the mod whacked it.

Yeah, it could've been worse. But that it should've been not an occurence at all is what has my buns in a toaster.

No pb, I don't see why it was illegal either:)

Well, if people who don't like me keep Jim Crowing my proposals out of the list, I may just get to take my retirement a little earlier than I'd originally expected. That might be GMC's intent (I'm of the belief that it was GMC--at least for the sig--the "last activity" time matches pretty well with that), so maybe doing so would just be giving in to tyranny.

Anyways, anyone know any good ghost stories?

Well, if people who don't like me keep Jim Crowing my proposals out of the list, I may just get to take my retirement a little earlier than I'd originally expected. That might be GMC's intent (I'm of the belief that it was GMC--at least for the sig--the "last activity" time matches pretty well with that), so maybe doing so would just be giving in to tyranny.

Anyways, anyone know any good ghost stories?

Pazu-Lenny hopes Dan Yeoman will stay active at the UN, as he likes innovatives ideas, and Dan bring some interesting ones to the UN, as Reformed Literacy Initiative, The Microcredit Bazaar, gun amnesties; and also passed Representation In Taxation and UN Small Business Education which had encouraged by the back door some democracy and economic freedom.

maybe someone is out to get 'Kenny....?

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero is confident that this proposal can be drafted in a different manner, while keeping its soul and purpose, and hopes it will be resubmitted.

Well, I don't imagine it will take much to get this proposal into a legal shape. I wish Mr Palleel luck in this regard.