NationStates Jolt Archive

My honored friends, I present to you a proposal which will guarantee the right of nations to set their own course in regards to gun control legislation.

Please review, and if it meets your approval your endorsement would be most welcome.

It is in the proposal section now, awaiting your approval. Thank you for your time.

The United Nations,

NOTICING that different cultures have varied standards regarding private ownership of firearms.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations rely on citizen militias, armed with privately owned firearms, for their own defence from invasion.

RECOGNIZING that United Nations resolution #94 has established the right to Self-Protection as a basic human right.

CONSIDERING that many nations uphold private ownership of firearms as an inalienable right.

UNDERSTANDING that privately owned firearms can be considered valuable personal property.

THE UNITED NATIONS DECREES THAT:

1: The United Nations may not, at any time, pass a law restricting the private ownership of firearms.

2: The United Nations may not, at any time, request records of private firearms ownership.

3: The United Nations may not, at any time, confiscate privately owned firearms.

4: The United Nations may not, at any time, prohibit the manufacturing or sale of firearms for the purpose of private ownership.

This resolution DOES NOT prohibit any nation from establishing legislation limiting the private ownership of firearms within their own borders.

This resolution DOES NOT prohibit the United Nations from restricting the international commerce of firearms.
____________________________

For the purposes of this resolution:

FIREARMS are defined as man-carried projectile weapons which fire a non-explosive projectile of .50 caliber or less.

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is defined as an object which is owned by a private citizen, acquired by his or her own means, which is not considered the property of the state or any government agency and is not employed in any criminal act.

This line right here:
1: The United Nations may not, at any time, pass a law restricting the private ownership of firearms.


Makes the whole thing illegal. You can't ban the UN from future legislation. Most of the rest of is does similar things. Yeah. Support? No.

... I had gone over the rules and thought I was clear, but then I found that part. This clause, that the UN cannot restrict itself, basically gives the UN unlimited power.

By gods! I had not realized this before now. The UN is an orginazation FUNDAMENTALLY INCAPABLE of creating, democratically through it's member nations, a constitution, since a constitution is neccesarily a governing body establishing restrictions for itself.

This is indeed a grave revelation. While I can understand not allowing a resolution to "repeal-proof" itself, not allowing the UN to restrict it's own powers is, in my mind, a grant of unlimited powers. Great governments are not judged by what they can do, but by what they cannot do.

I will have to return to my country now, and present my new findings to our congress. I will reccomend that we withdraw from this organization which, in this humble ambassador's mind, seeks power for it's own sake while mouthing empty promises of freedom and liberty.

I will return once my congress has mulled over these developments and come to a decision regarding our standing with the UN.

Good evening.

Well, that was quick.

... while mouthing empty promises of freedom and liberty.

We think you may want to check your hearing aid, or possibly simply check for imaginary audio figments. We've never heard any such empty promises ... or perhaps they were drowned out by the crunching of the bones of devoured nations beneath the wheels of the UN Juggernaut.

This is not your mother's UN. This is the NSUN. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

or perhaps they were drowned out by the crunching of the bones of devoured nations beneath the wheels of the UN Juggernaut.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/juggernaut.jpg

"I'm the United Nations, bitch!"


OOC: Couldn't resist. :)

It would be possible to make this proposal legal, we would note, and we would probably support such an effort: although we have an interest in legislation on arms trafficking, Quintessence of Dust has enough trouble sorting out its own domestic gun laws without needing any interference from the UN or professing any ability to dictate such matters to others. The trick is in the phrasing: instead of 'The UN shall not...', try 'Nations have the right to...': in this case, 'Nations have the right to set domestic gun laws on matters such as ownership, purchase and registration, and any restrictions thereon', or something on those lines.

The problem comes with fitting it to a category. There is no 'Do Nothing' category, so your options are limited. You could make the proposal a mild endorsement of gun ownership, but ultimately stress that it is up to nations; you could make the proposal a mild endorsement of gun control, and so. Alternatively, you could try something like Furtherment of Democracy, and encourage nations to decide their gun laws democratically. There are probably other options. Whatever you pick, I suggest running it by this forum before submission.

There's really no need to be so hasty in reconsidering UN membership. This proposal is a sensible idea and could become a good piece of legislation: you just have to learn the tricks of the trade. Take this advice or leave it.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

George Madison, of the Quintessence of Dust,

I appreciate your imput, dear sir, your nation did well to select an ambassador as wise as you.

First of all, while I will certainly reccomend to the congress of St Kenistan that we withdraw our support of the UN, it will be, by no means a hasty decision. The wheels of beaurocracy turn slowly.

As to your first point, yes, I suppose the resolution could be reworded to remain legal, yet this brings up another inconsistency. If the UN cannot pass legislation prohibiting future UN legislation, almost all resolutions are illegal.

For Example: Imagine that a resolution is passed which grants all people the right to possess whizbangs. This resolution, in effect, bars the UN from passing a resolution banning the right to own Whizbangs unless the previous resolution is repealed.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, the UN cannot, in effect, explicitly limit it's own power. It cannot set forth a "Bill of rights," so to speak, of the inalienable rights of nations. This, in my opinion, lends itself to a governing body which, over time, will only gain power, and cannot be safeguarded against "tyranny of the masses."

What my country wanted to establish through this resolution was a guarantee of every nation's right to set their own laws in regards to private firearms ownership, without imposing unwanted laws on nations whose mores and standards may differ from our own. The wording can be changed, but not without muddying the meaning.

This is why I am so concerned with this discovery. The law, that a resolution cannot "forbid UN action at a future point in time," in effect prevents a great variety of resolutions which would guarantee a nation's or people's rights.

Any worthwhile government must impose certain restrictions on itself, to help safeguard against tyranny by future leaders. This happens to be an issue my nation holds dear, but I would consider any other protections of worthwhile rights to be equally important.

Anyways, ladies and gentlemen, those are the points I wanted to make.

Good evening.

Sounds to me like you want to write, what had been labeled around here, a blocker.

I for one would welcome such a proposal on citizen gun ownership/control. It is one of the few issues I do feel the UN shouldn't be concerned with and the decision of legal or illegal ownership of firearms left up to nations themselves, as there are no international or human rights issues involved.

For some passed examples of blockers, take a look at these passed resolutions. They will give you an idea of what legislation of this type looks like.

Marriage Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973206&postcount=183)

Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148)

Both these are legal blockers that essentially give nations the right to decide on the subject, but at the same time urge and encourage them to one side of the arguement or the other.

Hope this gives you some ideas and you are willing to keep trying. If you can get something together that keeps gun control a national decison, and is legal, I'll happily support it.

Thank you for your advice, good sir. Your reccomendations have been duly noted.

From the office of High Governor James Scraps:

"After careful consideration of the propsition, and council with advisors, I am unfortunate to say that though I want to, common sense is telling me not to endorse this...on the grounds that, considering the unique nature of my nation, I have a hard enough time keeping lunatics from stealing Mech Suits and tearing hell through the countryside. And let us avoid the topic of the superhuman neanderthals beating the hell out of each other for shere sport with their energy beams and improbably hairstyles. Nay, firearms are the least of Hentainova's worries at the time in question.

Best of luck, either way,
Doctor Scraps"

Honoured colleagues,

The freedom-loving people of St Kenistan have asked me to draft a second Resolution which would protect what we consider to be our most sacred right, the right to keep and bear arms.

I ask, with all due respect, that you all carefully read over this proposal and offer me your advice, opinions, and any changes you would like to see in such an act.

The Gun Rights Protection Act (Category - Gun Control)

NOTICING that different cultures have varied standards regarding private ownership of firearms.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations rely on citizen militias, armed with privately owned firearms, for their own defence from invasion.

RECOGNIZING that a great many people the world over believe the right to Self-Protection is a basic human right.

CONSIDERING that many nations uphold private ownership of firearms as an inalienable right.

UNDERSTANDING that privately owned firearms can be considered valuable personal property.

The United Nations,

DECREES that every country has the right to set their own laws regarding the private ownership of firearms.

INSISTS that no nation or government organization may demand records of privately owned firearms except within their own borders.

DEMANDS that no nation or government organization may confiscate privately owned firearms except within their own borders.

DECLARES that no nation or government organization may interfere with the manufaturing, sale, or trade of firearms intended for private ownership except within their own borders.

-This resolution DOES NOT prohibit any nation from establishing legislation limiting the private ownership of firearms within their own borders.

-This resolution DOES NOT prohibit the United Nations from restricting the international commerce of firearms.
____________________________

For the purposes of this resolution:

FIREARMS are defined as man-carried projectile weapons which fire a non-explosive projectile of .50 caliber or less.

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is defined as an object which is owned by a private citizen, acquired by his or her own means, which is not considered the property of the state or any government agency and is not employed in any criminal act.

All input is welcome.

On behalf of the people of St Kenistan,
Fernandinandinestus Muu

Don't start a new thread for each draft. Edit your first post, or just add it.

Merged.

This is not your mother's UN. This is the NSUN. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

Ozymandias is your new UN rep?