NationStates Jolt Archive

Hugs not Slugs

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control


Decision: Tighten


Proposed by: Alxlandia II

Description: A bill that recognizes the want for personal firearms and the use of firearms as protect, but also recognizes the danger of firearms, and thus wishes to tighten the laws regarding them so no gun company can make more than a .22 caliber rifle or 9mm pistol for use of the citizen, also any ex-convict or someone with known mental disorder may legally purchase a gun, also a physical, mental, and government record check up must be done in order for a gun to be purchased.

Approvals: 1 (Alxlandia II)

to find its search hugs not slugs in proposals, guns need to be regulated, this could save lives, please approve it

Don't make me shoot you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Don't make me hug you, Cluich.

We would vote against. Our police force keeps crime next to zero. There's no reason to fix something that's not broken.

Regrettably, we don't think is suitable for UN legislation. Something on the international arms trade would be much more worthy of international concern.

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

The Dominion stands in favor of this resolution. In fact, if the Dominion was able to ban civilian ownership of arms, we would.

The Dominion

Regrettably, we don't think is suitable for UN legislation. Something on the international arms trade would be much more worthy of international concern.

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

Regulations on international arms trade is something our nation would be willing to look at.

While we feel our citizens are entitled to own certain classes of guns, we respect the rights of other nations to enforce what gun regulations they deem necessary to keep their country safe.

While we are sympathetic with the general principle of firearms control, we believe this to be somewhat too intrusive as it stands.

That said, we would suggest that the honoured ambassador of Alxlandia takes the time to break their proposal down a little. While the common forms found in UN resolutions are not mandatory, they undoubtedly aid comprehension. In particular, the proposal as it stands is one single sentence, and verbose as we proudly are even we would not have committed such a run-on. Breaking the operative clauses down into a list format would have rendered them at the very least less breathless, and would probably have made what we suspect is a missing "not" more obvious.

We realise that this proposal has been submitted, but since we strongly believe that it has no chance of reaching quorum, we urge the ambassador to take the time now to redraft.

This nation is also concerned about the apparent lack of a "not", as such, the proposal as it stands would force each UN member nation to allow ex-convicts and mentally disabled people to own firearms.

As this proposal seeks to tighten restrictions, it seems out-of-place for the proposal to grant permissions to some people.

This nation agrees with other nations that this proposal should be withdrawn, and re-drafted before submittal to the UN.

What about hunting based cultures, and other cultures where the carrying of a rifle is an important cultural norm (OoC: the Pathans in NWFP in Pakistan, or the native americans in the late 19th century)?

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangwats-Jones, KCRC LOG
Cobdenian Representative Extraordinaire to the UN

How on Gods Gween Earth is one supposed to kill a man eating tiger with .22 calibre wifle?

2nd Lt The Hon. Douglas Carruthers-FitzPewbik,
Defence Attache

I feel that the attempt to remove from the common people the basic right of self-defense from both creature or cretin is unwise. My support will not be for any proposal that is presented as such. Also, international commerce, whether it be firearms, ammunition or the base components to produce said devices should not be interfered with. We, as a country and as individuals, will not brook discussion on this matter.

I feel it also imperative to mention, that this law has little international effect. The disarmament or armament of citizens is typically done for a variety of purposes upon the weighing the benefits of social interpersonal benefits, and social security. Some cultures operate well with firearms in the hands of the common citizen, while others do not.

I would find it hard to take a position that the UN should bring about such a policy that could be loopholed simply by a nation compulsing every citizen into military service, and supplying them with "illegal" weapons.

I think the issue of gun control outside of dealing with international politics should always remain the dominion of the sovereign NationState itself, as the international impact upon localized gun control laws is minimal.

Lastly, it's my concern that this proposal might be ineffective at providing social security. In a nation where murders, or gross personal injury are commonly commited with firearms, such actions are typically with weapons of lower caliber, in the range that this proposal would allow. Preventing more powerful weapons typically will simply prevent mass murders, which while definitely detestable, do not happen significantly enough to warrant such draconian process.

Upon rereading the proposal, a militarized citizen does not automatically lose citizenship, and would thus be contradicted in supplying them weapons necessary to defend their nation. But in good faith, it is the presumption of mine, that the submitter intended to indicate non-militarized, non-police, ceteraque citizens, as enforcing the proposal under such a reading would require the disarmament of most military forces, who are armed for just purpose.

It is my feeling that any further debate against this proposal without defense will have little impact. This proposal should simply be withdrawn unless the author has an argument in the positive for keeping it.

Crime is totally unknown in my country. I may be weakening crime by supporting this bill, but I'll also be weakening my own police force. Besides, the criminals are the ones with connections to the black market, not my police officers. They'll get their hands on those guns even if we ban them.

From the office of Joseph Arnarson, President of the European Islands, 2007

How on Gods Gween Earth is one supposed to kill a man eating tiger with .22 calibre wifle?

2nd Lt The Hon. Douglas Carruthers-FitzPewbik,
Defence Attache

Sewiosly. I agwee.

Homestar Runner
Made Up Solely for the Purpose of this Post
Please Don't Discuss Me.

A man eating a tiger or a man-eating tiger?

I'm confused.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Still Awesome
"I'm like the second doctor in the UN, right? Maybe?"

The Delegation of The Holy Empire of Western World States, being appointed Ambassadors of the people, in which all political power is inherent, cannot in good conscience restrict the defense of that political power by any prohibition or restriction of arms in any manner.

We'll consider reading this once it has been re-written in a suitable UN Proposal Format.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Ugh! No way! I'm against every part of this bill. Not only does it interfere with National Soverignty, but it interferes with law-abiding citizen's right to self-defense AND puts guns in the hands of the one group that SHOULDN'T have them!

Ugh! No way! I'm against every part of this bill. Not only does it interfere with National Soverignty, !


umm well that's pretty much the UN's job.

The Blue Eyed Man
Cookeslandic UN Delegate

umm well that's pretty much the UN's job.

The Blue Eyed Man
Cookeslandic UN Delegate

The UN's job is SUPPOSED to be to deal with international affairs, not trample over nation's rights. Sadly, they frequently go beyond their mandate, as this proposal indicates.

OOC: Yes, I realize that the NSUN has no such "mandate", but my nation's leadership thinks they should. Unless, of course, national meddling serves THEIR interests. ;)

The UN's job is SUPPOSED to be to deal with international affairs, not trample over nation's rights. Sadly, they frequently go beyond their mandate, as this proposal indicates.

OOC: Yes, I realize that the NSUN has no such "mandate", but my nation's leadership thinks they should. Unless, of course, national meddling serves THEIR interests. ;)

ooc: Well the NSUN is quite different from the RL UN

The UN's job is SUPPOSED to be to deal with international affairs, not trample over nation's rights. Sadly, they frequently go beyond their mandate, as this proposal indicates.

You sound like a prime candidate for membership in the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx).

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

The simple answer is "No, no and again for the last time no!"

Hpwever that doesn't help the resolution writer, so I will attempt to explain my numerous "no" positions.

First of all the resolution is poorly written. This sort of manure would have passed 4 years ago and we are currently in the process of reepaling all the manure styled resolutions as we speak. Saying "this bill cures cancer" is no longer enough. It needs teeth not some dumb fluffy handwaving.

Seond of all it is probably not international enough to be a matter for the UN. Not all categories are easy to write to. This is one of them.

Third of all, I can think of a plethora of criteria to limit gun rights than that of caliber. Bolt/semi/full automatic is one. The number of rounds in a clip is another. The deign of the bullet itself is a third. Caliber is the last possible criteria because frankly I find large caliber blunderbusses to not be particularly dangerous compared to smaller pocketbook sized weaponry.