NationStates Jolt Archive

At the very core of this resolution, we see that this resolution is for the protection of a nation's citizens from both oppressive governments, and violent crimes.

If this resolution is passed, this will require at a very minimum for ALL UN MEMBER nations to allow their citizens the ***OPPORTUNITY*** to possess a firearm within the confines of their legally owned propety.

Nations have a great deal of freedom with this resolution. They only have to allow AT LEAST 1 firearm per citizen, and AT LEAST 1 round of ammunition. Note that these two do not have to be compatible with each other *therefore rendering the firearm useless*.

Also, Nations have the ability to set an age limit on how old you must be for purchasing a firearm. This age limit may be as high as, or higher than that known life span of an "average" citizen.

Nations may also place a tax on the selling/purchasing of a firearm. There is again no set limit as to a maximum financial amount that can be placed on this.

Basically, if a nation wants to, they can allow for a citizen to only possess 1 firearm (that is rendered useless becuase the ammunition for the firearm is not the correct type for the firearm) with 1 bullet IN THEIR LIFETIME in the confines of their home. Along with that, they may only be able to possess this firearm after they have hit the age of 9 Billion years old, and after they pay an amount of money greater than all money in the world's circulation.

If you do not feel guns are necessary for the protection of your citizens, you still have ways to get around not allowing citizens to possess them.



************CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS****************

In ADDITION to UN RESOLUTION #94 (Right to Self Protection), recognizes that citizens of every nation need to be able to legally obtain firearms for protection from tyrannical dictatorships, and violent crime.

DEFINES firearms as weapons from which a deadly projectile is discharged.

INCLUDES a list of mutually recognized firearms (though not limited to):
Automatic rifles/pistols
Blow/Dart guns
Bows (Composite, Compound, Crossbow, Longbow)
Mortar
Shotgun
Semi-Automatic rifles/pistols
Submachine/Machine gun

RECOGNIZES that a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free nation.

NOTICING criminals use firearms in violent crime (such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault) and use firearms (to the point of torture, and torture itself) without hesitation.
THEREFORE to deter violent crime, citizens need to have the right to protect themselves using firearms.

RECOGNIZES governments who control all weapons lead to oppression of citizens. Tyrannical governments oppress citizens with torture, slavery, and genocide.
THEREFORE, according to UN RESOLUTION #6 (“End Slavery”), UN RESOLUTION #26: Article 5 (“Universal Bill of Rights: Torture”), and UN RESOLUTION #83 (“The Eon Convention on Genocide”), nations need to make firearms available to citizens for protection from government.

RECOGNIZES UN RESOLUTION #190 (“Mutual Recognition of Boarders”). Illegal aliens threaten national security, and may possess unregistered/illegal firearms.
FURTHERMORE, individuals who enter a nation (legally or illegally) without citizenship must adhere to ALL laws of said nation.

UNDERSTANDS not all UN nations are free.
THEREFORE, enacts the following:

Nations MAY pass legislation:
*On where citizens may possess firearms. Nations are restricted from prohibiting possession of a firearm on citizens legally obtained property

*To limit the type and amount of firearms and ammunition citizens may possess. Legislation must allow citizens to possess a minimum of 1 firearm and 1 round of ammunition

*To restrict the age on firearms acquisition. There is no maximum age limit, however legislation must define a specific age

*To require Certification of Firearms Owner before possessing a firearm. Nations may limit the amount of time that certification is considered qualified

*To require psychological/legal evaluation before purchasing a firearm

*On how to legally obtain firearms. Nations may require a record of a transaction

*To require ID. Forms of ID are recognized as, though not limited to:
National ID
Passport ID
DNA ID
Retinal ID
Voice analysis ID
Fingerprint ID
Certification for Firearms Ownership ID

*To tax buying/selling a firearm. There is no restriction for a maximum taxable amount of currency

*To exclude/revoke certain citizens to have the ability to possess firearms. This may include (but not limited to) citizens under the nation’s age limit, convicted felons, individuals deemed by psychological/legal evaluation to be a danger/threat to themselves or others

*On transportation of a firearm

*To allow local governments to pass legislation that is no more relaxed than the national government

*To punish personal who break the laws of said nation. Legislation must fall in accordance with UN RESOLUTION #21 (“Fair Trial”), UN RESOLUTION #47 (“Definition of “Fair Trial””), and UN RESOLUTION #180 (“Fair Sentencing Act”)

mortars for personal use? I like this guy, but I would vote against your resolution. Citizens do not need permission from an authority to eliminate madness within their leadership. Leaderships that refuse to arm their citizens are only admitting that they do not have the proper legitimacy to rule.

If a government fears its citizens, it should not rule them. A government nurtures its citizens and trains them in the art of courage and of war. Needing to enact such a law is redundant for proper governments, insulting to the citizenry who does not need a law to grant them permission to remove the insane and only further justifies/strengthens unwarranted fear for unhealthy societies.

Let go of the fear, become partners with your citizens not rivals.

I feel the restrictions of this act are too tight. Citizens should not be allowed to buy any type of Automatic weapon, and certainly not explosives. We do allow our citizens the right to bear semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

It is in fact manditory to own a weapon in Jinos, all citizens (17-21)-60 are given government issued pistols after their manditory year of military service. To carry this in public as a conceled/non-conceled weapon is however a felony without application of a proper license and backround check. This is of course regulated and people with disabilites or criminal backrounds are not issued firearms or allowed to purchase weapons

All our citizens have recieved training in various types of weapons and explosives. During Defcon 1 civilians report to Armories and are armed for immediate combat unless they are reassigned to other tasks, during Defcon 2 certian select malitia members are armed for patrols of cities.

Our country simply disagrees with how the UN act regulates firearms as we do it differently.

Is it just me, or does this look like the world's largest house of cards? You've referenced seemingly half the resolutions that the UN has passed including several which have nothing to do with guns.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm gonna kick the football into the NatSov field for a sec here. This goes way to far in the direction of the UN governing everything. Minimum gun ownership? To be honest the wording of this is so lax as to mandate nothing BUT minimum gun ownership.

I gotta ask though, what will one gun and one round of ammo do for you when the government has no such limitations? I don't see a need for a law that restricts national rights and contains alot of language that does nothing.

OOC: Also, house of cards violation here. You're referencing far to many previous resolutions.

Is it just me, or does this look like the world's largest house of cards? You've referenced seemingly half the resolutions that the UN has passed including several which have nothing to do with guns.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wasn't aware that any of them mentioned guns, actually.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

OOC: Also,of course, the repressive regimes against whom this proposal is aimed could easily get around it simply by denying most of their nations' populations the rank of 'citizen'...

I wouldn't let my own people carrying a gun that I made

In ADDITION to UN RESOLUTION #94 (Right to Self Protection), recognizes that citizens of every nation need to be able to legally obtain firearms for protection from tyrannical dictatorships, and violent crime.

There are no tyrannical dictatorships in Ariddia, and violent crime is virtually unheard of, so why would we wish to burden our nation with such a resolution?


RECOGNIZES that a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free nation.

No, it isn't. We get on fine without one.


NOTICING criminals use firearms in violent crime (such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault) and use firearms (to the point of torture, and torture itself) without hesitation.

Not over here, they don't. Firearms are not available, and our progressive policies have resulted in a society where crime is almost unheard of (as confirmed by United Nations statistics).

If violent crime is a problem in Irel4nd, Ariddia would be glad to assist by sending advisers, to explain how we have built a society without crime.


RECOGNIZES governments who control all weapons lead to oppression of citizens.

They most certainly do not. At least not here.


THEREFORE, according to UN RESOLUTION #6 (“End Slavery”), UN RESOLUTION #26: Article 5 (“Universal Bill of Rights: Torture”), and UN RESOLUTION #83 (“The Eon Convention on Genocide”), nations need to make firearms available to citizens for protection from government.

Non sequitur.

My country vehemently opposes this regressive proposal.


http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8919/julienquanbrw2.jpg
Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador

Oh, settle down, Jules. Here, have a gun to clean. It's very relaxing.

Besides, who are we to argue with the Beatles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_is_a_warm_gun)?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I feel the restrictions of this act are too tight. Citizens should not be allowed to buy any type of Automatic weapon, and certainly not explosives. We do allow our citizens the right to bear semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

It is in fact manditory to own a weapon in Jinos, all citizens (17-21)-60 are given government issued pistols after their manditory year of military service. To carry this in public as a conceled/non-conceled weapon is however a felony without application of a proper license and backround check. This is of course regulated and people with disabilites or criminal backrounds are not issued firearms or allowed to purchase weapons

All our citizens have recieved training in various types of weapons and explosives. During Defcon 1 civilians report to Armories and are armed for immediate combat unless they are reassigned to other tasks, during Defcon 2 certian select malitia members are armed for patrols of cities.

Our country simply disagrees with how the UN act regulates firearms as we do it differently.

From what it sounds like, you already allow *in fact it seems MANDITORY* your citizens to own a firearm with ammunition. Again, all this resolution is supposed to do is give ALL citizens of ALL nations the OPPORTUNITY to possess a firearm. Seeing as you already have given your citizens that opportunity, this resolution would change no legislation within your nation, and really wouldn't affect you for this reason.

I wasn't aware that any of them mentioned guns, actually.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

you would be correct. Not one bit of legislation has passed in the UN on Gun Control issues yet.

These resolutions only reinforce the ideals that I have placed into this legislation. Even without these resolutions quoted, the legislation would still be able to HOLD UP ON ITS OWN.

Because this legislation is able to "hold up on its own" and doesn't rely fully on *but rather just uses other resolutions as secondary support for reasoning*, this would NOT be a house of cards violation.

mortars for personal use? I like this guy, but I would vote against your resolution. Citizens do not need permission from an authority to eliminate madness within their leadership. Leaderships that refuse to arm their citizens are only admitting that they do not have the proper legitimacy to rule.

If a government fears its citizens, it should not rule them. A government nurtures its citizens and trains them in the art of courage and of war. Needing to enact such a law is redundant for proper governments, insulting to the citizenry who does not need a law to grant them permission to remove the insane and only further justifies/strengthens unwarranted fear for unhealthy societies.

Let go of the fear, become partners with your citizens not rivals.

Again, this resolution is meant to give ALL citizens of EVERY nation the OPPORTUNITY to possess a firearm. Nations can pass just about any legislation that they wish to pass.

The ONLY legislation that nations are forbidden to pass would be to:
1-not allow any citizen at least 1 firearm
2-not allow any citizen at least 1 round of ammuntion
3-not allow any citizen to possess a firearm within the confines of their legally obtained property.

Nations can however place restriction on other issues (age, certification, ID, etc.etc) if they feel it is necessary.

From reading what your nation stands for, this resolution essentially would not effect your nation or it citizens in anyway *since you have already allowed the OPPORTUNITY for your citizens to possess firearms*

OOC: Also,of course, the repressive regimes against whom this proposal is aimed could easily get around it simply by denying most of their nations' populations the rank of 'citizen'...

This is true. But then again, shouldn't that be left up to the nation anyway?

I wouldn't let my own people carrying a gun that I made

The beauty of this resolution is the amount of freedoms one has.

If you don't want your people carrying guns, then tax them to no end. Don't allow the firearms and ammunition be compatible. Make the age limit to possess a firearm essentially unatainable. etc.etc.

Simply, this resolution would only make it an OPPORTUNITY to possess a firearm for your citizens. YOU ultimately decide whether or not they should have them.

you would be correct. Not one bit of legislation has passed in the UN on Gun Control issues yet.

And I would like it to stay that way.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Bahgum will vote against as an afront to it's sovereingty. Firearms are banned in Bahgum, there is simply no good argument for giving the populace an easy way to kill and maim each other.
The only approved weapons in Bahgum are the Bahgumian brick, as carried in all mothers in law handbags, and the ferret.

Tyrannical governments oppress citizens with torture, slavery, and genocide. THEREFORE, according to UN RESOLUTION #6 (“End Slavery”), UN RESOLUTION #26: Article 5 (“Universal Bill of Rights: Torture”) and UN RESOLUTION #83 (“The Eon Convention on Genocide”), nations need to make firearms available to citizens for protection from government.
Except for those dictatorships which are in the UN. They have to comply with those resolutions. Any other dictatorship outside the UN won't be affected.
RECOGNIZES UN RESOLUTION #190 (“Mutual Recognition of Boarders”).
I completely and utterly fail to understand how that resolution has anything to with gun control.

Keelhaul Basinstoke
Bloodstonian UN Pirate

Oh, settle down, Jules. Here, have a gun to clean. It's very relaxing.


The only good gun is made of licorice.

Those we will allow.


Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador

I completely and utterly fail to understand how that resolution has anything to with gun control.

Keelhaul Basinstoke
Bloodstonian UN Pirate

You would be correct that this part of the resolution doesn't have a direct connection with Guns...but rather citizens who may enter your nations boarders.

I recognize that all nations will have different laws from one another...
SO, for the sake of argument, lets say a nation like mine-where Gun Laws are very relaxes-has a citizen who crosses over into your boarders *which may or may not have the same gun laws*. Even though it is MY citizen -who is only under the legislation of MY government- it is YOUR boarders. Therefore, while MY citizen may be in YOUR boarders, MY citizen must adhere to ALL of your laws.

Simply, it makes it illegal for citizens of *relaxed* law nations to bring guns into, or do any activity using guns in nations that have *tightened* gun laws.

There are no tyrannical dictatorships in Ariddia, and violent crime is virtually unheard of, so why would we wish to burden our nation with such a resolution?

Because the UN isn't concerned with the well being of JUST your nation, but the well being all member nations to the UN


No, it isn't. We get on fine without one.

so would say the oppressive government...


Not over here, they don't. Firearms are not available, and our progressive policies have resulted in a society where crime is almost unheard of (as confirmed by United Nations statistics).

Even if that is true, your nation can still pass legislation that would make possessing a firearm unatainable...you would essentially not be affected by this resolution


They most certainly do not. At least not here.

Maybe not...but they certainly did in Nazi Germany and Darfur Sudan in the real world...

RECOGNIZES UN RESOLUTION #190 (“Mutual Recognition of Boarders”).

I completely and utterly fail to understand how that resolution has anything to with gun control.

Surely a pirate such as yourself would know that boarding another vessel usually requires some firepower. If we were to properly recognise boarders, we should equip them with the tools to do the job.


Even if that is true, your nation can still pass legislation that would make possessing a firearm unatainable...you would essentially not be affected by this resolution

In which case I really have to question what the whole point in passing this resolution would be, even if you're one of those wackos who think children should be armed to prevent unfair oppression by their parents; especially being made to dress up all nice for Christmas photos to send to relatives whose images bear absolutely no relation to their real personality, interests or identity... that's exploitation, propaganda, and oppressive measures, I tells ya!

you would be correct. Not one bit of legislation has passed in the UN on Gun Control issues yet.

These resolutions only reinforce the ideals that I have placed into this legislation. Even without these resolutions quoted, the legislation would still be able to HOLD UP ON ITS OWN.

Because this legislation is able to "hold up on its own" and doesn't rely fully on *but rather just uses other resolutions as secondary support for reasoning*, this would NOT be a house of cards violation.
We do not see the support you assert anywhere within the quoted resolutions. Given the offensiveness of the mischaracterisation of various nations in the rest of the preamble, this naturally makes us more than a little suspicious of the honesty of the motivations for their inclusion. Either they are a House of Cards violation, or they are an irrelevance; the honoured delegate is attempting to have his cake and eat it.

The only approved weapons in Bahgum are the Bahgumian brick, as carried in all mothers in law handbags, and the ferret.
Be reasonable, Sir Albert; the ferret is not the weapon of a gentleman.

In which case I really have to question what the whole point in passing this resolution would be

Simply, to allow ALL citizens of ALL UN member Nations the OPPORTUNITY to possess firearms.

If this legislation is to pass *and never gets repelled*, then this would protect the rights of ALL nations who allow their citizens to possess firearms to do so until their government says otherwise.

Essentially, it would protect the nations that would like to have gun from ever having to vote on a resolution that BANS guns from ALL nations.

You would be correct that this part of the resolution doesn't have a direct connection with Guns...but rather citizens who may enter your nations boarders.

I recognize that all nations will have different laws from one another...
SO, for the sake of argument, lets say a nation like mine-where Gun Laws are very relaxes-has a citizen who crosses over into your boarders *which may or may not have the same gun laws*. Even though it is MY citizen -who is only under the legislation of MY government- it is YOUR boarders. Therefore, while MY citizen may be in YOUR boarders, MY citizen must adhere to ALL of your laws.

Simply, it makes it illegal for citizens of *relaxed* law nations to bring guns into, or do any activity using guns in nations that have *tightened* gun laws.
I'd re-read that resolution if I were you then, it only asks for definition proper borders, and asks for establishment of border control points. Surely if your person was crossing at one of these said points, they'd of been previously informed of the differing laws, and as such, would probably be carrying large amounts of exotic firearms.

Surely a pirate such as yourself would know that boarding another vessel usually requires some firepower. If we were to properly recognise boarders, we should equip them with the tools to do the job.

Oh I totally agree, can't board ships with out automatic weaponry. And penguins, can't forget the penguins.

Keelhaul Basinstoke
Bloodstonian UN Pirate

Either they are a House of Cards violation, or they are an irrelevance

I would actually admit that they are irrelevant. I recognize that some nations do not completely understand what a resolution says or will do.

I feel that this is a great way to help members understand exactly what a resolution says and will do.

then again, that may just be my own personal feelings...
In all seriousness though, this is why I have quoted the resolutions

I wouldn't let my own people carrying a gun that I made

The beauty of this resolution is that it give YOU the ability to pass legislation that makes possessing a firearm unatainable if you feel it to be necessary.

You may pass an outrageous tax on the buying/selling of firearms so that no one is able to possess a firearm in your nation.
You may pass an unatainable, but defined, age limit on the possession of a firearm in your nation, thus not allowing anyone to possess a firearm.
You may pass legislation to only allow 1 type of firearm with a different, unusable, type of ammunition to go with it...thus rendering it useless.

This resolution doesn't force anyone to ALLOW their citizens to possess firearms...it just has to give citizens the OPPORTUNITY to possess firearms...even if that opportunity is unatainable

Be reasonable, Sir Albert; the ferret is not the weapon of a gentleman.Of course they're not, that why they're wielded by the Bahgumian mothers in law. *rimshot*

I would actually admit that they are irrelevant.If they're irrelevant, get rid of them. They make your proposal look like a house of cards, and I can't think of a single person who'd want to go through and cross-reference all those resolutions to make sure that it's not.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'd re-read that resolution if I were you then, it only asks for definition proper borders, and asks for establishment of border control points. Surely if your person was crossing at one of these said points, they'd of been previously informed of the differing laws, and as such, would probably be carrying large amounts of exotic firearms.

the problem with your logic is that it ASSUMES that persons would be informed of differing laws BEFORE they cross the boarder.

Also, just being informed of laws doesn't mean that you are under the rule of that law.

This resolution applies YOUR NATIONS laws to everyone who enters your nation-legally or illegally.

I would actually admit that they are irrelevant.
Then their inclusion is dishonest.

Simply, to allow ALL citizens of ALL UN member Nations the OPPORTUNITY to possess firearms.

If this legislation is to pass *and never gets repelled*, then this would protect the rights of ALL nations who allow their citizens to possess firearms to do so until their government says otherwise.

Essentially, it would protect the nations that would like to have gun from ever having to vote on a resolution that BANS guns from ALL nations.
We suggest that the honoured delegate go back to the drawing board and produce a proposal that says that, since this one fails dismally. Given the broad and sweeping nature and utter lack of force of the proposal, it would not prevent a future UN proposal from limiting the permissible type of firearms to the elastic catepult, the permissible ammunition to the wadded up ball of paper, forbids the possession of such outside the owner's property (with no exemption for getting them there from the place of purchase), and setting the minimum age requirement to twice the average lifespan of the longest-lived sentient species in the country.

If they're irrelevant, get rid of them. They make your proposal look like a house of cards, and I can't think of a single person who'd want to go through and cross-reference all those resolutions to make sure that it's not.


If my resolution does not go to voting, I will definentally consider "getting rid of them".

It still would concern me that voting nations may not understand exactly what this resolution says, and would do...

Then their inclusion is dishonest.

Irrelevant as to not entirely relevant to the issue of GUN CONTROL.

really, I see the quoting of previous resolutions as more "redundant" than irrelevant...and in no way is it, or is it intended to be, dishonest.


We suggest that the honoured delegate go back to the drawing board and produce a proposal that says that, since this one fails dismally. Given the broad and sweeping nature and utter lack of force of the proposal, it would not prevent a future UN proposal from limiting the permissible type of firearms to the elastic catepult, the permissible ammunition to the wadded up ball of paper, forbids the possession of such outside the owner's property (with no exemption for getting them there from the place of purchase), and setting the minimum age requirement to twice the average lifespan of the longest-lived sentient species in the country.

I for one do not feel that the UN should govern my nation for me.

With that said, this resolution essentially leaves the individual member nation to decide for itself what the means *attainable or unattainable* should be for allowing their citizens the opportunity to possess firearms.

All UN Nations should be free to govern their own nation rather than have the UN govern it for them...don't you think?

That's no excuse for trying to decrease the quality of life in my country and endangering my fellow citizens.

Except that it doesnt lower the quality of life in ANY Nations countries...


Which makes the proposal either hypocritical or pointless.


It also protects the rights of those nations that want to allow their citizens to have firearms from ever falling attack from a UN resolution that would BAN ALL FIREARMS.


Why should I support it, if my government opposes the principle, and in practice it would do nothing anyway?

coming from the *free* nation that you have spoken of, I'm sure that you would allow your citizens the freedom of choice as to whether they would like to own a firearm or not.



What is this "real world" of which you speak?


its the same real world that this game basically made its game engine from...
for example-
Karl Marx was a socialst. We all know that he was. He proposed that Socialist nations have less crime, and less poverty than that of capatalist nations. We see this played out in NationStates...as we also see plenty of other real world situations played out in this game as political theory...

You know what the "real world" is, so please...don't play "dumb" my friend

Because the UN isn't concerned with the well being of JUST your nation, but the well being all member nations to the UN


That's no excuse for trying to decrease the quality of life in my country and endangering my fellow citizens.


so would say the oppressive government...


Which we aren't.


Even if that is true, your nation can still pass legislation that would make possessing a firearm unatainable...you would essentially not be affected by this resolution


Which makes the proposal either hypocritical or pointless.

Why should I support it, if my government opposes the principle, and in practice it would do nothing anyway?


Maybe not...but they certainly did in Nazi Germany and Darfur Sudan in the real world...

What is this "real world" of which you speak?


Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador

That's no excuse for trying to decrease the quality of life in my country and endangering my fellow citizens.

Please, let's do without the fearmongering, Mr. Quan. If I wanted to I could use a kitchen knife as a lethal weapon- are kitchen knives banned in your nation, too? I like to think that people are more responsible than you suggest- putting a gun in the hands of a person doesn't mean they'll go out and kill.

This gets to the heart of a philosophical question- the right to bear arms. I'm not suggesting everyone has a right to use, of course not. In Snefaldia, private ownership of weapons is allowed- to an extent, of course. We don't have much advanced military weaponry, you see. But we couple private ownership with public education- people are raised to respect and fear weaponry, and to use it respectably- for hunting and self-defence, mostly.

The question for the UN is whether or not we want a resolution giving arms ownership rights to all UN member-state citizens. I'm not convinced it's a bad thing- those states that have no crime and no social impetus to purchase weaponry would have nothing to fear. Those nations with poorly-concieved social policies or political schemes would be forced to re-think their community standards.

As an engine for political change, we can't ignore armed uprising, and if UN law currently allows member nations discretion with their weapon laws, some nations are going to be trapped in horrendous political states.

With work, I could support this resolution.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

What is this "real world" of which you speak?
Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador

Well apparently there is series of books out there that describes this imaginary world, similar to our own (a parallel world). As with all fiction, these have interesting stories and myths and sometimes they can be used to illustrate some points. We are willing to pass on the address of the bookstore that sell these storybooks about the "real world". I'm certain that you'll enjoy them. They're snazzy!

I would actually admit that they are irrelevant. I recognize that some nations do not completely understand what a resolution says or will do.Ah, so the Proposal is illegal. Got it.

Ah, so the Proposal is illegal. Got it.

Again, I used irrelevant as to explain the other issues not being directly related *though they still play a factor* to the issue of Gun Control.

As I have ALREADY stated, I see posting these issues more as "redundant" than irrelevant.

What precisely is the purpose of a gun if you don't have any ammunition to use with it? One must assume, then, if a country does not allow its citizens to carry ammunition with their firearms (or worse yet, firearms with their ammunition *envisions pelting a criminal with loose bullets, all of which bounce harmlessly off his forehead save the lucky shot that gets him in the eye*), that the right to bear arms is as essentially useless as if the government had violated it in the first place! I recommend changing the resolution to rectify this error, after which (but not until) Lanteana will support it.

Karl Marx was a socialst. We all know that he was. He proposed that Socialist nations have less crime, and less poverty than that of capatalist nations. We see this played out in NationStates...


No argument on your first sentence, or your third one. The second one's a little iffy (some people flatly deny he was a socialist, or -- more dangerously -- proudly shout it from every convenient street corner). Your last sentence, however, is a problem. NationStates, when it comes right down to it, is a computer program, and thus does only what its creators and users tell it to do. If socialist decisions lead one's virtual country to less crime, so be it; I would contend that such a result is an inaccurate portrayal of reality, and would give several European countries as an example (with no offense intended toward the residents of said countries, of course -- merely the governments).

The question for the UN is whether or not we want a resolution giving arms ownership rights to all UN member-state citizens. I'm not convinced it's a bad thing- those states that have no crime and no social impetus to purchase weaponry would have nothing to fear. Those nations with poorly-concieved social policies or political schemes would be forced to re-think their community standards.

I see your point, but my government nonetheless feels we should not be forced into accepting such a principle merely because other countries' soxio-political systems are flawed. Furthermore, the proposal is designed in such a way that repressive governments can easily neuter it, thus making sure that it may not be used for an armed uprising, nor for citizens' defence against their government.

Well apparently there is series of books out there that describes this imaginary world, similar to our own (a parallel world). As with all fiction, these have interesting stories and myths and sometimes they can be used to illustrate some points. We are willing to pass on the address of the bookstore that sell these storybooks about the "real world". I'm certain that you'll enjoy them. They're snazzy!

Indeed? Fascinating!


Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador

Again, I used irrelevant as to explain the other issues not being directly related *though they still play a factor* to the issue of Gun Control.How? How, exactly, to the referenced Resolutions "play a factor" in this Proposal?

If this resolution is passed, this will require at a very minimum for ALL UN MEMBER nations to allow their citizens the ***OPPORTUNITY*** to possess a firearm within the confines of their legally owned propety.

From the outset, we don't agree that this is something the UN should be doing.

Nations have a great deal of freedom with this resolution.

When you're forcing nations to allow their citizens to have firearms if they don't want to, nations have no freedom at all under the proposal.

If you do not feel guns are necessary for the protection of your citizens, you still have ways to get around not allowing citizens to possess them.

So, you're saying that your proposal would be useless because it could be so easily gotten around? Why should we vote for it then?

In ADDITION to UN RESOLUTION #94 (Right to Self Protection), recognizes that citizens of every nation need to be able to legally obtain firearms for protection from tyrannical dictatorships, and violent crime.

Not every nation recognizes that "right", and we're not inclined to force them to.

RECOGNIZES that a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free nation.

Letting any yahoo in a nation who wants to own a gun have one is not a "well regulated militia". It's "a whole lot of people with guns, many of whom would be more likely to shoot themselves in the foot, instead of shooting their assailant, if they ever tried to use said gun". We already have a "well regulated militia", in the form of our Royal Reserve Force of citizen-soldiers. And since we've trained them, we'd rather just let them have the guns, thank you very much.

NOTICING criminals use firearms in violent crime (such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault) and use firearms (to the point of torture, and torture itself) without hesitation.

Perhaps they do in your nation. They don't so much in Altanar, because we have severe penalties for illegal possession of a weapon. In Altanar, you can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for using an illegal weapon in commission of a crime, on top of whatever the sentence is for the crime they committed. We have equally severe penalties for people who sell guns illegally. That tends to address the problem.

THEREFORE to deter violent crime, citizens need to have the right to protect themselves using firearms.

We disagree. We have very little crime, without having to resort to the expedient of giving everyone in our nation the means to severely hurt or kill each other. There are better ways to address that concern.

Nations MAY pass legislation:

Does this mean if your proposal ever came to vote and, gods forbid, passed, we MAY also choose NOT to pass such legislation? If so, we're all for it, because we're not the slightest bit inclined to.

*To limit the type and amount of firearms and ammunition citizens may possess. Legislation must allow citizens to possess a minimum of 1 firearm and 1 round of ammunition

*To restrict the age on firearms acquisition. There is no maximum age limit, however legislation must define a specific age

*To require Certification of Firearms Owner before possessing a firearm. Nations may limit the amount of time that certification is considered qualified

*To require psychological/legal evaluation before purchasing a firearm

*To exclude/revoke certain citizens to have the ability to possess firearms. This may include (but not limited to) citizens under the nation’s age limit, convicted felons, individuals deemed by psychological/legal evaluation to be a danger/threat to themselves or others

This thing is so full of holes that your writers must have used it for target practice with your beloved guns before dragging it out here. Under this proposal, we could say that you only get to have one bullet for your gun, have to be between the ages of 99 and 100 to own a gun, say that someone's "certification" to own a gun only lasts for ten seconds, exclude virtually everyone from owning a gun, and if none of that worked, just say that someone's too "crazy" to own one.

It boils down to this: your proposal is advancing an idea we find dangerous and offensive (i.e. that nations shouldn't be allowed to implement gun control), and yet, has so many loopholes that it is stunningly ineffective. For those reasons, we are completely opposed.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I see your point, but my government nonetheless feels we should not be forced into accepting such a principle merely because other countries' soxio-political systems are flawed. Furthermore, the proposal is designed in such a way that repressive governments can easily neuter it, thus making sure that it may not be used for an armed uprising, nor for citizens' defence against their government.

That's certainly an interesting sentiment coming from a government such as your own. The question of collective responsibility for UN nations- making sacrifices for the good of the whole- is one that can be called upon for things like climate refugees and then put aside for arms rights.

Frankly, if your people have no need of weapons, then they don't need to worry about being able to buy them- arguing that you shouldn't be subjected to a possibility is rather silly.

Of course, I'm not out-and-out supporting this legislation, either. It needs a hell of a lot of work. What I'm supporting is the concept of arms rights.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

If you would have taken 3 seconds as to read through other posts, chances are that most of your questions would have been answered already...

So, you're saying that your proposal would be useless because it could be so easily gotten around? Why should we vote for it then?

Not at all. If this resolution was to pass, it would protect nations who already allow their citizens to possess firearms from ever having a UN ban on firearms. Essentially, firearms couldn't be banned by a UN resolution.

However, *and this being the reason for all the loopholes*, we at Irel4nd do not feel that the UN should force nations to govern one way or another. Therefore, if a nation wants to, they can essentially still ban firearms within their nation using these so called "loopholes".



Does this mean if your proposal ever came to vote and, gods forbid, passed, we MAY also choose NOT to pass such legislation? If so, we're all for it, because we're not the slightest bit inclined to.


Simply...YES

Irel4nd feels that NATIONS-NOT THE UN- have the right to choose how to run a country. Because of this, a nation MAY choose whether or not to pass any of this legislation.


Under this proposal, we could say that you only get to have one bullet for your gun, have to be between the ages of 99 and 100 to own a gun, say that someone's "certification" to own a gun only lasts for ten seconds, exclude virtually everyone from owning a gun, and if none of that worked, just say that someone's too "crazy" to own one.
If these are the laws you wish to enact should this resolution pass, so be it. You run your nation however you like.

How? How, exactly, to the referenced Resolutions "play a factor" in this Proposal?

Lets take a look at them then:

UN RESOLUTION #94 (Right to Self Protection)

This resolution did not deal with a citizens right to possess a firearm-nor do I feel that it should be changed to include such *as it should come from a completely seperarte resolution*.

"Citizens right to bear arms" recognizes that citizens of every nation need to be able to legally obtain firearms for SELF PROTECTION from tyrannical dictatorships, and violent crime.

Looking at these two, we see "self protection" as a main thesis behind the two resolutions. UNR #94 "plays a factor" in that it reinforces the idea that every nations citizens need to be able to protect themselves. *UNR #94 is used as a reference, and not a foundation as to the thesis of "citizens right to bear arms"*

As I have already stated, placing/quoting this resolution is really actually redundant. I may have taken this "quote" out and this wouldn't change "Citizens right to bear arms" at all, but I feel that some nations may not completely comprehend exactly what "Citizens Right to Bear Arms"

Let me ask you this-
Would you sign a document without reading the fine print or understanding exactly what the document is saying? I didn't think so...


UN RESOLUTION #6 (“End Slavery”),UN RESOLUTION #26: Article 5 (“Universal Bill of Rights: Torture”), and UN RESOLUTION #83 (“The Eon Convention on Genocide”)

Again, none of the above UNRs deal with the issue of gun control. Rather, they are again used as a reference point to show what can happen in a tyrranical dicatorship. This is the role they play.

Again, these did not have to be placed in "Citizens right to bear arms" *CRTBA from here on out*, but are placed in CRTBA in order to allow nations to again, be able to understand what they are signing before they sign it one way or another...

RECOGNIZES UN RESOLUTION #190 (“Mutual Recognition of Boarders”).

This AGAIN does not deal with the issue of gun control-however, when a nation passes laws on gun control, do those laws transfer over to non citizens of a nation? No...i.e. the USA and Brittain have similar laws. But since when are Americans ever under the rule of Brittish Law?

This again is just used as a redundant reference point that could have been done without in the construction of CRTBA, but still was placed within CRTBA to allow citizens to again understand what they are signing before they sign it one way or another...


UN RESOLUTION #21 (“Fair Trial”), UN RESOLUTION #47 (“Definition of “Fair Trial””), and UN RESOLUTION #180 (“Fair Sentencing Act”)

Again, this does not pertain directly to gun control issues.

In CRTBA, Nations are allowed to punish for gun crimes. these resolutions are what all UN nations must adhere to as it is currently. These are used again as reference point to show what exaclty it is that this resolution is suggesting. You can obviously see again that quoting these resolutions here is again redundant...However, without ALL of these UNRs, CRTBA still holds up.

Quoting these resolutions as you can see is redundant-NOT irrelevant. These resolutions all have something to say that is directly related to CRTBA, though CRTBA does not use these resolutions as its foundation. Quoting these resolutions basically show a reference point as to what CRTBA propossess *this would be the "role" that these UNRs play*. This allows ALL nations to have a better understanding of CRTBA before they sign it.

UN RESOLUTION #6 (“End Slavery”),UN RESOLUTION #26: Article 5 (“Universal Bill of Rights: Torture”), and UN RESOLUTION #83 (“The Eon Convention on Genocide”)
Again, none of the above UNRs deal with the issue of gun control. Rather, they are again used as a reference point to show what can happen in a tyrranical dicatorship. This is the role they play.

Except for the simple fact that any dictatorship in the UN, and there are quite a few, already have to comply with these resoultions, so the inclusions of them is unecessary.

RECOGNIZES UN RESOLUTION #190 (“Mutual Recognition of Boarders”).
This AGAIN does not deal with the issue of gun control-however, when a nation passes laws on gun control, do those laws transfer over to non citizens of a nation? No...i.e. the USA and Brittain have similar laws. But since when are Americans ever under the rule of Brittish Law?
Mutual recognition of borders has nothing to do with laws applying to non-citizens within a country. It only defines the borders, nothing else. It has nothing to support the arguement you presented.

Keelhaul Basinstoke
Bloodstonian UN Pirate

If you would have taken 3 seconds as to read through other posts, chances are that most of your questions would have been answered already...

The entire Altanari delegation responds to that by saying, and I quote, "meh".

Not at all. If this resolution was to pass, it would protect nations who already allow their citizens to possess firearms from ever having a UN ban on firearms. Essentially, firearms couldn't be banned by a UN resolution.

I frankly don't see that as any reason to consider a flawed and toothless proposal, because I think that the chances of a resolution banning guns from ever passing a vote of this Assembly rank slightly lower than those of porcine aviation.

However, *and this being the reason for all the loopholes*, we at Irel4nd do not feel that the UN should force nations to govern one way or another. Therefore, if a nation wants to, they can essentially still ban firearms within their nation using these so called "loopholes".

And here, we discover who really has the problem with reading comprehension. I asked you why in the seven hells we should consider a proposal so full of loopholes as to be completely useless. You still haven't answered that. We've got enough poorly written, flawed, useless and/or loophole-ridden legislation in place already; I see no reason to add to that with your proposal.

Simply...YES

Irel4nd feels that NATIONS-NOT THE UN- have the right to choose how to run a country. Because of this, a nation MAY choose whether or not to pass any of this legislation.

If a nation can just decide "oh, we don't like this, so we're not going to follow it," that means your legislation accomplishes nothing. Again, why should we even bother? Don't get me wrong, I don't want something mandatory, because I don't think the UN should be dictating our gun laws to us. But since you seem to be soliciting opinions and/or advice, I just felt compelled to point out to you that your proposal doesn't actually do anything because of all the loopholes and is, therefore, pretty damn useless.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I frankly don't see that as any reason to consider a flawed and toothless proposal, because I think that the chances of a resolution banning guns from ever passing a vote of this Assembly rank slightly lower than those of porcine aviation.

As a nation that supports citizens rights to possess firearms, I would still like to have a resolution PROTECT my nation's laws being infringed upon, while at the same time not infringing upon the rights of other nations as their laws.



I asked you why in the seven hells we should consider a proposal so full of loopholes as to be completely useless. You still haven't answered that.
Because this protects the rights of nations who want to allow this resolution, while not infringing upon the right of nations who don't want to allow this resolution within their nation


If a nation can just decide "oh, we don't like this, so we're not going to follow it," that means your legislation accomplishes nothing.

Again...if this resolution is passed and not repelled, the UN could NEVER pass legislation BANNING the possession of firearms amongst citizens. IT PROTECTS NATIONS WHO WANT TO ALLOW GUNS FOR THEIR CITIZEN'S PROTECTION.

I'd say that accomplishes something pretty big!

What precisely is the purpose of a gun if you don't have any ammunition to use with it?

Just to clearify, this resolution will restrict the following:
Nations cannot pass legislation that would:
1. Ban citizens from possessing LESS THAN 1 firearms
2. Ban Citizens from possessing LESS THAN 1 round of ammunition
3. Ban Citizens from possessing a firearm within the confines of their legally obtained property

Does this give citizens the right to arm bears?

Well someone had to ask....

Except for the simple fact that any dictatorship in the UN, and there are quite a few, already have to comply with these resoultions, so the inclusions of them is unecessary.

Thus proving the redundancy of quoting them in CRTBA...


Mutual recognition of borders has nothing to do with laws applying to non-citizens within a country. It only defines the borders, nothing else. It has nothing to support the arguement you presented.

Upon recognizing these boarders, whenever anyone crosses into a Nation's boarders, and commits a crime of any kind *particularly for CRTBA-Gun crimes*-depending upon that nations legislation- the offender is subject to arrest and trial in the nation that they committed the offense against.

This is basically stating an assumed idea...but no longer lets it be assumed.

Basically, this resolution was quoted to define the boarders of a nation in CRTBA...even if Mutual Recognition of Boarders was to be repelled, the foundation of what CRTBA states does not become affected...

That foundation would be:
if someone commits a crime in a nation using a firearm, whether they are a citizen of your nation or not, the VIOLATED nation has the right to arrest, judge, and convict that individual.

Does this give citizens the right to arm bears?

Well someone had to ask....

Whatever a nation defines as "citizen", according to this resolution, said nation has the right to arm them. In theory, if you considered bears to be part of your definition of "citizens" in your nation, then I would assume the answer to be yes...OF course, this would also account for all resolutions in which the term "citizen" is used...

*I may have missed a resolution that defined exaclty what a "citizen" is defined as though...*

HOWEVER, "Arming bears", though still within the laughable means of freedom of humor, is not permitted in the rules of this game, and would involve said nation in re-defining exacly what they consider a "citizen"...

Whatever a nation defines as "citizen", according to this resolution, said nation has the right to arm them. In theory, if you considered bears to be part of your definition of "citizens" in your nation, then I would assume the answer to be yes...OF course, this would also account for all resolutions in which the term "citizen" is used...

*I may have missed a resolution that defined exaclty what a "citizen" is defined as though...*

HOWEVER, "Arming bears", though still within the laughable means of freedom of humor, is not permitted in the rules of this game, and would involve said nation in re-defining exacly what they consider a "citizen"...

Well, we have always regarded Bears as eligible for citizenship: In fact, over 98% of our current population is Ursine in nature...

Well, we have always regarded Bears as eligible for citizenship: In fact, over 98% of our current population is Ursine in nature...

I think I should define what this resolution really does...
CRTBA would give citizens the OPPORTUNITY to bear arms...it wouldn't actually give its citizens firearms *as that should be left up to the individual nation to decide*

Your nation would only have to allow the opportunity to your citizens to bear arms.

Whether or not it is legal or illegal for you to arm your citizens - who so happen to be bears- if more or less up to the game moderators...

However, this resolution in itself wouldn't "arm bears"...that is between individual nations and the game moderators...

Basically, this resolution was quoted to define the boarders of a nation in CRTBA...even if Mutual Recognition of Boarders was to be repelled, the foundation of what CRTBA states does not become affected...

That foundation would be:
if someone commits a crime in a nation using a firearm, whether they are a citizen of your nation or not, the VIOLATED nation has the right to arrest, judge, and convict that individual.

Unless diplomatic immunity is assumed, any crime commited by foriegn nationals can lead to arrest.

Unless diplomatic immunity is assumed, any crime commited by foriegn nationals can lead to arrest.

I don't believe diplomatic immunity is assumed. I believe there is a resolution that states the terms and conditions of diplomatic immunity-however, I may be mistaken.

However, this resolution includes more than "diplomatic officials"...it includes ALL citizens of ALL nations regardless if that individual has diplomatic immunity or not.

Obviously, if there is diplomatic immunity that is in effect, then recognized diplomats of nations would be excluded from arrest, etc...

Of course, that would again have been redundant *since we would already be under that legislation* if I quoted said resolution in CRTBA...and I don't think any of you want more redundancy in CRTBA...

Again...if this resolution is passed and not repelled, the UN could NEVER pass legislation BANNING the possession of firearms amongst citizens. IT PROTECTS NATIONS WHO WANT TO ALLOW GUNS FOR THEIR CITIZEN'S PROTECTION.

I'd say that accomplishes something pretty big!

So, we're tossing a piece of legislation around here that would try to block against something that is incredibly unlikely (i.e. a resolution banning firearm ownership actually passing, and not being repealed instantly). Said legislation accomplishes this by being poorly written and having more holes in it than a paper target after a day at the shooting range. Said legislation is also intolerable to nations such as Altanar that value their sovereignty and also hate having to waste valuable time finding ways around bad legislation so as to minimize its effects. Not to mention, said legislation also has a "bonus" attached: the fact that as soon as it passed, if it even did, there would almost certainly be a repeal effort to remove it.

All that effort, to "protect nations that allow guns for their citizens' protection" - something that's already allowed and not being infringed upon? We don't see the point. Yes, we know you want to block anyone from trying to ban guns. But we don't think that "need" is sufficient to justify enacting bad law.

Altanar would oppose this if it ever came to vote.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Altanar would oppose this if it ever came to vote.

With all else said, Irel4nd may not agree with your feelings or opinions towards this opinion, but we will fight to the death your right to possess those feelings and opinions.

I don't believe diplomatic immunity is assumed. I believe there is a resolution that states the terms and conditions of diplomatic immunity-however, I may be mistaken.

However, this resolution includes more than "diplomatic officials"...it includes ALL citizens of ALL nations regardless if that individual has diplomatic immunity or not.

Obviously, if there is diplomatic immunity that is in effect, then recognized diplomats of nations would be excluded from arrest, etc...

Of course, that would again have been redundant *since we would already be under that legislation* if I quoted said resolution in CRTBA...and I don't think any of you want more redundancy in CRTBA...

If you're going to address questions of diplomatic immunity, I would refer to the relevant UN legislation on the subject.

So, we're tossing a piece of legislation around here that would try to block against something that is incredibly unlikely (i.e. a resolution banning firearm ownership actually passing, and not being repealed instantly). Said legislation accomplishes this by being poorly written and having more holes in it than a paper target after a day at the shooting range. Said legislation is also intolerable to nations such as Altanar that value their sovereignty and also hate having to waste valuable time finding ways around bad legislation so as to minimize its effects. Not to mention, said legislation also has a "bonus" attached: the fact that as soon as it passed, if it even did, there would almost certainly be a repeal effort to remove it.

That's a rather myopic way of looking at it. The point of a drafting phase is to suggest improvements to a text- if this were already submitted, there would be a problem with that. Furthermore, the aim of the legislation is to ensure arms rights for all citizens- something that is currently lacking. To suggest that the alternative is simply outlawing all weapons is simplistic.

All that effort, to "protect nations that allow guns for their citizens' protection" - something that's already allowed and not being infringed upon? We don't see the point. Yes, we know you want to block anyone from trying to ban guns. But we don't think that "need" is sufficient to justify enacting bad law.

Then don't focus on nations that already have arms rights. Focus on those nations that don't. The United Nations has to be approached as an engine for international political change- otherwise there's no point to being a member. Ensuring arms rights and moving for social change to ensure safe and responsible applications thereof is definitely a goal I see here.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Does this give citizens the right to arm bears?

Well someone had to ask....

We tried that with limited success, as soon as the bear gets angry, he forgets the weapon and relies on his own natural means. Although we did get a bear to be good at throwing horseshoes.

We do not agree that there is an inalienable right to possess instruments that are designed purely to wound and/or kill others, and therefore see no need to debate this issue further. Opposed.

Benedictions,

Again...if this resolution is passed and not repelled, the UN could NEVER pass legislation BANNING the possession of firearms amongst citizens. IT PROTECTS NATIONS WHO WANT TO ALLOW GUNS FOR THEIR CITIZEN'S PROTECTION.

We have already pointed out that in practice it does no such thing. A proposal that banned all pistols, rifles, assault weapons and bows would not be in conflict with this proposal, for example.

With all else said, Irel4nd may not agree with your feelings or opinions towards this opinion, but we will fight to the death your right to possess those feelings and opinions.

We're thankful for that, as we'd do the same on your behalf, even if we still think this proposal would be a really bad idea.

That's a rather myopic way of looking at it. The point of a drafting phase is to suggest improvements to a text- if this were already submitted, there would be a problem with that. Furthermore, the aim of the legislation is to ensure arms rights for all citizens- something that is currently lacking. To suggest that the alternative is simply outlawing all weapons is simplistic.

With respect, we also feel that the drafting phase is also an ideal time to encourage a delegation that's about to submit something we find awful, or unacceptable, to put the brakes on before it actually gets submitted, and head it off at the pass, so to speak. That's what we're doing here. We also don't find it at all inappropriate to point out in the drafting phase that the proposal a delegation is considering submitting really doesn't do anything, and this proposal really doesn't do anything. As for the topic of arms rights, fundamentally, the government of Altanar will never find the concept of the UN "ensuring arms rights" for us to be acceptable, as we can decide that matter for ourselves and would rather let everyone else do so too. And so, we feel compelled to argue against that goal.

Then don't focus on nations that already have arms rights. Focus on those nations that don't. The United Nations has to be approached as an engine for international political change- otherwise there's no point to being a member. Ensuring arms rights and moving for social change to ensure safe and responsible applications thereof is definitely a goal I see here.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as the "international political change" being sought here, and the goal in mind, is one we simply do not accept and cannot support.

We do not agree that there is an inalienable right to possess instruments that are designed purely to wound and/or kill others, and therefore see no need to debate this issue further. Opposed.

You know, I should have just said something along those lines. We're also opposed, and we're done.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Thus proving the redundancy of quoting them in CRTBA...

If they're so redundant, WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY IN YOUR PROPOSAL?!:headbang:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This resolution did not deal with a citizens right to possess a firearm-nor do I feel that it should be changed to include such *as it should come from a completely seperarte resolution*.If is does not deal with a citizen's right to possess a firearm, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, amendments are against the Proposal rules.

"Citizens right to bear arms" recognizes that citizens of every nation need to be able to legally obtain firearms for SELF PROTECTION from tyrannical dictatorships, and violent crime.That can be claimed without referencing irrelevant legislation.

UNR #94 "plays a factor" in that it reinforces the idea that every nations citizens need to be able to protect themselves....without mentioning the means of defense. One could easily be within the spirit of 94 by outlawing everything more dangerous than baseball bats.

*UNR #94 is used as a reference, and not a foundation as to the thesis of "citizens right to bear arms"*References require relevance. The reference to 94 is padding at best; misleading at worst.

As I have already stated, placing/quoting this resolution is really actually redundant.Then it's duplication and equally against the rules.

I feel that some nations may not completely comprehend exactly what "Citizens Right to Bear Arms"I feel you are missing a few words here. Are you claiming that people won't understand what "Right to Bear Arms" means? Do you fear they will think you are referencing ursine limbs?

Would you sign a document without reading the fine print or understanding exactly what the document is saying? I didn't think so...Yes, I read contracts before signing them, but if my rental agreement has the Declaration of Independence tacked on as an appendix, I'm going to wonder what the company is thinking.

Again, none of the above UNRs deal with the issue of gun control. Rather, they are again used as a reference point to show what can happen in a tyrranical dicatorship.Likewise irrelevant. Your Proposal should set forward a brief preamble, and then get down to the actual legislative change you're trying to accomplish. Stuffing the preamble full of back references is a waste of time and space. Furthermore, it increases the chance that people will check out and not bother reading the rest. It's unnecessary, sloppy, and legally questionable.

Again, these did not have to be placed in "Citizens right to bear arms"Then they shouldn't have been.

are placed in CRTBA in order to allow nations to again, be able to understand what they are signing before they sign it one way or another...Then your Proposal is weak. Your Proposal needs to be able to stand on its own, even if all previous legislation is eliminated. By hanging its justification on so many previous Resolutions, you're hamstringing your work. Should all those Resolutions be eliminated, what justification will you have?

This AGAIN does not deal with the issue of gun control-however, when a nation passes laws on gun control, do those laws transfer over to non citizens of a nation? No...i.e. the USA and Brittain have similar laws.You're really reaching here. Mutual Recognition of Borders deals only with the physical boundaries of nation-states. It's even more irrelevant than the others.

But since when are Americans ever under the rule of Brittish Law?From 1607 until 1776? 1783 if you want to be picky.

In CRTBA, Nations are allowed to punish for gun crimes. these resolutions are what all UN nations must adhere to as it is currently.Utterly, utterly irrelevant. Those Resolutions apply to any criminal law. You might as well have added, "By the way, you can't use your guns to commit genocide (UNR #83)."

These resolutions all have something to say that is directly related to CRTBANo they don't. They're tangentially related at best.

This allows ALL nations to have a better understanding of CRTBA before they sign it.Quit being a lazy author. Make your Proposal stand on its own.

Just as a matter of national and personal preference, I'd rather not see Resolution #94 be used to bolster a pro-gun proposal.

The Federation tends to advocate that the UN make reasonable statements of broad principle rather than delving into specifics, particularly when it comes to human rights and privileges.

This proposal would venture too far into the specifics of national policy for our taste.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones