NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly,

Here is the revised draft of "The Right to Bear Arms" resolution following suggestions from fellow and respected ambassadors as through the Forums.

This is a second, and revised copy.

For those who don't know, I welcome any and all criticism or support or any thoughts whatsoever in regard to this document.

Please advise,

Thank you.

The Ambassador of Kazimar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings to the members of the World Assembly,

INTRODUCTION:

This Document is one of significant consequence, to both the Civilian and the State. The right to bear arms, a right that some nations follow and some don't. A right, some nations are unsure about, or completely ignore. It is the right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly, that citizens should have. The right to bears arms is as follows:

"A person may, at his own expense, any or all expenses, choose, by his/her own inalienable right, to purchase, keep, use, sell, reserve, and/or withhold any type of weaponry limited to standard armament laws, (E.G. No WMDs, No ICBM's, etc. [Unless with Government Approval]) at his/her own home, any property owned by him/her, and/or at any home or property sanctioned by, with permission of, the immediate owner of the vicinity."

In Short, a person may buy, own, and/or sell, any weapon within the limits of the law, and keep his/her weapon at any location owned by himself/herself, or at any place with permission of the immediate owner.

The Laws of Concealed weaponry is entirely up to the pending Nation and will not be discussed here.

THE RIGHTS OF THIS AGREEMENT PLACED UNTO THE NATIONS OF THE WA:

This agreement has only 5 sections to it which shall be imposed unto WA member Nations if passed.

1. Any person over the age of the pending nation’s majority shall be able to purchase, own, and/or sell any weapons within limiting law of the Nation.

2. Any person over the age of the pending nation’s majority may at his/her own choice, carry, those said weapons, into public, whilst in view and not concealed, depending on the host Nation's Governmental law.

3. Any person over the age of the pending nation’s majority may NOT carry a weapon into any place whilst it conflicts with the will and rules of the immediate owner of the said place, unless by overruling power of law enforcement and other government agents.

4. Any person over the age of the pending nation’s majority may use weaponry in self-defense, and even so, may be subject to Trial at Court to determine if the use was legitimate. That said person may also use weaponry to hunt with proper licenses and only in hunting areas as allowed per the Government and it’s regulations.

5. With the purchasing, owning, and selling of weaponry, a person over the age of the pending nation’s majority may also purchase, own, and sell ammunition for any weaponry legalized with this agreement. (E.G. A person may not own Uranium-235 unless given permission from the Government.)

CONCLUSION:

Again, it is a person's right as a man and as a citizen of any given nation, to be able to exercise his/her right as a human being to purchase, own, or sell weaponry within legal limits.

I ask only that we allow anyone over the age of the pending nation’s majority to exercise his/her natural right, and to know that it is within the law to do so. I am not suggesting by means of this resolution that you to take away or give anything to the Nations of the WA, I am only, by terms stated in this resolution, suggesting that you allow your citizens to take hold of a right that is by nature so his/hers.

Thank you for your time, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

clause 1: says "within the laws of the nation". what if the nation has banned guns for civilians? this resolution wouldn't do anything about it. it wouldn't secure the right to bear arms.

also, you fail ever to define guns and/or weaponry.

as for the age issue, glad you mad changes however i would recommend you change it to "...Any person over the age of maturity as defined in this resolution. (define mature.)

"It is the right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly, that citizens should have. The right to bears arms is as follows:" again, this isn't a speech. take out the ladys and gents part. make it more of a proposal and not a speech.


also no need for a conclusion. this isn't a essay. you don't have to restate or re-enforce anything. its' all said and can be revised at any time.

take off the last sentence too. it's not fit for a proposal. basically, you don't give a speech when reading a book. that's what i'm trying to get at.

Wachichi

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13880955&postcount=16

this is a already passed world resolution. it's not AMAZINGLY WRITTEN, but try to follow a similar format.

Wachichi

What, exactly, is the point of pronoun tokenism if you are going to conclude on the following sentiment: 'it is a person's right as a man and as a citizen of any given nation'. I move this proposal be retitled the Metal Penis Enhancement Act of 2008.

I should also probably tell you that you misspelled 'bear arms' in your first paragraph.

Finally, I find it sick that you are restricting people from owning bioweapons. Possession of weapons of mass destruction is an alienable right of all people. Or rather, it's not, but given you've given absolutely no justification for proliferating small arms in post-conflict zones, we may as well do the full monty.

-- Samantha Benson
Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

This still has all the same flaws as the previous version, in that it's large wodges of essay surrounding six laws (two in one bullet point) that are so badly written as to have zero effect. I'd vote against it anyway purely for the hubris of the opening paragraph ("Here is a question I admit is complex, but I'm going to ram my answer down your throat anyway. Have a nice day"), but I could live with something that useless.

I think the law is amazing but do you think its fair on others? I personally would vote against this ridiculous sugestion.!

We would concur with the noble Ambassador Coch of Gobbannium in all details and would urge that if the authors of this resolution are intent on bringing it to vote they remove the polemical sections of it which are unnecessary ( and offensive to some ), however since the operative sections of this resolution would allow the Empire of Urgench to completely ban personal civilian possession of firearms and similar weapons without licence we would urge only cosmetic change of a grammatical nature to the rest.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We will not support a resolution that cheapens the idea of inalienable human rights by including the ownership of weaponry among them, even if it is worded so as to have no effect whatsoever.

Now why would i want to give guns to my people. The military and police forces do fine being the only ones with guns.

Your plan sounds both fair and balanced. It also has just enough loopholes to ruthlessly exploit (a definition of "weapons" would help your cause).

I feel that it should not be up to the international community to allow or disallow the use of guns by citizens of other countries. Instead, I feel it is up to those specific countries to decide whether or not their citizens should have weapons.

The United Socialist States of Abal

I feel that it should not be up to the international community to allow or disallow the use of guns by citizens of other countries. Instead, I feel it is up to those specific countries to decide whether or not their citizens should have weapons.

The United Socialist States of Abal

Exactly, whether or not a nation allows it's citizens to possess firearms should be left up to that nation to decide and the WA should just butt out.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative