NationStates Jolt Archive


Attorney General Curtis Fabus "Guns Kill" (Calls for World Gun Control)

Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 04:51
Speaking via the White Peoples Radio and Television Network, rebroadcast to most of the world via international media corporations, Attorney General Curtis Fabus had the following to say.




"Firearms are an abomination, they are far too readily available in the societies of the world today. Each year millions are killed in crime, terrorist attacks, and civil wars, largely as the result of the massive proliferation of firearms and light weapons in the nations of the world. Criminal organizations around the world are financing the trade in arms throughout the world to gain money to fund their civil wars and other terrorist operations."


"Anything that we do to limit the availability of firearms in our nations will make our children safer. How many children must die before the gun nuts get the message, people may kill people, but people with guns can kill lots more people. Nowhere in the world will people be safe until our streets our rid of firearms designed for nothing other than to kill."


"I myself am a devoted sportsman and collector of antique and hunting style firearms, but I can safely say I am totally against the private ownership of assault style weapons and military firearms being in the hands of non-military personnel."


"What can I do too help?” You may ask… Well, you can present statistics from studies down by the Project for a New Mississippian Century, and the Mississippian Attorney General's office, to your fellow citizens. You can buy time on the air; indeed I'll buy the time for you, just get the word out. Guns have to go!"


"I would like to clarify, not all guns are inherently bad and should be banned, but any rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine should be banned, any rifle with an integral magazine that can accept more than five rounds should be banned, pistols should be totally banned. As for shotguns, double barrels only, what hunter needs to take dozens of shots at one animal? I never needed more than one shot per animal, practice makes perfect. But we cannot and must not allow our citizens to be held hostage to fear, we must see gun control measures on the global level to prevent nations with lax laws from suffering from smugglers setting up shops there to smuggle to nations with strict laws."

"Therefore, I propose that nations of the world sign a treaty to enact the "Sensible World Gun Control Act of 2005"


1) No civilian (non-law enforcement, non-armed forces) shall be in possession of or attempt to procure, a pistol of any sort, a shotgun capable of holding more than two rounds, or a rifle that can either accept a detachable magazine or hold more than 5 rounds in an integral magazine.

2) All weapons banned under this treaty will be turned into or collected by an international coalition for orderly disposal to prevent their falling into the wrong hands.

3) All Armor piercing (steel core, depleted uranium, tungsten core, etc) ammunition is banned for civilian possession.

4) Night Vision, laser sights, and thermal vision, goggles and scopes will be banned for civilian possession.

5) Rocket Propelled weaponry, silencers, fully automatic weapons, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns (Sawed-off) will be banned from civilian possession.

6) Explosives, grenades, flamethrowers, and other incendiary devices will be banned from private possession.

7) Mortars and artillery will be banned from civilian possession.

8) Chemical, Nuclear, and Biological weapons will be banned from civilian possession.

9) Body armor and armored vehicles will be banned from civilian possession unless they have no convictions for violent crimes or crimes involving recognized organized crime organizations on their record.

10) Parts that enable rapid conversion of legal weapons into illegal weapons are banned from civilian possession.

11) All weapons not covered in this, low-capacity rifles, double barrel shotguns, must be registered and license and a national and international database of gun owners will be maintained.


Signatories

1) Ninjalonia
Camel Eaters
08-12-2004, 04:59
We can not support this action because our Youth Korps have need of such firearms training before they join a regional militia or the military. Although this decree is certainly interesting we also refuse to sign it because of who it's coming from. Sorry Curtis we don't trust anything you say.

Knight Prominent
Mannzheim Garzivonni
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 05:16
We can not support this action because our Youth Korps have need of such firearms training before they join a regional militia or the military. Although this decree is certainly interesting we also refuse to sign it because of who it's coming from. Sorry Curtis we don't trust anything you say.

Knight Prominent
Mannzheim Garzivonni


Secret:

To: Mannzheim

From: Roger Fabus

"This is not a decree, I make the policy in my nation, me, not my father. This is just basically an opinion piece of his. It will NEVER be implemented in Mississippi."
Iuthia
08-12-2004, 05:17
Several men had gathered in the dark war room situated somewhere deep below Iuthia Prima, it was a large room designed for multiple uses such as planning attacks, secret meetings and on the odd occasion... poker. In the middle of the room was a large round table with green felt making the top of it feel smooth. In the background a large tactical screen could be seen for all people seated at the table to view during planning.

"Call"

Mick lay down is five cards on the table; three aces and a pair of twos. The other four Iuthians in the room cringed as three of them dropped their hands face down. The last person, the only woman in the room, had already folded and wasn't in the game... she had a bad deal from the start.

"Read them and weep guys; a full house." The Foriegn Minster then pulled the mediocre pile of casino chips towards him. Mick wasn't winning over all, but he had pulled back some of the fake money he had lost.

Business was often too dull for Mick these days, when he was younger he had a habit of taking every matter very seriously; calling meeting with the best advisors in the land and generally making a huge fuss over the smallest of problems. However, these days he found other ways of doing business, having a informal game of poker while talking about the security of the nation may have seemed rather irresponsible to some, but it helped his some of staff to relax while they talked about problems both large and small... though the former was farley rare these days as Iuthia was a rock of stability.

"So what do you guys make of this latest move by Mr. Fabus? We could tell them that we've already banned weapons among Iuthia's populace, though I couldn't really see any benefit in supporting this."

One of the other men across the table shrugged, he wasn't really needed here but they needed some more players for a good game of poker. General Turgidson was a relatively stout man who wasn't about to hold back his opinion.

"No doubt the stupid bastards have another plan up their sleave, I've listened to this man in the past and he's not the type of General who likes to dance among the flowers and support world peace. It's probably a move to increase their profile in the International community while using the laws to further oppress their people, making sure that all the power is in their hands." he smirked a little. "Not that it really matters, I mean lets face it, who wants the man on the street secretly harbouring an AK-74?"

The others around the table nodded, there were many good reasons for keeping weapons illegal in Iuthia. Due to the lack of crime rate it helped to ensure people didn't have the tools needed for murder, not that it stopped them. It also meant that accidents didn't happen and generally it was concidered pointless to keep them in circulation. The police and military use weapons as part of their jobs, if civilians want to fire a gun they can do a little training over the weekend at the right places designed for it.

"Fair enough comment, Buck. I don't really want to support this man anyways, he doesn't really seem to understand the realities of the international community and it would be best to leave him to hang himself."

He then started to deal out the next round of cards...
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 05:21
Ooc- A little known fact outside of most government agencies in Mississippi is that Curtis Fabus has the largest privately held gun collection in Mississippi and probably the world. Over 500,000 firearms of various types, brands, calibers, etc. Glocks, AK-47s, AKMs, AKS, AKS-74U, M-14, M-16, muzzle-loaders, brown bess, kentucky rifle, Colt 1911 A1, Walther PPK, etc.
Camel Eaters
08-12-2004, 05:24
Secret Response
To: Czar Roger Fabus
From: Mannzheim Garzivonni

Good to see that. I may be unable to aggree with your political position but I can still aggree with your morals, eh?
Itinerate Tree Dweller
08-12-2004, 05:25
"No. We will not support this." -Emperor Erik Kersk-



edit: typo :P
Camel Eaters
08-12-2004, 05:26
Ooc- A little known fact outside of most government agencies in Mississippi is that Curtis Fabus has the largest privately held gun collection in Mississippi and probably the world.
ooc: Nice.
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 05:27
"No. We will support this." -Emperor Erik Kersk-



"Great."


Attorney General Curtis Fabus
Ronius Vigilantes
08-12-2004, 05:33
Though its motives are excellent, I propose fewer restrictions. Simply ban all guns which can fire more than 5 rounds per second, all automatic weapons, all shotguns except for hunting purposes, all long range rifles except for hunting purposes, and require a liscense to own any one type of gun. Simply make the liscense hard to obtain. No violent acts on criminal record, 300 credits per liscense, etc. I am assuming that none of these apply to the military.

So, though it has clearly intelligent motives, I cannot sign this treaty.
A Few Rich People
08-12-2004, 05:46
We of the Mikosolf Corporation agree, keeping guns out of the hands of the ignorent masses prevents many problems. And thought we have never allowed non millitary or law enforcement personal to have weapons of any sort we feel that making our intentions known to the international community can only boost relations.
Hawdawg
08-12-2004, 05:58
Impose law on your own people however you would like ban weapons, heck make them all ride bicycles to work we don't mind. Just remember when you throw the word "world" into the sentence everything changes. You have no right to tell my citizens what they can or can't have period. Don't tread on others rights to rule how they see fit. Please also do not involke the old tired UN portion of this arguement either. They do not have the right to tell anyone what to do in there own country. The UN is a toothless alligator that has only enough force to decide what color the little patches each members token military force will wear on their sleeves when performing "peace keeping" assignments.
Ninjalonia
08-12-2004, 06:20
The Holy Empire of Ninjalonia will back this treaty. Guns are an abomination that should be eradicated from this earth.
Vichy France
08-12-2004, 06:51
"Curtis Fabus has shown a grave mis-understanding of civilian ownership of weaponry. While a police state with total control can keep weapons out of the hands of the dangerous, though such control often leads to more deaths than it prevents, such bannings only keep weapons out of regular people's hands, and not criminal's ones.

Vichy French citizens are allowed to own any gun at or under 12,7mm in calibre, with the exception of heavy machine guns and snipers of that calibre(MG's being limited to 5,56, or in the case of snipers, hunting loads.). Our restrictions are not based on appearance, ammo capacity, lethality, etc. The only weapons banned are ones that have no capability to serve a purposeful civilian duty, and those are locked up in city safe's, where they can be taken out in time of war."
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 06:59
"Curtis Fabus has shown a grave mis-understanding of civilian ownership of weaponry. While a police state with total control can keep weapons out of the hands of the dangerous, though such control often leads to more deaths than it prevents, such bannings only keep weapons out of regular people's hands, and not criminal's ones.

Vichy French citizens are allowed to own any gun at or under 12,7mm in calibre, with the exception of heavy machine guns and snipers of that calibre(MG's being limited to 5,56, or in the case of snipers, hunting loads.). Our restrictions are not based on appearance, ammo capacity, lethality, etc. The only weapons banned are ones that have no capability to serve a purposeful civilian duty, and those are locked up in city safe's, where they can be taken out in time of war."


Secret To Vichy France

"Our citizens are allowed to own anything, such as Stingers, SAMS, tanks, even tactical nuclear bombs. These law suggestions are just intended to disarm other nations citizens, as we feel they might be terrorists in their population."

Curtis Fabus
Vichy France
08-12-2004, 07:07
Secret To Vichy France

"Our citizens are allowed to own anything, such as Stingers, SAMS, tanks, even tactical nuclear bombs. These law suggestions are just intended to disarm other nations citizens, as we feel they might be terrorists in their population."

Curtis Fabus

Secret to DA

"We see no real terrorist threats from anywhere. We have never had, and never expect to have, a terrorist attack with more than 50 deaths altogether, and that one attack that did reach that point was a very bad failure of our intelligence agency."

President Jean Dimanche.
Mattikistan
08-12-2004, 10:56
"A ban on firearms has been in effect here since before you were born, Fabus. We enforce this, one of our most important laws, most thoroughly -- bear that in mind should any of your citizens decide to visit.
"Though, we have no intention of throwing our support behind anything that you or any other member of your family regurgitates onto the radio, given your past, present and future behaviour.

"In fact I would go so far as to criticise what you really intend to accomplish here -- for example, clause 2) says to prevent them 'falling into the wrong hands'; would you consider your hands to be the wrong hands?

"Given the fact that neither you nor the person who actually holds any power have any intention of implementing such a policy in your own nation, I must question the reasoning behind such a hypocritical idea. An idea of which the entire purpose seems to be purely to fuel your own paranoid attempts to infringe on the sovereignty of others -- sovereignty our own people fought a 1,000 year war to retain, and would zealously defend it again."

Prime Minister Jack Daniels
Elected Representative of the Confederacy

I appreciate your affection for your father, but how long are you going to allow him to spew garbage into the International community? He seems to do little but alienate your nation even more than it already was, a feat I previously thought impossible.
The Canadian Union
08-12-2004, 13:32
This law is, to be frank, a bunch of cock. Fabus, in most democractic societies, the right to bear arms is protected. I do not see why this needs to be changed.

I'm proud to say that, in East Canada, we have a world-class gun control system, thus, we have little gun crime, even though, per capita, our citizens own twice as many guns as most other nations.

This is another example of mad little Curtis trying to dictate to society. I'd advise you all to ignore this.

Cordially,
Colin Graves
Prime Minister of East Canada
The Phoenix Milita
08-12-2004, 14:58
*secretly adds signatories to list of countries which would be easy to occupy*
Iuthia
08-12-2004, 15:30
OOC: Pfft... seriously, I think the difference between a society policies on guns isn't going to have too much affect on the occupation. If they are that desperate they will aquire weapons one way or another, at best you could be looking at the length of time it would take for resistance forces to actually build up enough military stength to become a threat.

Though the real issue is getting to the stage where you are actually occupying something in the first place... which is often very hard when you are talking about well connected nations. Allowing people to have guns or not shouldn't really make a difference during an invasion, though I suppose like said above it would make some difference when we come to resistance from the people in the form of 'terrorism'. In the actual invasion itself any civilian outside of their house with a gun will probably be shot as a unlawful combatant. They wouldn't be too hard to take down either because a gun-nut isn't a match for a soldier, who is trained constantly to react instantly.

So meh, a nations policy on guns is such a minor issue when it comes to defence. In order for a nation to concider arming it's people as additional defence they have to concider their military too weak to defend themselves.
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 15:50
This law is, to be frank, a bunch of cock. Fabus, in most democractic societies, the right to bear arms is protected. I do not see why this needs to be changed.

I'm proud to say that, in East Canada, we have a world-class gun control system, thus, we have little gun crime, even though, per capita, our citizens own twice as many guns as most other nations.

This is another example of mad little Curtis trying to dictate to society. I'd advise you all to ignore this.

Cordially,
Colin Graves
Prime Minister of East Canada


Ooc- We have 20 guns per person, on average, giving us about 20 billion privately owned guns. Gun crime is unknown, totally unknown except for a few murders which are the "spur of the moment" type things. Anyway, we have basically no gun laws, except racial and citizenship considersations as to what people can and cannot have weapons in our lands.
Ghargonia
08-12-2004, 15:53
OOC: Pfft... seriously, I think the difference between a society policies on guns isn't going to have too much affect on the occupation. If they are that desperate they will aquire weapons one way or another, at best you could be looking at the length of time it would take for resistance forces to actually build up enough military stength to become a threat.

Though the real issue is getting to the stage where you are actually occupying something in the first place... which is often very hard when you are talking about well connected nations. Allowing people to have guns or not shouldn't really make a difference during an invasion, though I suppose like said above it would make some difference when we come to resistance from the people in the form of 'terrorism'. In the actual invasion itself any civilian outside of their house with a gun will probably be shot as a unlawful combatant. They wouldn't be too hard to take down either because a gun-nut isn't a match for a soldier, who is trained constantly to react instantly.

So meh, a nations policy on guns is such a minor issue when it comes to defence. In order for a nation to concider arming it's people as additional defence they have to concider their military too weak to defend themselves.

OOC: Indeed. Look at Britain; they've banned firearms, and they have one of the most advanced armies in the world. Even if someone managed to successful invade them and beat off their allies in Europe and the United States, it wouldn't exactly be a hard thing for them to find weapons of their own after a short period of time.
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 15:53
OOC: Pfft... seriously, I think the difference between a society policies on guns isn't going to have too much affect on the occupation. If they are that desperate they will aquire weapons one way or another, at best you could be looking at the length of time it would take for resistance forces to actually build up enough military stength to become a threat.

Though the real issue is getting to the stage where you are actually occupying something in the first place... which is often very hard when you are talking about well connected nations. Allowing people to have guns or not shouldn't really make a difference during an invasion, though I suppose like said above it would make some difference when we come to resistance from the people in the form of 'terrorism'. In the actual invasion itself any civilian outside of their house with a gun will probably be shot as a unlawful combatant. They wouldn't be too hard to take down either because a gun-nut isn't a match for a soldier, who is trained constantly to react instantly.

So meh, a nations policy on guns is such a minor issue when it comes to defence. In order for a nation to concider arming it's people as additional defence they have to concider their military too weak to defend themselves.



Ooc- This ignores the fact that many "Gun nuts" in the USA are ex-service, current militia, some are even ex-special forces, and they train in paramilitary camps in their militia units. So there is always the danger (From an occupiers viewpoint) that they'd form guerilla bands.
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 15:57
OOC: Indeed. Look at Britain; they've banned firearms, and they have one of the most advanced armies in the world. Even if someone managed to successful invade them and beat off their allies in Europe and the United States, it wouldn't exactly be a hard thing for them to find weapons of their own after a short period of time.



Ooc- Personally what if the armies invading, they beat back allies and such, well for the English people, there'd be little time for them to even think about acquiring weapons to resist, because it'd be camps for the lot of them. Everybody gets put into a camp until their loyalty can be assured through re-education. Those that can't be re-educated would be killed. How do you resist the initial drive to round-up cities and put people into camps? Acquiring weapons takes time. And if you've never shot a gun before, especially a military style one (How many englishman can say they know how to shoot and maintain an M-16, AK-47, etc)
Ghargonia
08-12-2004, 16:02
Ooc- Personally what if the armies invading, they beat back allies and such, well for the English people, there'd be little time for them to even think about acquiring weapons to resist, because it'd be camps for the lot of them. Everybody gets put into a camp until their loyalty can be assured through re-education. Those that can't be re-educated would be killed. How do you resist the initial drive to round-up cities and put people into camps? Acquiring weapons takes time. And if you've never shot a gun before, especially a military style one (How many englishman can say they know how to shoot and maintain an M-16, AK-47, etc)

OOC: I was talking about RL... not NS. No potential enemy nation in real life has the resources to round up every single person in England AFTER defeating the entire British army, as well as the European and American armies that would almost certainly step in.
So far as firearms are concerned, banning them and getting rid of them are two different things. There are a number of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons floating about on the black market. I'm sure a few foreigners would send some help even after being beaten back in the initial attack.
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 16:06
OOC: I was talking about RL... not NS. No potential enemy nation in real life has the resources to round up every single person in England AFTER defeating the entire British army, as well as the European and American armies that would almost certainly step in.
So far as firearms are concerned, banning them and getting rid of them are two different things. There are a number of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons floating about on the black market. I'm sure a few foreigners would send some help even after being beaten back in the initial attack.


Ooc- I am talking RL as well. A determined foe could easily round up every citizen in England, or at least restrict their movement to particular areas of the cities, the immediate few blocks they live in.
Iuthia
08-12-2004, 16:07
OOC - Firstly, they are the experienced few. You're not going to have alot of ex-servicemen who are still at military level. Some of them may be experienced, but their skills with have deminished from not fighting/training for some time. Like I said, it may counter as a factor in the future occupation, but it wouldn't be so significant that a government would concider arming their people for that perpose alone as the government would have to lack confidence in it's military.

My main point is that most governments don't think so little of their military to actually concider arming their people in order to have a last line of defence. It's not a major issue in my mind.

Actually, nevermind... it's like talking to Allanea.
Ghargonia
08-12-2004, 16:12
Ooc- I am talking RL as well. A determined foe could easily round up every citizen in England, or at least restrict their movement to particular areas of the cities, the immediate few blocks they live in.

OOC: After defeating most of the most powerful militaries in the modern world on the grounds of one of their most important allies, assuming they even reached Britain in the first place, I don't know of any RL nation that could possibly accomplish a nation-wide policy such as that; China has the manpower, but I doubt they have the resources. Or the willpower, actually; they'd probably go for America or Europe proper first.
Even an alliance of Middle-Eastern or Far-Eastern nations would have trouble, assuming Britain's allies pulled away completely and never attempted a counter-attack.
Ilek-Vaad
08-12-2004, 16:19
The Minister of Foreign Affairs had just put the finishing touches on his 'waste paper basket-basket ball hoop' , he was now prepared to deal with the various transcripts of Curtis Fabus' transmissions via radio and television.

He began crumbling and pitching the transcripts one at a time, he paused and smiled at his assistant.

"Give it a try Alec, it's a good way to relax."

Alec grinned and looked over the transcripts as he handed them to the Minister.

"Who the deuce is Curtis Fabus anyhow? He seems to make a totally irrelevant, uninformed statement a day and then get into name calling matches woth other world leaders, why does his government allow this?"

The Minister frowned as he missed the basket.

"I believe that he is the former Czar of Decisive Action, his son, the current Czar apparently hates him and enjoys watching the old goat make a complete and total ass of himself, so he gave him a government position with plenty of media coverage."

Sir Alec nods "Ah-ha."

OOC: yup, I'm bored ;)
Kahta
08-12-2004, 19:43
We will never restrict rights to our people this much.

King MacDonald
Decisive Action
08-12-2004, 21:51
We will never restrict rights to our people this much.

King MacDonald




Secret:

To: King Sam

From: Curtis Fabus


"These laws are not to be implemented in Mississippi or Kahta, only in others lands. We want to get people to ban guns from their own people, all the while we arm our own people up even better."
Doomingsland
08-12-2004, 22:04
Official Imperial Response

We find this treaty to be a joke, and will continue to have the compulsory ownership of fully automatic high powered weapons, and still allowthe procurment of tanks, attack helicopters, and every type of firearm.