[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"An what, pray tell, is an offensive weapon, exactly?"

any weapon not of a purely defensive or non lethal nature. a good example of defensive weapons would be stationary Anti Aircraft missile launchers, armor upgrades for vehicles, crowd control weapons, barbed wire, anti tank guns, shield generators (if such a thing exists), missile defense systems, unarmed UAV craft, radar, fortifications, and other things of this nature. where as bombers and tanks would be an example of offensive weapons. Also a degree of common sense is needed when determining the offensive or defensive nature of something.

The resolution permits transfer of arms to freedom fighters, states that are victims of aggression, and the like. So that's not a reason to vote against.

Your other concern is perplexing. What's the utility or gain to people's lives achieved by artificially cleaving an arbitrary line of definition between some things that kill people vs. other things that kill people? The pertinent factor, as always, is rather what are the goals of the actual recipients of armaments? Just because tear gas is non-lethal doesn't mean we'll sell it to just anyone; and if the recognized Free Frankish Army-In-Exile has need of tanks, why wouldn't we agree to supply them, assuming we had them to spare? This resolution is extremely careful not to step on legitimate purposes while still providing a reasonable precaution against abuse or diversion of arms sales. To the extent your concerns are not baseless, it's not truly realistic to tend to them.

[Defwa]

Voting 25 to 2 in early voting, the Democratic Socialist Assembly contributes its 62 votes for this worthy cause

[Qvait]

I would have voted in favor, until I read Section C of Article 7.

[Ardchoille]

Short version: a GHR was submitted pointing to possible illegalities sufficient to have the quorate proposal withdrawn before voting. The GHR was rejected. Will post detailed reasoning tomorrow.

[Sciongrad]

"An what, pray tell, is an offensive weapon, exactly?"

any weapon not of a purely defensive or non lethal nature. a good example of defensive weapons would be stationary Anti Aircraft missile launchers, armor upgrades for vehicles, crowd control weapons, barbed wire, anti tank guns, shield generators (if such a thing exists), missile defense systems, unarmed UAV craft, radar, fortifications, and other things of this nature. where as bombers and tanks would be an example of offensive weapons. Also a degree of common sense is needed when determining the offensive or defensive nature of something.

"That's not really a useful distinction. Terrorists and ethnic cleansers can still use defensive weapons to commit crimes against humanity. Providing genocidal lunatics with the means to defend themselves from regime changes or other forms of resistance is the same as providing them with the weapons to carry out genocide in the first place."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We support this proposal, and wish its sponsor luck."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[The Army Republic of Prussia]

A man in a military uniform stands up and says. "As the Army Republic of Prussia's biggest industry is arms manufacturing, we will be voting against this. We will not stifle our biggest industry with meaningless paperwork and closed markets just because there is a chance that some arms might end up in a warring country. In addition if a country had lost land in a previous war, and is tiring to regain it through war, can no one supply them arms to reclaim it's rightful land and people?"

[Sciongrad]

OOC: This is wrong. You're either unwilling to understand what the clause actually means because you're ideologically opposed or you simply don't understand what I've been telling you. Please take another good read of what we've already gone over. If you still can't understand, then I'll try and explain it again. Unless, of course, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, in which case I'd really prefer it if you stopped.

This is not wrong. You stated it's the nation's government to determine "reason to suspect". A nation determine what constitutes "reason to suspect" for itself. You can keep saying it is wrong, but it is not. "Reason to suspect" is subjective even in the legal world.

No, I stated that governments are responsible for determining if a reason to suspect exists, not what constitutes a reason to suspect. This whole nonsense that a nation can decide what a "reason to suspect" means is a ridiculous product of your own imagination, not anything that can be found in the text, and certainly not anything I've said.

[Abazhaka]

I would like to state that even if this proposal passes, you can always pull a Russia and say you 'know nothing about it'when confronted with breaking this resolution.

[Kaboomlandia]

I would like to state that even if this proposal passes, you can always pull a Russia and say you 'know nothing about it'when confronted with breaking this resolution.

I am not even sure what this means. Do yourself a favour and read the stickies at the top of the forum, particularly the "Rules and General Advice" one.

[Abazhaka]

okay

[United Provinces of Low-Lying Nations]

This is Irrational my countries entire economy is based off of foreign arms trades along with those of other countries the arms sales shouldn't be limited the mere thought of this is unreasonable!

[Vandario]

this seems like a lot of unreasonable paperwork for guns

[Kaboomlandia]

this seems like a lot of unreasonable paperwork for guns

It makes sense. Clause 7 bans the use of selling guns to countries who will use them for something untoward.

[Vandario]

this seems like a lot of unreasonable paperwork for guns

It makes sense. Clause 7 bans the use of selling guns to countries who will use them for something untoward.

way I see it, once you sell the guns, their sold that person can do whatever they want with them, good or ill, because now its THEIR guns, if what they do is bad, well then don't sell guns to them again or, if they already had a bad rep, should have known better took a risk and it back fired, can't determine what people do with the thing you sold them, it'd be like selling some kid a toy and say "you can ONLY play with it this way" once you sell it, its out of your hands, they determine what to do with it, for good or ill, if ill can always shoot them back and kill them.

[LeaveAlone]

On one hand, our military wishes to pursue galactic conquest. On the other, this doesn't restrict us from creating weapons for defensive, recreational, or occupational purposes, just offensive.

The Principality of LeaveAlone, after much internal debate, wishes to extend it's full support of this resolution, provided member nations adhere to the exemplary goodwill and understanding (in terms of conflict) this resolution puts forwards.

_____

It makes sense. Clause 7 bans the use of selling guns to countries who will use them for something untoward.

May wish to do a double take; this resolution restricts the sale of weapons, in general, for those purposes period, regardless of weather it's an internal or external sale.

_____

way I see it, once you sell the guns, their sold that person can do whatever they want with them, good or ill, because now its THEIR guns, if what they do is bad, well then don't sell guns to them again or, if they already had a bad rep, should have known better took a risk and it back fired, can't determine what people do with the thing you sold them, it'd be like selling some kid a toy and say "you can ONLY play with it this way" once you sell it, its out of your hands, they determine what to do with it, for good or ill, if ill can always shoot them back and kill them.

It asks you to take responsibility for the use of weapons you sell, and suggests you monitor what people use your weapons for. If you sell it to someone who then uses the weapon for the wrong reasons, it entitles you to take action against those individuals for the purpose of taking those arms back, so the act doesn't tarnish your nation's good name.

[Kaboomlandia]

It makes sense. Clause 7 bans the use of selling guns to countries who will use them for something untoward.

way I see it, once you sell the guns, their sold that person can do whatever they want with them, good or ill, because now its THEIR guns, if what they do is bad, well then don't sell guns to them again or, if they already had a bad rep, should have known better took a risk and it back fired, can't determine what people do with the thing you sold them, it'd be like selling some kid a toy and say "you can ONLY play with it this way" once you sell it, its out of your hands, they determine what to do with it, for good or ill, if ill can always shoot them back and kill them.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the seller still has a responsibility to keep those guns out of the wrong hands.

[Vandario]

way I see it, once you sell the guns, their sold that person can do whatever they want with them, good or ill, because now its THEIR guns, if what they do is bad, well then don't sell guns to them again or, if they already had a bad rep, should have known better took a risk and it back fired, can't determine what people do with the thing you sold them, it'd be like selling some kid a toy and say "you can ONLY play with it this way" once you sell it, its out of your hands, they determine what to do with it, for good or ill, if ill can always shoot them back and kill them.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the seller still has a responsibility to keep those guns out of the wrong hands.

yes, but you can't always, black markets, and free will always make sure the hands that want them, get them, weather those hands are good or not, sell you a handgun today, and 5 years from now, its in the hands of a robber, or a militant terrorist member, guns will ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands eventually

[Jarish Inyo]

This is not wrong. You stated it's the nation's government to determine "reason to suspect". A nation determine what constitutes "reason to suspect" for itself. You can keep saying it is wrong, but it is not. "Reason to suspect" is subjective even in the legal world.

No, I stated that governments are responsible for determining if a reason to suspect exists, not what constitutes a reason to suspect. This whole nonsense that a nation can decide what a "reason to suspect" means is a ridiculous product of your own imagination, not anything that can be found in the text, and certainly not anything I've said.

Actually, its not a ridiculous product of my imagination. What a nation constitutes a reason to suspect determines if a reason of suspect exists for said nation. What nation A believes is reason to suspect may not be the same as nation B. Reason to suspect is subjective to the individual that makes the decision at that time.

[Abazhaka]

I personally think part of diplomacy is supplying weapons, even if they may be used for bad.

[Kaboomlandia]

I personally think part of diplomacy is supplying weapons, even if they may be used for bad.

Diplomacy is the negotiation and prevention of war. Supplying weapons to subversive groups is not diplomacy.

[Nouvel Acadie]

Our nation is shocked that this intrusive resolution has garnered as much support as it has, and wishes to rise to announce that regardless of the WA rules, this nation will refuse to abide by its terms.

[Abazhaka]

I personally think part of diplomacy is supplying weapons, even if they may be used for bad.

Diplomacy is the negotiation and prevention of war. Supplying weapons to subversive groups is not diplomacy.

I mean as a bargaining tool like "I'll sell you a tank brigade you've been requesting if you promise to support my attempts to overthrow the dictator of a country next to you, whom is offering to sell you only 2 helicopters if you support him." and you know said country will use weapons to invade a small neighbor, but that dictator is an existential threat. would that be acceptable?

[Schalovaihoff]

I voted yes to this resolution because I want a more peaceful world but when I tried to repeal the nuclear arms possession act no one cared about peace then I see how that works stop weapons from being traded but stop the most dangerous weapons from being made how does that make sense a lot of people are voting yes for this I am one like I said but I was lead to the impression no one wanted to stop weapons i was strongly discouraged to not repeal the nuclear arms possession act and again those are the strongest weapons out there

[Kaboomlandia]

I voted yes to this resolution because I want a more peaceful world but when I tried to repeal the nuclear arms possession act no one cared about peace then I see how that works stop weapons from being traded but stop the most dangerous weapons from being made how does that make sense a lot of people are voting yes for this I am one like I said but I was lead to the impression no one wanted to stop weapons i was strongly discouraged to not repeal the nuclear arms possession act and again those are the strongest weapons out there

You tried to repeal NAPA?
Sorry, ambassador, that's just kind of a common response for me. I voted "for" on this resolution (through my puppet) because I believe that the trade of dangerous materials (in this case arms) should be regulated/ When you tried to repeal NAPA, it likely failed because you didn't really go about it the right way. I said on that discussion that even if NAPA was repealed, nations would still be allowed to possess and use nuclear weapons.

OOC: Please use punctuation in your post.