Advertisement
by Schalovaihoff » Sat May 02, 2015 6:50 pm
by Kaboomlandia » Sat May 02, 2015 6:50 pm
Schalovaihoff wrote:Yes I agree weapon trade should be watched that's what I was trying to say but we stop or regulate weapon trade but pay no attention at all to the worlds must powerful weapon I ask again how does that make sense I may not have gone about the repeal correctly and I didnt i admitt it in fact I got denied twice for bad repeal and had to stop writing them so yes I did fail but that is not what bothers me what does bother me is we ignore one thing and turn around and do the exact opposite of what we should said no to it's called hypocrite
by Schalovaihoff » Sat May 02, 2015 6:53 pm
by Nocturnalis » Sat May 02, 2015 7:05 pm
by Schalovaihoff » Sat May 02, 2015 7:22 pm
Nocturnalis wrote:It is the position of the Government of the Noctish Realm that this resolution is a complete and utter piece of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Realm shall not stand for these pathetic, weak nations attempting to undermine our economy and national pride with their disgusting resolutions. If this resolution passes, we shall immediately ignore it.
by Abazhaka » Sat May 02, 2015 8:01 pm
Schalovaihoff wrote:Nocturnalis wrote:It is the position of the Government of the Noctish Realm that this resolution is a complete and utter piece of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Realm shall not stand for these pathetic, weak nations attempting to undermine our economy and national pride with their disgusting resolutions. If this resolution passes, we shall immediately ignore it.
How do u think that I mean what is ur reasoning I see your point it might hurt ur economy but think bigger but I have to sorta agree with u this resolution seems like hypocrisy to me as u can see in past replays
by Schalovaihoff » Sat May 02, 2015 8:07 pm
by Abazhaka » Sat May 02, 2015 8:10 pm
Schalovaihoff wrote:Wel your making your point to make it seem the WA is a organization that can't get things done or fails even when they do at some level I have to agree but not in the way of they fall flat on everything. They do get things done but those things I have found no good yet so i Ma still hopeful but beginning to lose that hope
by Schalovaihoff » Sat May 02, 2015 8:19 pm
Abazhaka wrote:Schalovaihoff wrote:Wel your making your point to make it seem the WA is a organization that can't get things done or fails even when they do at some level I have to agree but not in the way of they fall flat on everything. They do get things done but those things I have found no good yet so i Ma still hopeful but beginning to lose that hope
I was not trying to indicate that the WA is incompetent, but that there seems to be a pattern of ultimately doomed proposals eating up our time and choking up the list of resolutions
by Sciongrad » Sat May 02, 2015 10:48 pm
Abazhaka wrote:Schalovaihoff wrote:How do u think that I mean what is ur reasoning I see your point it might hurt ur economy but think bigger but I have to sorta agree with u this resolution seems like hypocrisy to me as u can see in past replays
I think even if this does pass, it probably be repealed within the year, because it is unenforceable or some other reason.
by Lumeau » Sat May 02, 2015 10:58 pm
by Sokulunga Nkiwane » Sun May 03, 2015 12:14 am
by Lumeau » Sun May 03, 2015 2:01 am
Sokulunga Nkiwane wrote:THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
OUR ARMIES ARE TO FIGHT AND DESTROY THOSE WHO OPPOSE US. IF WE GIVE THEM UP WE MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP OUR NATIONS.
IF YOU HAVE STUDIED WORLD WAR 1 AND 2 YOU WILL NOTICE THAT EVERYONE WANTED DISARMAMENT AND IF THE ALLIES HAD DISARMED GERMANY WOULD HAVE ONE THE WARS.
by Oceanion » Sun May 03, 2015 2:28 am
including the parts necessary in their construction or production
by Jonmikebart » Sun May 03, 2015 10:09 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun May 03, 2015 11:25 am
Jonmikebart wrote:This treaty is nothing less than a few tree hugging hippies suggesting we give up our economies and our defence forces. Many of us here on NationStates have been trading military equipment here for many years and have encountered no problems at all, however a select few have decided to make this an issue! whats next banning of knifes or cars?
by Ardchoille » Sun May 03, 2015 12:27 pm
1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;
by Excidium Planetis » Sun May 03, 2015 4:52 pm
There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by The Sotoan Union » Sun May 03, 2015 6:21 pm
by Sciongrad » Sun May 03, 2015 8:26 pm
Ardchoille wrote:As promised, the ruling on the challenge to this proposal:1. It doesn't appear that Responsible Arms Trading has been placed in the right category as it includes elements of Gun Control, International Security, and Global Disarmament. What's more, the thrust of the proposal is not "to slash worldwide military spending." It's to regulate the arms trade, which necessitates higher spending on the part of the government.
See especially Sections 5 and 7, which are gun control regulations: universal registration with the national government, and 7a's and 7b's restrictions, which could apply to purely domestic affairs (Gun Control, not Global Disarmament).
2. Section 4 is clearly a Gun Control provision, not Global Disarmament. Also, the scope of its "exclusive right" could block off too much of the Gun Control category, thus making this proposal an illegal blocker as well.
3. Given its detailed, compulsory clauses, this proposal should be in a higher category strength than "Mild," which is usually reserved for proposals that recommend to member states certain regulations or courses of action. (E.g., we strongly encourage nations to prohibit the trade of arms for X, Y, and Z.)
4. This proposal either should be rewritten to fit a particular category or should be split into two proposals, one that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *across* national boundaries and another that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *within* national boundaries (see Section 7).1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;
That definition pretty securely pegs the general scope of the proposal to military equipment. Sections 5 and 7 both refer to "armaments" -- which, as defined, aren't the "personal guns" covered by Gun Control. Section 7 isn't limited to internal transfers, it restricts all sale or transfer of armaments in the specific cases described. The domestic registration in Section 5 is part of the restrictions on international sales and transfer. The proposal as a whole is directed to international arms decisions, not personal possession of guns.
Section 4 is a Gun Control blocker, as its author admits. But, given the exemptions, it's not an illegal blocker (see comments on scope in Strength, below), and given the expressed aims, it's not unreasonable to have some Gun Control coverage -- domestic manufacturers may not distinguish between, for example, parts of guns for military use and parts for personal use. The proposal is not primarily Gun Control, nor even half-and-half with Global Disarmament.
Category: It can be argued that it will increase military (possibly police) spending (IntSec); it can be argued that it will decrease military spending (Disarmament). These are either-way choices that nations will make on policy grounds {OOC: ie, it depends how you roleplay it]. The intent to reduce the numbers of "ïrresponsible" weapons fits well enough into the concept of Global Disarmament to leave the question to the voters.
Strength: Its ultimate effect is on the group of nations that want to sell arms to terrorists, to nations involved in wars of expropriation, etc. It could have significant effects on those nations, but it can be argued that this group is small. Again, there's enough uncertainty to leave it to the voters.
by Alacros » Sun May 03, 2015 9:56 pm
by Defwa » Mon May 04, 2015 8:47 am
Abazhaka wrote:I think that this is going to be a close one.
by Abazhaka » Mon May 04, 2015 9:41 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement