[DRAFT] Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms Act

[Ikania]

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

That's not the point. I'm a Catholic, and while we needn't go into the personal views of myself or my staff here, there are many more...creative solutions to these issues than straight noncompliance, which is illegal and distasteful.

Barring that, I would suggest that the Ambassador and his nation could always leave this Assembly.

Yeah. Not to sound mean or anything, but you seem to have a problem with compliance, and you're trying to force something on the Assembly that nobody wants. If you want to do what you want, resign. Why are you still in?

[Athenoi]

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

That's not the point. I'm a Catholic, and while we needn't go into the personal views of myself or my staff here, there are many more...creative solutions to these issues than straight noncompliance, which is illegal and distasteful.

Barring that, I would suggest that the Ambassador and his nation could always leave this Assembly.

We have been trying to have him do this for a while now. This bill, like the last one is doomed to fail.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Just to point out what many already have: if you hate the WA for being "too liberal" and disagee with much of it, I do not know why you simply do not resign and save everyone, including yourself, a lot of time and trouble.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

This last clause is largely irrelevant to the proposal. Please remove it.


That's not what they're condemning you for, they're condemning you for noncompliance with GA resolutions, which is mandatory.

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

Your god is not something that everyone believes in. Not being persecuted, however, is something that everyone likes. If you want to make your country a happy, moral, upstanding, christian land, where anybody that doesn't fit into your norm is used as a tree ornament, be our guest. But do not, ever, presume you have the right to impose your cruelty and malice on the people of other nations. You are despicable, and your resolution will fail. Your ideology, no matter how hard you believe it to be true, is yours, not ours. Keep it to yourself, and out of International law.

We 'evil child murdering liberals', as you put it, aren't saying you don't have the right to murder your own people, or cause them misery in any of the other ways your insane agenda does, we're saying that it's our right to not have limitations put on the way we govern our nations if we don't want them. Make your own people miserable, oppressed, or dead. Not ours.

[Ikania]

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

Your god is not something that everyone believes in. Not being persecuted, however, is something that everyone likes. If you want to make your country a happy, moral, upstanding, christian land, where anybody that doesn't fit into your norm is used as a tree ornament, be our guest. But do not, ever, presume you have the right to impose your cruelty and malice on the people of other nations. You are despicable, and your resolution will fail. Your ideology, no matter how hard you believe it to be true, is yours, not ours. Keep it to yourself, and out of International law.

We 'evil child murdering liberals', as you put it, aren't saying you don't have the right to murder your own people, or cause them misery in any of the other ways your insane agenda does, we're saying that it's our right to not have limitations put on the way we govern our nations if we don't want them. Make your own people miserable, oppressed, or dead. Not ours.

Seconded.

[New Molsona]

using a gun is the best and most effective method of defending yourself.

Really? Since when?

"He told me I was fat, officer, so instead of categorically defending myself with words, I shot him in the face!"

"Seems in order, ma'am, that was clearly the best way to defend yourself in this situation."

A bit overdone, but it highlights the point made by the Honorable Ambassador from Rotwood, using deadly force is not always the appropriate method of defense.

When I say defending yourself, I mean defending oneself from physical harm intentionally brought upon by an unprovoked attacker.

[New Molsona]

It gets to ban pro-life governments

1. I see nothing wrong about stopping discrimination, but I don't think that there are any abortion laws which make WA member nations legalise abortion.

using a gun is the best and most effective method of defending yourself.

These are imaginary statistics in the NS world. Remember that crimes may happen on the street, away from guns or at home while a resident is away. I do not see the need to make guns more accessible, especially as the proposal does nothing to ensure proper gun training.

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

Can we take the abortion issue somewhere else, please? I would HAPPILY participate in a debate over this.

1. viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923
2. I will add a gun training clause to the proposal
3. TG me

[New Molsona]

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

That's not the point. I'm a Catholic, and while we needn't go into the personal views of myself or my staff here, there are many more...creative solutions to these issues than straight noncompliance, which is illegal and distasteful.

Barring that, I would suggest that the Ambassador and his nation could always leave this Assembly.

I'm sorry, but we can not watch idly by as morals are stricken out in the name of political correctness. Non-compliance is our only option besides allowing the brutal murder of unborn children.

[Rotwood]

Which is already covered in WAR #183, making it duplicitous, though arguably the use of firearms for self defence could be subject to criminal action due to being greater than the reasonable strength benchmark in the aforementioned passed resolution

using a gun is the best and most effective method of defending yourself.

Only if you shoot first, and on the condition that the attacker is using a gun too. Tazers, mace, swords, knives, blunt objects such as sporting bats, martial arts are all adequate forms of defense in the case of the attacker not having a gun, whereas using a gun in that situation would be grossly excessive.

But if they do have a gun, it is under the stated condition that you shoot first. Gunshot, as a defence, seems to be inadequate when the attacker has already killed other people when there is the option to stop their access to guns in the first place (and please, don't even start on the "only criminals will have guns" rhetoric. If you can't secure your borders and control gun access, that is your problem). Your logic in regards to this situation is the same as that of Mutually Assured Destruction (If both sides have it, it will be less likely to be used), but the fatal flaw, as with MAD, is that it only takes one idiot to say "screw it" and pull the trigger.

[Kelinfort]

1. I see nothing wrong about stopping discrimination, but I don't think that there are any abortion laws which make WA member nations legalise abortion.


These are imaginary statistics in the NS world. Remember that crimes may happen on the street, away from guns or at home while a resident is away. I do not see the need to make guns more accessible, especially as the proposal does nothing to ensure proper gun training.


Can we take the abortion issue somewhere else, please? I would HAPPILY participate in a debate over this.

1. viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923
2. I will add a gun training clause to the proposal
3. TG me

I believe he meant on demand abortion.

[Athenoi]

That's not the point. I'm a Catholic, and while we needn't go into the personal views of myself or my staff here, there are many more...creative solutions to these issues than straight noncompliance, which is illegal and distasteful.

Barring that, I would suggest that the Ambassador and his nation could always leave this Assembly.

I'm sorry, but we can not watch idly by as morals are stricken out in the name of political correctness. Non-compliance is our only option besides allowing the brutal murder of unborn children.

This is not about abortion or dead children. Move on!

[Alqania]

Really? Since when?

"He told me I was fat, officer, so instead of categorically defending myself with words, I shot him in the face!"

"Seems in order, ma'am, that was clearly the best way to defend yourself in this situation."

A bit overdone, but it highlights the point made by the Honorable Ambassador from Rotwood, using deadly force is not always the appropriate method of defense.

When I say defending yourself, I mean defending oneself from physical harm intentionally brought upon by an unprovoked attacker.

"You mean something like this?" Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. He then picked up the Molsonan Ambassador by the waist, carried him over to the window and promptly proceeded to defenestrate him. "Oh right, I suppose that was not actually 'unprovoked' though", the Marquess added in hindsight.

[New Molsona]

I'd prefer a SC condemnation to one from God which would result from us allowing the brutal murder of unborn children or marriages that are unnatural.

Your God is not something that everyone believes in. Not being persecuted, however, is something that everyone likes. If you want to make your country a happy, moral, upstanding, Christian land, where anybody that doesn't fit into your norm is used as a tree ornament, be our guest. But do not, ever, presume you have the right to impose your cruelty and malice on the people of other nations. You are despicable, and your resolution will fail. Your ideology, no matter how hard you believe it to be true, is yours, not ours. Keep it to yourself, and out of International law.

We 'evil child murdering liberals', as you put it, aren't saying you don't have the right to murder your own people, or cause them misery in any of the other ways your insane agenda does, we're saying that it's our right to not have limitations put on the way we govern our nations if we don't want them. Make your own people miserable, oppressed, or dead. Not ours.

1. Everyone in this nation came here to seek freedom from the non-Christians
2. If we allow non-Christians, our morals will go down the drain
3. Execution is illegal in Molsona as of 1/1/14
4. The author of "On Abortion" is trying to force their cruelty towards children on our nation.
5. #DoubleStandard

[New Molsona]

When I say defending yourself, I mean defending oneself from physical harm intentionally brought upon by an unprovoked attacker.

"You mean something like this?" Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. He then picked up the Molsonan Ambassador by the waist, carried him over to the window and promptly proceeded to defenestrate him. "Oh right, I suppose that was not actually 'unprovoked' though", the Marquess added in hindsight.

It was unprovoked, and by the way, this is our ambassador, good luck picking him up.

[Meritocratic States]

When I say defending yourself, I mean defending oneself from physical harm intentionally brought upon by an unprovoked attacker.

"You mean something like this?" Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. He then picked up the Molsonan Ambassador by the waist, carried him over to the window and promptly proceeded to defenestrate him. "Oh right, I suppose that was not actually 'unprovoked' though", the Marquess added in hindsight.

Resting her chin on her palm, Representative Thorstein watched Lord Raekevik defenestrate the Molsonian Ambassador and laughed.

[Ammar]

*takes off glasses*

New Molsona, how long did you spend writing and editing before posting?

Also, isn't claiming moral superiority a sin?

[New Molsona]

using a gun is the best and most effective method of defending yourself.

Only if you shoot first, and on the condition that the attacker is using a gun too. Tazers, mace, swords, knives, blunt objects such as sporting bats, martial arts are all adequate forms of defense in the case of the attacker not having a gun, whereas using a gun in that situation would be grossly excessive.

But if they do have a gun, it is under the stated condition that you shoot first. Gunshot, as a defence, seems to be inadequate when the attacker has already killed other people when there is the option to stop their access to guns in the first place (and please, don't even start on the "only criminals will have guns" rhetoric. If you can't secure your borders and control gun access, that is your problem). Your logic in regards to this situation is the same as that of Mutually Assured Destruction (If both sides have it, it will be less likely to be used), but the fatal flaw, as with MAD, is that it only takes one idiot to say "screw it" and pull the trigger.

If you say you nation is able to keep guns out completely, thats godmodding

[New Molsona]

*takes off glasses*

New Molsona, how long did you spend writing and editing before posting?

Also, isn't claiming moral superiority a sin?

OOC: I was away from my computer

[Athenoi]

"You mean something like this?" Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. He then picked up the Molsonan Ambassador by the waist, carried him over to the window and promptly proceeded to defenestrate him. "Oh right, I suppose that was not actually 'unprovoked' though", the Marquess added in hindsight.

Resting her chin on her palm, Representative Thorstein watched Lord Raekevik defenestrate the Molsonian Ambassador and laughed.

Continuing to write on her gPad, Myrtis chuckled. "If this were to pass, a Citizen could kill you for that. Even throwing someone out a window carries lessons."

[Bodobol]

Only if you shoot first, and on the condition that the attacker is using a gun too. Tazers, mace, swords, knives, blunt objects such as sporting bats, martial arts are all adequate forms of defense in the case of the attacker not having a gun, whereas using a gun in that situation would be grossly excessive.

But if they do have a gun, it is under the stated condition that you shoot first. Gunshot, as a defence, seems to be inadequate when the attacker has already killed other people when there is the option to stop their access to guns in the first place (and please, don't even start on the "only criminals will have guns" rhetoric. If you can't secure your borders and control gun access, that is your problem). Your logic in regards to this situation is the same as that of Mutually Assured Destruction (If both sides have it, it will be less likely to be used), but the fatal flaw, as with MAD, is that it only takes one idiot to say "screw it" and pull the trigger.

If you say you nation is able to keep guns out completely, thats godmodding

It's not godmodding any more than your ability to apparently stop every single abortion since 1993.

But neither of them are because you're only referring to your own nations. If you were referring to another nation and deciding their statistics, that's godmodding.

[Artstotszka]

1. Everyone in this nation came here to seek freedom from the non-Christians
2. If we allow non-Christians, our morals will go down the drain
3. Execution is illegal in Molsona as of 1/1/14
4. The author of "On Abortion" is trying to force their cruelty towards children on our nation.
5. #DoubleStandard

While it is okay for you to do what you want in your country, do not try to force your morals and laws on our country, much less the entire WA. this law was already defeated in the WA, so stop trying to bring it to vote again only a few days after its defeat by a large margin ( 9,008 votes against compared to 2,178 votes for)

-Ambassador to the WA for Artstotszka, Alina Bazhenov

[Rotwood]

Only if you shoot first, and on the condition that the attacker is using a gun too. Tazers, mace, swords, knives, blunt objects such as sporting bats, martial arts are all adequate forms of defense in the case of the attacker not having a gun, whereas using a gun in that situation would be grossly excessive.

But if they do have a gun, it is under the stated condition that you shoot first. Gunshot, as a defence, seems to be inadequate when the attacker has already killed other people when there is the option to stop their access to guns in the first place (and please, don't even start on the "only criminals will have guns" rhetoric. If you can't secure your borders and control gun access, that is your problem). Your logic in regards to this situation is the same as that of Mutually Assured Destruction (If both sides have it, it will be less likely to be used), but the fatal flaw, as with MAD, is that it only takes one idiot to say "screw it" and pull the trigger.

If you say you nation is able to keep guns out completely, thats godmodding

Weaponisation: -119
Arms manufacture: -3

Stats, not godmodding

[West Angola]

1. Everyone in this nation came here to seek freedom from the non-Christians

How elitist of you.

2. If we allow non-Christians, our morals will go down the drain

Yes, those icky immoral Jews and Buddhists will certainly wreck your nation.

3. Execution is illegal in Molsona as of 1/1/14

Glad to hear it. Yet you still seek to allow citizens to kill each other with guns...

4. The author of "On Abortion" is trying to force their cruelty towards children on our nation.

"On Abortion" is a reflection of the author's attempt to provide what they consider a human right. Gun ownership is not a human right in any sense of the word.

5. #DoubleStandard

The West Angolan Ambassador coughs, cleans his glasses, then coughs again, "Ambassador, did you just use the word "hashtag" in a General Assembly debate?"

[The Republic of Mattlandia]

If you say you nation is able to keep guns out completely, thats godmodding

Weaponisation: -119
Arms manufacture: -3

Stats, not godmodding

That would mean I have even less guns than you.

[Rotwood]

Weaponisation: -119
Arms manufacture: -3

Stats, not godmodding

That would mean I have even less guns than you.

OOC: Still gets me how you can have less than zero in either category, but meh