[DRAFT] Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms Act

[Meritocratic States]

Defend it as much as you want, but your country is in violation of several GA Resolutions. Nothing will change that.

But this off the subject of this draft, back to your topic.

Hilda Thorstein,
Representative for the High Commissioner of the Delegation of the Meritocratic States in the World Assembly.

My final statement on this matter is this, we cannot honor both the law of God and the law of the WA at the same time because of the WA's many violations of moral decency. We in Molsona hold the law of God to a high standard and WA law is nothing more than a pitiful abomination compared to the law of the Lord. Now getting back to the draft, does anyone have any further suggestions?

Yes, as a matter of fact, you ignored several suggestions from the delegates here.

Hilda Thorstein,
Representative for the High Commissioner of the Delegation of the Meritocratic States in the World Assembly.

[New Molsona]

1. We don't persecute gays, we treat them like any other person with a mental disability (According to the Molsonian Department of Health, homosexuality is a mental disability, but that's a debate for another time)

1. Not the topic of the thread.

2. According to our constitution, multiple WA resolutions are violations of the human rights outlined in Article 4 such as the right to life, the right to separation from non-believers, etc.

2. Not the topic of the thread. (And the second one is not a right)

3. If this draft passes, maybe my nation will consider one of these "rights" you people always whine about. Maybe civil unions can be permitted by individual districts (states).

3. Do I really need to say it again?

I'm trying to fix the loopholes, you could be trying to help.

4. That would require confidence on my part that you would listen. You've repeatedly ignored advice, not-so-subtly accused me of hating logic, and continued to maintain that gun ownership is a right despite no evidence backing this up.

1. I know, that's why I said "but that's a debate for another time"
2. According to our constitution, it is a right
3. Say what again?
4. Show me what you got.

[New Molsona]

My final statement on this matter is this, we cannot honor both the law of God and the law of the WA at the same time because of the WA's many violations of moral decency. We in Molsona hold the law of God to a high standard and WA law is nothing more than a pitiful abomination compared to the law of the Lord. Now getting back to the draft, does anyone have any further suggestions?

Yes, as a matter of fact, you ignored several suggestions from the delegates here.

Hilda Thorstein,
Representative for the High Commissioner of the Delegation of the Meritocratic States in the World Assembly.

No I didn't

[Ammar]

The Chez of Ammar stands next to an open door.

"You know, Ammar left the WA to continue military research that would be illegal under WA law. I suggest you to do the same for your own sake."

[West Angola]

2. According to our constitution, it is a right

Cool, no one else recognizes it as such. (And again, not the topic of the thread)

3. Say what again?

That homosexuality/abortion are not the topics of this thread.

4. Show me what you got.

What? Multiple ambassadors have advised you thus far. Examples: Here, Here, Here, and Here, most notably.

[The Republic of Mattlandia]

OOC: This is still in draft? I thought everyone pretty much stopped after like, everyone either got warned or banned.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: This is still in draft? I thought everyone pretty much stopped after like, everyone either got warned or banned.

OOC:
New Molsona got banned for a week from forums, and this week is over. And obviously, if you see the disparity in timing it is him who restarted the thread, which should be the case.

But as said - I don't support this bill at all. Not just because I'm against people controlling what the hell I want to do with EnE, but also because the wording is so poor in this reso draft it's probably holier (aka holey-er, not holy-er) than Swiss cheese bitten by mice.

I probably would suggest that NM try practicing writing reso and reading more of the passed resolution to get a sense of it rather than risk sounding completely extreme and foolish as many have proclaimed him to be (and may be right in that aspect, too).

And keep your ears open and try to be understanding. WA works by convincing people, not forcing your way through. There's no filibuster or whatever in what... oh, that place called... "America"? that you can hold other people to your own wishes.

You don't want to incur the wrath of the Pacific delegates which probably hold about 1k-2k votes together.

[Separatist Peoples]

RECOGNIZING a persons right to own a firearm of reasonable strength

DEFINES firearm as a barreled weapon that uses an explosive propellant to fire one or more projectiles at one time

DEFINES reasonable strength as the amount of strength required to effectively disarm or subdue it's target

NOTING that this civil right is often intruded on

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

SEEKING to make it possible for citizens to protect themselves from those who wish to do them unprovoked harm

SEEKING to protect citizens from tyrannical governments who wish to cause undue harm to aforementioned citizens

MANDATES that all nations must allow their citizens, of whom are deemed able to do so, to own firearms

DEFINES 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

DEFINES the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

DOES NOT require member nations to allow assault weapons or automatic weapons

DEFINES 'assault weapon' as a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

RECOMMENDS that all nations have laws to encourage safe and responsible use of firearms

This is a new revision. Your thoughts and suggestions?

Why is this here? If a nation wants to deep the severely handicapped as able, why shouldn't that be their prerogative? As I see it, the inclusion of this statement is just to justify New Molsonan oppression of homosexuals, as it has previously been declared that New Molsona treats homosexuals as individuals suffering from a mental illness.

And I don't see this as off-topic, ambassador, because it deals with a fundamental issue of discrimination apparent by both your previous arguments and the very text of your proposal.

Additionally, in no way has this international body ever guaranteed the right of an individual to own property, due probably to the existence of pure and complete socialistic societies within our organization. Why, then, are firearms magically placed into a category of greater importance compared to other forms of property?

Finally, I have yet to see how being disallowed ownership privileges of a firearm constitutes an issue of international importance, or even the category of a human right. The rights to privacy, speech, assembly, marriage, and emigration fall under the category of Human Rights because these things are rights that people deserve by nature of being a person. Property, either the right to own such or the property itself, is not something which anybody deserves by nature of being a person.

[New Molsona]

RECOGNIZING a persons right to own a firearm of reasonable strength

DEFINES firearm as a barreled weapon that uses an explosive propellant to fire one or more projectiles at one time

DEFINES reasonable strength as the amount of strength required to effectively disarm or subdue it's target

NOTING that this civil right is often intruded on

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

SEEKING to make it possible for citizens to protect themselves from those who wish to do them unprovoked harm

SEEKING to protect citizens from tyrannical governments who wish to cause undue harm to aforementioned citizens

MANDATES that all nations must allow their citizens, of whom are deemed able to do so, to own firearms

DEFINES 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

DEFINES the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

DOES NOT require member nations to allow assault weapons or automatic weapons

DEFINES 'assault weapon' as a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

RECOMMENDS that all nations have laws to encourage safe and responsible use of firearms

This is a new revision. Your thoughts and suggestions?

Why is this here? If a nation wants to deep the severely handicapped as able, why shouldn't that be their prerogative? As I see it, the inclusion of this statement is just to justify New Molsonan oppression of homosexuals, as it has previously been declared that New Molsona treats homosexuals as individuals suffering from a mental illness.

And I don't see this as off-topic, ambassador, because it deals with a fundamental issue of discrimination apparent by both your previous arguments and the very text of your proposal.

Additionally, in no way has this international body ever guaranteed the right of an individual to own property, due probably to the existence of pure and complete socialistic societies within our organization. Why, then, are firearms magically placed into a category of greater importance compared to other forms of property?

Finally, I have yet to see how being disallowed ownership privileges of a firearm constitutes an issue of international importance, or even the category of a human right. The rights to privacy, speech, assembly, marriage, and emigration fall under the category of Human Rights because these things are rights that people deserve by nature of being a person. Property, either the right to own such or the property itself, is not something which anybody deserves by nature of being a person.

1. Homosexuals is classified as a class 1 mental disability and those with disabilities under that category are allowed to own guns.
2. That clause doesn't ban nations from allowing the mentally handicapped from owning guns, it just gives them the choice to not allow these people to own guns.
3. "Why, then, are firearms magically placed into a category of greater importance compared to other forms of property?"
Does that mean that muslims don't have the right to own korans? Looks like I'm free to burn korans of muslim tourists in Molsona or the korans owned by muslims in a territory occupied by them that was obtained through combat.

[New Molsona]

If anyone has a suggestion for the term 'assault weapon' they would be greatly recommended. Pointing out problems without offering solutions does not help me, I'm not a gun expert.

[Chester Pearson]

If anyone has a suggestion for the term 'assault weapon' they would be greatly recommended. Pointing out problems without offering solutions does not help me, I'm not a gun expert.

It I snout our job to fix it..... It is yours as the author. Besides, you have been told NOBODY wants this yet you continue with it anyway.

[New Molsona]

If anyone has a suggestion for the term 'assault weapon' they would be greatly recommended. Pointing out problems without offering solutions does not help me, I'm not a gun expert.

It I snout our job to fix it..... It is yours as the author. Besides, you have been told NOBODY wants this yet you continue with it anyway.

I will not sit idly by while injustices that this draft is designed to prevent occur. You can help me, or leave.

[West Angola]

Does that mean that muslims don't have the right to own korans? Looks like I'm free to burn korans of muslim tourists in Molsona or the korans owned by muslims in a territory occupied by them that was obtained through combat.

What a massively irrelevant and unhelpful straw man. Guns. Not Qu'rans.

[New Molsona]

Does that mean that muslims don't have the right to own korans? Looks like I'm free to burn korans of muslim tourists in Molsona or the korans owned by muslims in a territory occupied by them that was obtained through combat.

What a massively irrelevant and unhelpful straw man. Guns. Not Qu'rans.

Korans are property, guns are also property. It's not irrelevant, it was an example used to explain something.

[Chester Pearson]

It I snout our job to fix it..... It is yours as the author. Besides, you have been told NOBODY wants this yet you continue with it anyway.

I will not sit idly by while injustices that this draft is designed to prevent occur. You can help me, or leave.

So you freely admit your government refuses to follow WA law, yet you are going to attempt to force law on the rest of us? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.... But, by all means... continue to press forward with this.... We will have a blocker in place to prevent this, before THIS is ever ready....

[New Molsona]

I will not sit idly by while injustices that this draft is designed to prevent occur. You can help me, or leave.

So you freely admit your government refuses to follow WA law, yet you are going to attempt to force law on the rest of us? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.... But, by all means... continue to press forward with this.... We will have a blocker in place to prevent this, before THIS is ever ready....

It is impossible for us to follow any WA law that offends God. This resolution will not violate the laws of any religion. As I have said before, we are willing to increase our compliance with WA laws if this resolution passes. Until then, we will continue to violate your WA law.

[Dooom35796821595]

So you freely admit your government refuses to follow WA law, yet you are going to attempt to force law on the rest of us? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.... But, by all means... continue to press forward with this.... We will have a blocker in place to prevent this, before THIS is ever ready....

It is impossible for us to follow any WA law that offends God. This resolution will not violate the laws of any religion. As I have said before, we are willing to increase our compliance with WA laws if this resolution passes. Until then, we will continue to violate your WA law.

You clearly fail to grasp the difference between the laws in your nation, and WA resolutions. You see the WA is like gravity, you can fight it all you want but you can never deify it. (Unless you resign)

[New Molsona]

It is impossible for us to follow any WA law that offends God. This resolution will not violate the laws of any religion. As I have said before, we are willing to increase our compliance with WA laws if this resolution passes. Until then, we will continue to violate your WA law.

You clearly fail to grasp the difference between the laws in your nation, and WA resolutions. You see the WA is like gravity, you can fight it all you want but you can never deify it. (Unless you resign)

Really, then explain how we constantly defy WA law.

[Bananaistan]

The government of Bananaistan wonders why the Federation of New Molsona remains a member of the WA when so much of international law is so anathema to their "values".

In any case, Bananaistan strongly opposes this resolution on its own merits. We do not agree with almost complete legalisation of gun ownership. Our people are quite happy that only the defence forces and specialist units of the peace force may carry guns in public while lawful private usage of guns is only extended to those who use them for sports and/or hunting and then only with an annually renewed licence, while maintaining membership of a licensed gun club, and only one of a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms may be owned per individual. We could not agree with any resolution forcing us further deregulate gun ownership within our territory.

[West Angola]

Really, then explain how we constantly defy WA law.

It. Is. In. Your. Factbook.

Korans are property, guns are also property. It's not irrelevant, it was an example used to explain something.

Qu'rans don't kill people. Your example is an unfounded excuse to attack Muslims.

[New Molsona]

Really, then explain how we constantly defy WA law.

1. It. Is. In. Your. Factbook.

Korans are property, guns are also property. It's not irrelevant, it was an example used to explain something.

2. Qu'rans don't kill people. Your example is an unfounded excuse to attack Muslims.

1. Exactly
2. Neither do guns. Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. By the way, the koran advocates the "killing of infidels".

[Arklland]

1. It. Is. In. Your. Factbook.


2. Qu'rans don't kill people. Your example is an unfounded excuse to attack Muslims.

1. Exactly
2. Neither do guns. Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. By the way, the koran advocates the "killing of infidels".

1.Why not just resign from the WA then?
2.People with guns do kill people. People without guns cannot commit gun crime

[New Molsona]

The government of Bananaistan wonders why the Federation of New Molsona remains a member of the WA when so much of international law is so anathema to their "values".

In any case, Bananaistan strongly opposes this resolution on its own merits. We do not agree with almost complete legalisation of gun ownership. Our people are quite happy that only the defence forces and specialist units of the peace force may carry guns in public while lawful private usage of guns is only extended to those who use them for sports and/or hunting and then only with an annually renewed licence, while maintaining membership of a licensed gun club, and only one of a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms may be owned per individual. We could not agree with any resolution forcing us further deregulate gun ownership within our territory.

We stay in the WA because we do not wish to back down and allow the liberal take over of the world to continue. If racial minorities in America just left when their rights were being denied, think about what America would be be like today. Conservatives are a political minority in the WA, and we refuse to back away from our oppressors.
“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.” - Nelson Mandela

[New Molsona]

1. Exactly
2. Neither do guns. Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. By the way, the koran advocates the "killing of infidels".

1.Why not just resign from the WA then?
2.People with guns do kill people. People without guns cannot commit gun crime

1. Read the statement I just made regarding that same question
2. On 9/11 3,000 people were killed, the World Trade Center was brought down, and America was plunged into an ongoing war. No guns were involved.

[Curlywurlyia]

The government of Bananaistan wonders why the Federation of New Molsona remains a member of the WA when so much of international law is so anathema to their "values".

In any case, Bananaistan strongly opposes this resolution on its own merits. We do not agree with almost complete legalisation of gun ownership. Our people are quite happy that only the defence forces and specialist units of the peace force may carry guns in public while lawful private usage of guns is only extended to those who use them for sports and/or hunting and then only with an annually renewed licence, while maintaining membership of a licensed gun club, and only one of a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms may be owned per individual. We could not agree with any resolution forcing us further deregulate gun ownership within our territory.

We stay in the WA because we do not wish to back down and allow the liberal take over of the world to continue. If racial minorities in America just left when their rights were being denied, think about what America would be be like today. Conservatives are a political minority in the WA, and we refuse to back away from our oppressors.
“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.” - Nelson Mandela

What about the followers of other religions/homosexuals in your country which you are oppressing? Their rights are being denied by your refusal to comply with WA legislation.