[ABANDONED] Right to Bear Arms Act

[New Hampshire Republic]

Right to Bear Arms Act (Re-purposed this thread.)

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Relax
Proposed by: New Hampshire Republic

Description: An act that, once passed, would guarantee the right to bear arms to every World Assembly member-state citizen.

ACKNOWLEDGING the restrictions of arms, placed upon by GA Resolution 235

NOTING that there is no current legislation guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the World Assembly.

AWARE that many nations already to grant their citizens the right to bear arms.

CONVINCED that an ample solution to oppressive government could be an armed populace.²

RESOLVED that citizens of World Assembly member-states shall be granted the right to bear arms.

Hereby,

1) DEFINES an "arm" as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or² defense, excluding any chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.¹

2) REQUIRES that every World Assembly member-state grants their citizens the right to bear arms, as described above.

3) PERMITS, HOWEVER the use of background checks, and psychoanalysis to test whether or not a citizen is mentally capable of bearing arms.

4) AFFIRMS that this legislation does not prohibit gun control, but only the prohibition of the right to bear arms.

¹: Edited 12/12/14, 17:32 EST
²: Edited 12/12/14, 16:07 EST

---

Suggestions, comments, and edits are greatly appreciated.

[Defwa]

Your current definition defines nuclear weapons as arms that we are required to allow our citizens to have.

Before going any further with any other threads, you should consider reading the passed resolutions and general rules and then participating on other debates in order to learn the ins and outs of the assembly and the writing process.

By "you should consider" I mean you absolutely have to do this or your ass is going to get eaten and your face will be melted.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I say this as a representative of a nation with incredibly relaxed laws regarding firearms ownership: Opposed. This is simply not an international issue."

[Chester Pearson]

Duplication of The Nuclear Security Act, as well as house of cards violation. I recommend you submit this right away, as is.....

[New Hampshire Republic]

1. Your current definition defines nuclear weapons as arms that we are required to allow our citizens to have.

2. Before going any further with any other threads, you should consider reading the passed resolutions and general rules and then participating on other debates in order to learn the ins and outs of the assembly and the writing process.

3. By "you should consider" I mean you absolutely have to do this or your ass is going to get eaten and your face will be melted.

1. Edited it to fix this little loophole.

(Holy shit, that means the U.S. constitution grants me the right to own a nuke :3)

2. Will do.

3. JESUS CHRIST

[Separatist Peoples]

1. Your current definition defines nuclear weapons as arms that we are required to allow our citizens to have.

2. Before going any further with any other threads, you should consider reading the passed resolutions and general rules and then participating on other debates in order to learn the ins and outs of the assembly and the writing process.

3. By "you should consider" I mean you absolutely have to do this or your ass is going to get eaten and your face will be melted.

1. Edited it to fix this little loophole.

(Holy shit, that means the U.S. constitution grants me the right to own a nuke :3)

2. Will do.

3. JESUS CHRIST

OOC: the US constitution has a Judicial branch to interpret the laws for practical application. The WA only has a legislative branch, which allows for member states to do some of the interpretation, but the WA also lives by the credo "the law does what the law says". Therefore, in order to create a definition of "arms" that let's nations exclude weapons like rocket launchers, tanks, and ICBMs, it needs to be tight enough to prevent nations from grouping a rifle with a missile, this circumventing your bill. Thus far, I don't think anybody has successfully circumvented that issue given the myriad of Tech levels in NS.

[Chester Pearson]

Your current definition defines nuclear weapons as arms that we are required to allow our citizens to have.

Before going any further with any other threads, you should consider reading the passed resolutions and general rules and then participating on other debates in order to learn the ins and outs of the assembly and the writing process.

By "you should consider" I mean you absolutely have to do this or your ass is going to get eaten and your face will be melted.

I personally love melting faces

[Defwa]

Your current definition defines nuclear weapons as arms that we are required to allow our citizens to have.

Before going any further with any other threads, you should consider reading the passed resolutions and general rules and then participating on other debates in order to learn the ins and outs of the assembly and the writing process.

By "you should consider" I mean you absolutely have to do this or your ass is going to get eaten and your face will be melted.

I personally love melting faces

Me too, boo

[Mundiferrum]

1) DEFINES an "arm" as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense, excluding nuclear weapons or biological agents."¹

2) REQUIRES that every World Assembly member-state grants their citizens the right to bear arms, as described above.

3) PERMITS, HOWEVER the use of background checks, and psychoanalysis to test whether or not a citizen is mentally capable of bearing arms.

4) AFFIRMS that this legislation does not prohibit gun control, but only the prohibition of the right to bear arms.

Your non-prohibition of gun control is nice, but guns aren't the only weapons that could deal a lot of damage to a heck load of people while beingin your sense of a weapon we've a right to own. There's crossbows, super-powerful enchanted weapons, plasma shooters...
Also, your definition of "arms" still isn't enough. There's chemical agents, space stations that could let fly large rods of stuff that could bombard cities and all that (I forgot what they're called, but they're just as devastating as nuclear weapons), antimatter bombs, one rings, tarnhelms... Plus, will this resolution enfore our citizens' rights to own, say, space navies, whole armies, and, well, complete jurisdiction over our laws or something (since that could also be used to attack people in the vague way you put "offense or defense")?

[Defwa]

1) DEFINES an "arm" as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense, excluding nuclear weapons or biological agents."¹

2) REQUIRES that every World Assembly member-state grants their citizens the right to bear arms, as described above.

3) PERMITS, HOWEVER the use of background checks, and psychoanalysis to test whether or not a citizen is mentally capable of bearing arms.

4) AFFIRMS that this legislation does not prohibit gun control, but only the prohibition of the right to bear arms.

Your non-prohibition of gun control is nice, but guns aren't the only weapons that could deal a lot of damage to a heck load of people while beingin your sense of a weapon we've a right to own. There's crossbows, super-powerful enchanted weapons, plasma shooters...
Also, your definition of "arms" still isn't enough. There's chemical agents, space stations that could let fly large rods of stuff that could bombard cities and all that (I forgot what they're called, but they're just as devastating as nuclear weapons), antimatter bombs, one rings, tarnhelms... Plus, will this resolution enfore our citizens' rights to own, say, space navies, whole armies, and, well, complete jurisdiction over our laws or something (since that could also be used to attack people in the vague way you put "offense or defense")?

Kinetic Bombardment, if I remember correctly. Though I think there's some kind of terminological difference between bombarding with meteors kinetically versus tungsten rods like you're describing.
Other examples of why this author is clearly unqualified for this endeavor, nations would still be required to allow their people c4, napalm, tanks, nanomachines, drones, a variety of summoned demons and monsters, electrified piranha, and Arby's.
In fact, the only thing this proposal would allow a nation to regulate is guns. Absolutely everything else has to be allowed without restriction according to this.

So yeah, that thing I said earlier about doing the stuff that would help you learn, yeah that's still important and you should do that.

[Arkiasis]

No, just no.

[The Land of Beer]

Sounds ok .. though should include nukes .. our citizens are allowed to own/use any weapons system they want ..

[New Hampshire Republic]

1) DEFINES an "arm" as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense, excluding nuclear weapons or biological agents."¹

2) REQUIRES that every World Assembly member-state grants their citizens the right to bear arms, as described above.

3) PERMITS, HOWEVER the use of background checks, and psychoanalysis to test whether or not a citizen is mentally capable of bearing arms.

4) AFFIRMS that this legislation does not prohibit gun control, but only the prohibition of the right to bear arms.

1. Your non-prohibition of gun control is nice, 2.but guns aren't the only weapons that could deal a lot of damage to a heck load of people while beingin your sense of a weapon we've a right to own. There's crossbows, super-powerful enchanted weapons, plasma shooters...
3.Also, your definition of "arms" still isn't enough. There's chemical agents, space stations that could let fly large rods of stuff that could bombard cities and all that (I forgot what they're called, but they're just as devastating as nuclear weapons), antimatter bombs, one rings, tarnhelms... Plus, will this resolution enfore our citizens' rights to own, say, space navies, whole armies, and, well, complete jurisdiction over our laws or something (since that could also be used to attack people in the vague way you put "offense or defense")?

1. I know there are a lot of *coughs* liberal countries on NS, and I wouldn't really want to say "WITH THIS, YOU CAN OWN EVERYTHING!"
2. Ah. Forgot a lot of members aren't quite MT. Do you have a suggestion for the definition?
3. ^ (The second bit)

Sounds ok .. though should include nukes .. our citizens are allowed to own/use any weapons system they want ..

Well see, I don't wanna run a proposal in saying "ANYONE CAN HAVE NUKES."

No, just no.

Please offer actual criticisms instead of three words and an emoji.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'd still very much like to hear why this is an international issue. The WA doesn't recognize the right to private property, so why should firearms be given special treatment?"

[Chester Pearson]

Sounds ok .. though should include nukes .. our citizens are allowed to own/use any weapons system they want ..

Then you are in direct violation of the Nuclear Security Convention....

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Ambassador Bell has already succinctly stated our objection to this and all proposals of its general type. The WA does not require its member states recognise a right to property. It would be bizarre to write into an international law an exception for one very specific type of property (firearms).

"Since an odd Secretariat ruling on this category, we've been trying to think of what legislation - outside of arms trafficking stuff that probably belongs in International Security - could actually work in this category. Maybe something about travellers, preventing nations from confiscating or destroying firearms when they're in transit between two jurisdictions where they're legal, such as biathletes attending sporting competitions. That's at least something notionally transnational in scope: almost nothing else that gets proposed in this category has even that modest virtue."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Chester Pearson]

Apparently protecting civilians from nuclear strikes is not a matter of international security....

[Tinfect]

"So, would you like to explain how exactly giving an untrained citizen the ability to go on a mad rampage with a firearm is acceptable?
As it is, in the Imperium, we only allow Citizens with a Military Service background to own firearms."
"In addition, your proposal does not seem to allow for a Nation to restrict the "Rights" of Criminals. I am certain we can all agree that Violent Criminals should not be allowed to obtain a firearm, at the very least."

[New Hampshire Republic]

"So, would you like to explain how exactly giving an untrained citizen the ability to go on a mad rampage with a firearm is acceptable?
As it is, in the Imperium, we only allow Citizens with a Military Service background to own firearms."
"In addition, your proposal does not seem to allow for a Nation to restrict the "Rights" of Criminals. I am certain we can all agree that Violent Criminals should not be allowed to obtain a firearm, at the very least."

((See, this is valid criticism))

"Noted. I should make changes to this document."

[Kelinfort]

"This will anger all, and please no one. Not only is your wording atrocious, but this will never pass."

[New Hampshire Republic]

What do you guys think of a right to militia? Instead of private firearms ownership, guns could be owned as a collective by a community to protect their nation and town?

It seems that one of the major problems with this is that it implies private ownership.

[Tinfect]

What do you guys think of a right to militia? Instead of private firearms ownership, guns could be owned as a collective by a community to protect their nation and town?

It seems that one of the major problems with this is that it implies private ownership.

"Absolutely not. Giving Private Citizens firearms is bad enough, but organizing them into a Vigilante group, is insane."

[New Hampshire Republic]

What do you guys think of a right to militia? Instead of private firearms ownership, guns could be owned as a collective by a community to protect their nation and town?

It seems that one of the major problems with this is that it implies private ownership.

"Absolutely not. Giving Private Citizens firearms is bad enough, but organizing them into a Vigilante group, is insane."

"Not a vigilante group, rather a group that is put into action to defend the homeland in case of a foreign invasion. This 'militia' would cut the strain on the central government's budget as well."

[Tinfect]

"Not a vigilante group, rather a group that is put into action to defend the homeland in case of a foreign invasion. This 'militia' would cut the strain on the central government's budget as well."

"I am afraid that is no better. Citizens have no place in the defense of our nation, and as it happens, our Military is quite well funded, and would find the "assistance" of untrained civilians more of a hindrance, as our soldier's highest priority in the event of an invasion is to ensure the survival of the civilians."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

What do you guys think of a right to militia? Instead of private firearms ownership, guns could be owned as a collective by a community to protect their nation and town?

It seems that one of the major problems with this is that it implies private ownership.

"Absolutely not. Giving Private Citizens firearms is bad enough, but organizing them into a Vigilante group, is insane."

Nothing about that implied that such a militia must act as a "vigilante group." If honestly regulated and soberly led, there's nothing per se wrong with non-governmental collective ownership of weapons. Within written history there have been militias that acted exclusively to ensure security against invasion when the central government was unable to do so. And under our own jurisdiction, unions and syndicates have the de facto status of militias, since their collective arsenals ensure their independence and security as a last resort in the event of government overreach or breakdown (while individual use and/or ownership of firearms is in general more limited, depending on the municipality).

All that said, I make no claims as to the general palatability of such a proposal - merely that some criticisms are unwarranted. The author will find that any proposal to do anything regarding firearms ownership and distribution will have an extremely vocal opposition.