[ABANDONED] Right to Bear Arms Act

[New Hampshire Republic]

"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.

"Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Ambassador, and I do realize that that would face massive opposition."

[The Arctic Congregation]

In recognizing that firearms may be a useful tool in such areas as the agricultural sector, the Arctic Congregation would be willing to support this Act, on two conditions: first, the removal, as per s. 1, of the definition of an "arm" as a "means of offense". Labeling an arm as a tool to be used offensively could create ambiguity in the purpose of this Act and of firearms in general, which is the defense of property and life. The international community would never support or condone an Act that seemingly justifies the use of firearms to instigate violence. Second, the definition of an arm in s. 1 is rather non-specific and should be expanded to bar all weapons of mass destruction from inclusion under this Act. In keeping with this idea, the definition could restrict the meaning to only include portable, small-arms guns, meaning barreled, tubular weapons intended to discharge ammunition. World Assembly member nations could add to this definition separately in their domestic legislatures if they so choose.

Should our honourable colleagues of the New Hampshire Republic conform to our request, they may count on the Arctic Congregation's support of this Act.

On a side note, we recommend the removal from the preamble the statement: "CONVINCED that an ample solution to oppressive government could be an armed populace." Although this provision does not have binding force, it has the effect of ideologically isolating member nations with its "extremism".

[New Hampshire Republic]

In recognizing that firearms may be a useful tool in such areas as the agricultural sector, the Arctic Congregation would be willing to support this Act, on two conditions: first, the removal, as per s. 1, of the definition of an "arm" as a "means of offense". Labeling an arm as a tool to be used offensively could create ambiguity in the purpose of this Act and of firearms in general, which is the defense of property and life. The international community would never support or condone an Act that seemingly justifies the use of firearms to instigate violence. Second, the definition of an arm in s. 1 is rather non-specific and should be expanded to bar all weapons of mass destruction from inclusion under this Act. In keeping with this idea, the definition could restrict the meaning to only include portable, small-arms guns, meaning barreled, tubular weapons intended to discharge ammunition. World Assembly member nations could add to this definition separately in their domestic legislatures if they so choose.

Should our honourable colleagues of the New Hampshire Republic conform to our request, they may count on the Arctic Congregation's support of this Act.

On a side note, we recommend the removal from the preamble the statement: "CONVINCED that an ample solution to oppressive government could be an armed populace." Although this provision does not have binding force, it has the effect of ideologically isolating member nations with its "extremism".

"We see your issue with the Act, and we agree that the term "offense" should be omitted. We also agree that the definition is vague."

[Tinfect]

"Reading once more over the Proposal, I find a great many more issues, one in particular stands out;"

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

"Of course, you realize that many nations in this Assembly are "Oppressive", and would not take kindly to having their regime overthrown.
Besides that, there is of course that this bit of the draft makes not exceptions for any, more advanced forms of weaponry.:"

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

"As it happens, I do not see any reason why a Citizen should be allowed to own a T13 Anti-Structure Railgun. Or, a more conventional "Machine Gun", or a Hand Grenade, or any number of other weapons."

[New Hampshire Republic]

"Reading once more over the Proposal, I find a great many more issues, one in particular stands out;"

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

"Of course, you realize that many nations in this Assembly are "Oppressive", and would not take kindly to having their regime overthrown.
Besides that, there is of course that this bit of the draft makes not exceptions for any, more advanced forms of weaponry.:"

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

"As it happens, I do not see any reason why a Citizen should be allowed to own a T13 Anti-Structure Railgun. Or, a more conventional "Machine Gun", or a Hand Grenade, or any number of other weapons."

You're first problem has been edited, matey.

"That is a valid rebuttal. However, what if your nation is to be invaded, and citizens would favor to defend their community, rather than idly sit by and watch foreign intruders march down their Main Street?"

[Tinfect]

"...However, what if your nation is to be invaded, and citizens would favor to defend their community, rather than idly sit by and watch foreign intruders march down their Main Street?"

"Well then, if you are willing to excuse the language, Tough Shit. It is not their job to be getting in the way of our trained military, especially not if they can wave around Special Issue Weapons."

[New Hampshire Republic]

"...However, what if your nation is to be invaded, and citizens would favor to defend their community, rather than idly sit by and watch foreign intruders march down their Main Street?"

"Well then, if you are willing to excuse the language, Tough Shit. It is not their job to be getting in the way of our trained military, especially not if they can wave around Special Issue Weapons."

"You would rather have your citizenry be persecuted/jailed/executed/etc, than give them the ability to defend themselves? And your response is 'tough shit?'

[Tinfect]

"You would rather have your citizenry be persecuted/jailed/executed/etc, than give them the ability to defend themselves? And your response is 'tough shit?'

"This response assumes that we would lose the conflict, even in such a situation, the first priority of our soldiers, is to see the civilians out of the area. In the event we lose, there would be few citizens left, and yes, to them, Tough Shit. They avoided our Evacuation Teams, and deserve to be captured. If they want to defend themselves, Sign up for the Garrison. They do not get to wave about private firearms."

[New Hampshire Republic]

"You would rather have your citizenry be persecuted/jailed/executed/etc, than give them the ability to defend themselves? And your response is 'tough shit?'

"This response assumes that we would lose the conflict, even in such a situation, the first priority of our soldiers, is to see the civilians out of the area. In the event we lose, there would be few citizens left, and yes, to them, Tough Shit. They avoided our Evacuation Teams, and deserve to be captured. If they want to defend themselves, Sign up for the Garrison. They do not get to wave about private firearms."

"So you're saying that some of your own people, those who choose to live in your nation, 'deserve to be captured?'

"We apparently have differing morals, and I won't take the moral high ground, but good God!"

[Tinfect]

"So you're saying that some of your own people, those who choose to live in your nation, 'deserve to be captured?'

"We apparently have differing morals, and I won't take the moral high ground, but good God!"

"It is likely those captured had either evaded our evacuation teams, or refused to cooperate with them. In either case, they are no longer our problem."

EDIT/OOC: Oh god, I seem to have killed the entire GA. I'm so sorry.

[Bare Arms]

I don't think I can quite bring myself to agree to this.
After all, all of my citizens are armed, and that gives me an enormous advantage over nations without over two billion gun toting, brainwashed, militaristic patriots.
Can't have everyone else thinking it might be a good idea now, can I?

[New Hampshire Republic]

I don't think I can quite bring myself to agree to this.
After all, all of my citizens are armed, and that gives me an enormous advantage over nations without over two billion gun toting, brainwashed, militaristic patriots.
Can't have everyone else thinking it might be a good idea now, can I?

oxymoron is stronk

[Tinfect]

...militaristic patriots...

oxymoron is stronk

OOC: How is that a oxymoron? Have you seen the "Patriots" in the US? Half of them want to Secede from the union!

[Sudophia]

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.

I do not agree that citizens can bear arms, even with mental tests, therefore, the mindset of people can change and many problems can arise such as increased mortality rate and this can harm a country where a rebellion.

[Mundiferrum]

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)

Perhaps you'll have to note that the arms are themselves designed to be used for harm, so as to exclude things like, well, arms, or sticks, or pencils, while excluding things that could cause mass destruction (although it's in excluding those things that we could encounter a problem: noting the myriad of tech levels in this assembly, you'd probably find it impossible to make an all-encompassing enough term for this). In general, though, it'd probably be best to focus on either one specific set of weaponry (like, say, antimatter weapons reduction or something), or just focus on a more international issue, one that could be feasibly supported by this assembly (hearkening back to Bell and Chinmusic over there).

[Arkiasis]

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

Alright.

1) This is NOT an international issue.

2) No international organization or think tank labels firearms as a "universal human right".

3) This serves no meaningful purpose on the international stage.

4) Many democracies have voted to restrict weapons and many of those restrictions are supported by the populace.

5) This resolution serves no meaningful purpose and is nothing but using the WA for to push a specific political view.

[The Sheika]

Alright.

1) This is NOT an international issue.

2) No international organization or think tank labels firearms as a "universal human right".

3) This serves no meaningful purpose on the international stage.

4) Many democracies have voted to restrict weapons and many of those restrictions are supported by the populace.

5) This resolution serves no meaningful purpose and is nothing but using the WA for to push a specific political view.

^This

[Solarmania]

as a former top 5% weaponization nation, i say that this is stupid, plus the final line contradicts the entire resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Still no response to my concern? I'm very curious as to why this is an international issue, considering whether your nation has guns doesn't effect the citizens of the C.D.S.P."

[Imperium Anglorum]

My honourable and esteemed colleagues, the Ambassadors from Arkiasis and The Separatist Peoples have raised a number of objections which cannot be ignored. As the draft bill does not address (1) the 'right' to bear arms or the rights of the majorities in countries which do not support such a so-called 'right' as well as (2) the ambiguous definition of 'arms' and (3) the existence of people's (3a) rights against random acts of violence or (3b) accidental (more likely, intentional) homicide by bullet, Parliament has instructed me to oppose the resolution.

My honourable colleague from the New Hampshire Republic, please address these concerns. In the absence of edits, deemed by my government to be acceptable, our Parliament has instructed me to vote against this bill.

[Lumeau]

I wanted to pop in and say, without commenting on the idea itself, that this has been tried before several times and has always failed.

Gun rights/gun control isn't an international issue and you're unlikely to get a majority of the WA to agree on it, especially if you're pushing a resolution to loosen gun laws.

At least you're a lot more reasonable than the last delegate who brought this idea to the table. Not only did he have any idea how to write a resolution, he was also a complete tool.