[DRAFT] Automatic Weapons Act [I redid it]

[Tzapotltec]

But you know, you've been here since April so you have full entitlement to be Sassmaster General.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their country.

You aren't doing anything meaningful in this thread, either.

[New California Republic-]

Let's try and keep our cool here.

[Tzapotltec]

Let's try and keep our cool here.

*grits teeth* workin on itttt

[Excidium Planetis]

"Ambassador, membership with the World Assembly is not consent to live under a massive international totalitarian regime. That we cede certain powers to the World Assembly does not make it right for the World Assembly to trod upon basic civil liberties."

Viewing the right to own automatic firearms as a "basic civil liberty" constitutes a grievous insult to the millions who live without actual human necessities. I suggest you review your privilege and your priorities.

"Those millions who live without actual human necessities are either actually not human, or live in nations which are not compliant with WA laws anyways, as the WA requires nations to ensure a minimum standard of living per GA#344.

"I suggest that you, in fact, review the privilege you have of living in a safe environment where you do not need automatic weapons to live, and reevaluate your priorities."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, membership with the World Assembly is not consent to live under a massive international totalitarian regime. That we cede certain powers to the World Assembly does not make it right for the World Assembly to trod upon basic civil liberties."

Viewing the right to own automatic firearms as a "basic civil liberty" constitutes a grievous insult to the millions who live without actual human necessities. I suggest you review your privilege and your priorities.

"The fallacy of relative privation will not deceive me. My point stands."

[Tzapotltec]

Viewing the right to own automatic firearms as a "basic civil liberty" constitutes a grievous insult to the millions who live without actual human necessities. I suggest you review your privilege and your priorities.

"The fallacy of relative privation will not deceive me. My point stands."

The fallacy of relative privation is meant to render fallacious only direct comparisons. Using it to declare any passing mention of your relative privilege fallacious enough to invalidate any opposing viewpoint is in every way disingenuous.

The point is that billions live healthy, happy, and prosperous lives without access to automatic firearms. It's not as if everyone was vitally and crucially deprived by lack of automatic weapons before the advent of automatic firearms. A basic civil liberty is something that is crucial to all life. Firearms are a luxury. They are a civil liberty, but not a fundamental one; maybe a second or third tier one.

[Tzapotltec]

Viewing the right to own automatic firearms as a "basic civil liberty" constitutes a grievous insult to the millions who live without actual human necessities. I suggest you review your privilege and your priorities.

"Those millions who live without actual human necessities are either actually not human, or live in nations which are not compliant with WA laws anyways, as the WA requires nations to ensure a minimum standard of living per GA#344.

"I suggest that you, in fact, review the privilege you have of living in a safe environment where you do not need automatic weapons to live, and reevaluate your priorities."

Does GA #344 provide for every single civil liberty? because if so, much of this organization is brutally obsolete.

And guns certainly aren't counted as a civil liberty by this apparently all encompassing legislation, so by your logic they must not be, as a minimum standard of living is apparently all anyone needs.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The fallacy of relative privation will not deceive me. My point stands."

The fallacy of relative privation is meant to render fallacious only direct comparisons. Using it to declare any passing mention of your relative privilege fallacious enough to invalidate any opposing viewpoint is in every way disingenuous.

The point is that billions live healthy, happy, and prosperous lives without access to automatic firearms. It's not as if everyone was vitally and crucially deprived by lack of automatic weapons before the advent of automatic firearms. A basic civil liberty is something that is crucial to all life. Firearms are a luxury. They are a civil liberty, but not a fundamental one; maybe a second or third tier one.

"You are welcome to view firearm ownership as a non-liberty. Many nations here do. That in no way affects your or is an issue the World Assembly need contend itself with.

"Such as it is, if any such law like this were passed, we would consider our entire population "Reserve Militia", allow them to supply themselves, and move on without any change. The C.D.S.P. populace doesn't intend to be disarmed, and as representative of that populace, I sure don't intend to let foreigners dictate purely domestic policy, regardless of the crusade they envision themselves on."

[Wallenburg]

"The fallacy of relative privation will not deceive me. My point stands."

The fallacy of relative privation is meant to render fallacious only direct comparisons. Using it to declare any passing mention of your relative privilege fallacious enough to invalidate any opposing viewpoint is in every way disingenuous.

"And using false generalizations and fallacious arguments to invalidate any opposing view point is in every way disingenuous, so perhaps you should reconsider your line of reasoning."

The point is that billions live healthy, happy, and prosperous lives without access to automatic firearms. It's not as if everyone was vitally and crucially deprived by lack of automatic weapons before the advent of automatic firearms. A basic civil liberty is something that is crucial to all life. Firearms are a luxury. They are a civil liberty, but not a fundamental one; maybe a second or third tier one.

"I'm hardly claiming that anyone was deprived of a fundamental right before the creation of automatic firearms. Your willingness to misconstrue my argument as such is quite distressing. I am arguing that freedom to bear arms and, more generally, to self defense, ought to be recognized as a basic civil liberty. That means that no government should put itself in the business of depriving wide swathes of perfectly lawful and good citizens the right to bear arms and to defend themselves. Things such as technological development or the number of firearms available even without a government seeking to minimize their availability cannot be avoided, but they are in no way infringing on that freedom. It is only when the government takes action to deprive citizens of access to firearms, of access to self defense, that freedom is trodden on. So tell me, Ambassador, how is this in any way acceptable? How can you justify infringing upon the freedoms of lawful citizens to arm themselves for their self-defense? How is this not a violation of a basic civil liberty?"

[Republic of Face]

We xbelive in the right to own a Automatic wepon if you pass a backround check why shouldn't you be aloud to have one.

[Calladan]

We xbelive in the right to own a Automatic wepon if you pass a backround check why shouldn't you be aloud to have one.

We (the entire Calladanian government) don't believe ANYONE has a right to own a gun of any sort whatsoever. Why should anyone need to have one when we have police, street lights and a judicial system under which you can air your grievances?

[WA Kitty Kops]

"Such as it is, if any such law like this were passed, we would consider our entire population "Reserve Militia", allow them to supply themselves, and move on without any change. The C.D.S.P. populace doesn't intend to be disarmed, and as representative of that populace, I sure don't intend to let foreigners dictate purely domestic policy, regardless of the crusade they envision themselves on."

The small black cat jumped on the desk behind which Mr. Bell sat. "I knows you's not really nation of evil meanies¹, Benny," he said, sitting down to lick one front paw. "You's passed too many non-evil² resolutions. But if you don't wanna be without arms..." the cat went on and then stretched, displaying his very sharp claws on all four paws, "...then I has to agree with yous. Cause taking claws away from a cat is gonna hurt the cat more than the claws would hurt others. The others just need to not give a reason to use claws on them."

OOC: ¹Military nutcases. ²Restrictions on warfare.

Doing this on WAKK, because Janis would be against any and all weapons. The Chief Inshpekshuuner is an obligatory meat-eater predator, so his view on such things is slightly different.

[Separatist Peoples]

We xbelive in the right to own a Automatic wepon if you pass a backround check why shouldn't you be aloud to have one.

We (the entire Calladanian government) don't believe ANYONE has a right to own a gun of any sort whatsoever. Why should anyone need to have one when we have police, street lights and a judicial system under which you can air your grievances?

Bell grins wryly, "Because, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away? Ultimately, its irrelevant to us. Calladan is welcome to Calladanian policy. It matters not to me, until it starts getting foisted on the C.D.S.P., and then we have a problem."

"Such as it is, if any such law like this were passed, we would consider our entire population "Reserve Militia", allow them to supply themselves, and move on without any change. The C.D.S.P. populace doesn't intend to be disarmed, and as representative of that populace, I sure don't intend to let foreigners dictate purely domestic policy, regardless of the crusade they envision themselves on."

The small black cat jumped on the desk behind which Mr. Bell sat. "I knows you's not really nation of evil meanies¹, Benny," he said, sitting down to lick one front paw. "You's passed too many non-evil² resolutions. But if you don't wanna be without arms..." the cat went on and then stretched, displaying his very sharp claws on all four paws, "...then I has to agree with yous. Cause taking claws away from a cat is gonna hurt the cat more than the claws would hurt others. The others just need to not give a reason to use claws on them."

OOC: ¹Military nutcases. ²Restrictions on warfare.

Doing this on WAKK, because Janis would be against any and all weapons. The Chief Inshpekshuuner is an obligatory meat-eater predator, so his view on such things is slightly different.

"Precisely. We won't shoot you if you don't give us a good reason!"

[Tzapotltec]

We xbelive in the right to own a Automatic wepon if you pass a backround check why shouldn't you be aloud to have one.

We (the entire Calladanian government) don't believe ANYONE has a right to own a gun of any sort whatsoever. Why should anyone need to have one when we have police, street lights and a judicial system under which you can air your grievances?

Yeah, strongly agree, why would anyone live in a place where the government protects you so poorly that everyone needs an assault rifle?

[WA Kitty Kops]

Yeah, strongly agree, why would anyone live in a place where the government protects you so poorly that everyone needs an assault rifle?

The cat jumped down from Mr. Bell's desk and padded over to the stranger's, and when he got close enough, he suddenly attacked the person's left ankle, trying to sink in his claws and fangs.¹

OOC: This is an un-negotiated action from my part, so if you don't want your ambassador having their ankle/lower calf lightly pierced (unlikely to draw blood) by some kitten claws, you can say they only catch clothes, not flesh, or you can ignore the action entirely. If you allow the attack (with or without any pain to your ambassador), I'm going to use it to demonstrate a point. The cat has its own logic, and unfortunately this part of it is physical.

[Narneia]

i would say that there would be regulations on the caliber, fire rate, clip size(if it has one), and type of gun. For instance, there are bans on owning RPG's and machine guns. Also, there are guns that are banned because they are just to powerfull. i mean, would you give a high power battle rifle to a civilion that could do anything with it. Expecially durring this time with terrorism.

[States of Glory WA Office]

something even the ludicrous parody real-time strategy game entitled 'Real Life' makes note of in its 'Second Amendment'"

OOC: You're not helping the stereotype of Americans believing their country to be the only one in existence.

[Calladan]

We (the entire Calladanian government) don't believe ANYONE has a right to own a gun of any sort whatsoever. Why should anyone need to have one when we have police, street lights and a judicial system under which you can air your grievances?

Bell grins wryly, "Because, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away? Ultimately, its irrelevant to us. Calladan is welcome to Calladanian policy. It matters not to me, until it starts getting foisted on the C.D.S.P., and then we have a problem."

(grin) While I understand the thrust of the argument, we work on the assumption that while it might take a few minutes for the police to arrive, if neither party has a gun, they are less likely to kill each other in those few minutes. The moment you introduce guns into a situation, it escalates it out of all proportion and people are far more likely to die.

And if you think that ALL these arguments were not discussed, debated and - ultimately - dismissed by the Calladanian government during the six month period when we decided to universally ban guns in our country, then you are wrong. But, as I said, ultimately our government decided the population would be safer if firearms were removed, and (so far) history has backed up that judgement.

We have no desire to enforce this view on the C.D.S.P. or any other nation - you can keep your guns for all we care - but, by the same token, we are not going to allow any other nation to require us to reverse this policy because THEY think our citizens should be armed.

That was the point I was trying to make - a point with which I am pretty sure you agree, do you not?

[Separatist Peoples]

(grin) While I understand the thrust of the argument, we work on the assumption that while it might take a few minutes for the police to arrive, if neither party has a gun, they are less likely to kill each other in those few minutes. The moment you introduce guns into a situation, it escalates it out of all proportion and people are far more likely to die.

"We don't actually care if the criminal is killed in this exchange. That creates less paperwork and disincentivizes criminal activity. In the view of the C.D.S.P., shooting somebody for kicking down your door is not only legal, but is generally seen as an unofficial civic duty."

And if you think that ALL these arguments were not discussed, debated and - ultimately - dismissed by the Calladanian government during the six month period when we decided to universally ban guns in our country, then you are wrong. But, as I said, ultimately our government decided the population would be safer if firearms were removed, and (so far) history has backed up that judgement.

We have no desire to enforce this view on the C.D.S.P. or any other nation - you can keep your guns for all we care - but, by the same token, we are not going to allow any other nation to require us to reverse this policy because THEY think our citizens should be armed.

That was the point I was trying to make - a point with which I am pretty sure you agree, do you not?

"I think we both feel the same way about firearms legislation in the General Assembly."

[Calladan]

(grin) While I understand the thrust of the argument, we work on the assumption that while it might take a few minutes for the police to arrive, if neither party has a gun, they are less likely to kill each other in those few minutes. The moment you introduce guns into a situation, it escalates it out of all proportion and people are far more likely to die.

"We don't actually care if the criminal is killed in this exchange. That creates less paperwork and disincentivizes criminal activity. In the view of the C.D.S.P., shooting somebody for kicking down your door is not only legal, but is generally seen as an unofficial civic duty."

But if my eldest daughter comes home drunk, having forgotten her keys, and tries to break in through a window, I suspect she would incredibly unappreciative of me welcoming her with a hail of bullets because I have mistaken her for a burglar. And while calling the police on her would probably be unappreciated as well, at least she wouldn't be lying dead at my feet - something that I, my wife and my daughter's girlfriend would definitely be grateful for.

Anyway - as you say - firearm legislation in The WA is something we can agree on, so maybe we should leave it there

[Separatist Peoples]

But if my eldest daughter comes home drunk, having forgotten her keys, and tries to break in through a window, I suspect she would incredibly unappreciative of me welcoming her with a hail of bullets because I have mistaken her for a burglar. And while calling the police on her would probably be unappreciated as well, at least she wouldn't be lying dead at my feet - something that I, my wife and my daughter's girlfriend would definitely be grateful for.

Anyway - as you say - firearm legislation in The WA is something we can agree on, so maybe we should leave it there

"Under C.D.S.P. law, your daughter had a privilege to be on the property, and so isn't a criminal trespasser by self defense laws. Yours is the responsibility to verify such facts before squeezing the trigger. I assure you, this is not Open Season on Long Pig in the Confederate Dominion.

"If it was a home invader, there would be a brief investigation to verify the facts, then everybody goes on with their life. Except the burglar, of course, who gets their guts ripped out. But who cares about them, anyway?"

[Excidium Planetis]

Does GA #344 provide for every single civil liberty? because if so, much of this organization is brutally obsolete.

And guns certainly aren't counted as a civil liberty by this apparently all encompassing legislation, so by your logic they must not be, as a minimum standard of living is apparently all anyone needs.

"Don't be dense, civil liberties are not human necessities. GA#344 only ensures human necessities and not civil liberties.

"And indeed, automatic weapons are included in GA#344. The resolution requires my nation to ensure a minimum standard of living, which includes making sure that a person is 'reasonably healthy, safe and productive '. My nation ensures that they are safe by allowing them to possess automatic weapons."

[Calladan]

Does GA #344 provide for every single civil liberty? because if so, much of this organization is brutally obsolete.

And guns certainly aren't counted as a civil liberty by this apparently all encompassing legislation, so by your logic they must not be, as a minimum standard of living is apparently all anyone needs.

"Don't be dense, civil liberties are not human necessities. GA#344 only ensures human necessities and not civil liberties.

"And indeed, automatic weapons are included in GA#344. The resolution requires my nation to ensure a minimum standard of living, which includes making sure that a person is 'reasonably healthy, safe and productive '. My nation ensures that they are safe by allowing them to possess automatic weapons."

While my nation ensures that citizens of Calladan are safe by NOT allowing other citizens to possess guns to shoot the first citizens with (sorry - with which to shoot the first citizen).

Hence the reason that nearly every (if not every) piece of firearm legislation in The WA has crashed and burned

[States of Glory WA Office]

While my nation ensures that citizens of Calladan are safe by NOT allowing other citizens to possess guns to shoot the first citizens with (sorry - with which to shoot the first citizen).

Fairburn: Don't be daft. Prepositions are perfectly fine words to end sentences with.

[Araraukar]

something even the ludicrous parody real-time strategy game entitled 'Real Life' makes note of in its 'Second Amendment,'

Not on the server I play on...