I'm with you both
Advertisement
by England-Ireland » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:25 am
by Kingdoms of Cal » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:33 am
by Acharastan » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:38 am
National News: NAXD, Acharastan's space program, and arms supplier RA&E, are teaming up to create the "Shepard-1" spaceplane using a revolutionary liftoff method.
by Louisistan » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:41 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:55 am
Acharastan wrote:My 'Merican Senses Are Tingling
I do not support this. If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them. Then what are you gonna do to defend yourselves? Plus, look at crime in Texas. No one would think of robbing a bank because everyone in the bank has an AR-14. Mutually Assured Destruction.
by Versus Militia » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:03 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:06 pm
Versus Militia wrote:Guys, Max Barry clearly stated that proposals aren't and shouldn't make any references to real life.
by Kryozerkia » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:19 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership).
What? Since when has it been the case that you can't use the category to ban guns to ban guns? That seems to flatly contradict previous statements, such as:Ardchoille wrote:in theory it should mean that "RECOMMENDS that guns be banned" ... would make the proposal illegal as being too mild.
Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:34 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:Just as the category of Human Rights has varying strengths, so does gun control have degrees of control.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?
by Tinfect » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:25 pm
Versus Militia wrote:BANN GUN OWNERSHIP BY CIVILIANS
Fix that spelling error, more people will take you seriously.
COUNCIL: GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CATEGORY: GUN CONTROL
DECISION: TIGHTEN
XXX---XXX---XXX---XXX
Description: Gun ownership is not allowed to civilians and only used by military and police.
Minor grammatical errors, but nothing otherwise terribly wrong.
NOTING that anybody mentally healthy can own a gun which can lead to numerous crimes.
More minor grammatical errors, and besides that, is the person who would commit a crime usually the sort of person who could be called "Mentally Healthy"? Also, you need to define "Mentally Healthy", as the definition varies wildly from nation to nation.
BELIEVING that guns should only be used by military and police.
No real problems here.
FURTHER NOTING that without guns crimes will drop and incidents in public shouldn't harm anybody on long-range.
While technically true, that Gun Crimes will drop significantly, this sentence should probably be re-written to ease comprehension.
FURTHER BELIEVING that the military and police should use guns only for stopping a crime attempt and international incidents.
Please define an "International Incident".
HEREBY:
1. Gun ownership is banned from civilians
Should be:
Bans Civilians from owning a gun.
2. Military and police members will use guns against others only in crime attempts and international incidents.
Once again, International Incidents is undefined.
3. Owning a gun as a civilian will be punished with a 5 year sentence.
Why a mandatory sentence?
4. Police is allowed to carry only semi-automatic light guns.
Minor Grammatical Errors, besides that, why the restriction to Semi-Automatic? Further, how do you define a "Light Gun"? That could be interpreted any number of ways, for example, the FT Nation's Infantry Grade Laser, or the PMT' Nation's Pocket Grenade Launcher.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Chester Pearson » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:31 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:What? Since when has it been the case that you can't use the category to ban guns to ban guns? That seems to flatly contradict previous statements, such as:
Is this another of the unappealable rulings, or can we ask for a second opinion?
Outright prohibition is the concern, not a "degree" of control, such as "Recommends that gun ownership be banned for convicted felons". That is a degree of control. Yes, it does ban it for a specific group but it's not a total ban. Similarly, banning ownership of a specific firearm rather than all is a degree of control. Just as the category of Human Rights has varying strengths, so does gun control have degrees of control.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Hirota » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:55 am
It's this kind of pathetic attempt at emotional blackmail that makes my government strongly inclined towards voting for this proposal.
by Versus Militia » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:55 am
Tinfect wrote:Versus Militia wrote:BANN GUN OWNERSHIP BY CIVILIANS
Fix that spelling error, more people will take you seriously.
COUNCIL: GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CATEGORY: GUN CONTROL
DECISION: TIGHTEN
XXX---XXX---XXX---XXX
Description: Gun ownership is not allowed to civilians and only used by military and police.
Minor grammatical errors, but nothing otherwise terribly wrong.
NOTING that anybody mentally healthy can own a gun which can lead to numerous crimes.
More minor grammatical errors, and besides that, is the person who would commit a crime usually the sort of person who could be called "Mentally Healthy"? Also, you need to define "Mentally Healthy", as the definition varies wildly from nation to nation.
BELIEVING that guns should only be used by military and police.
No real problems here.
FURTHER NOTING that without guns crimes will drop and incidents in public shouldn't harm anybody on long-range.
While technically true, that Gun Crimes will drop significantly, this sentence should probably be re-written to ease comprehension.
FURTHER BELIEVING that the military and police should use guns only for stopping a crime attempt and international incidents.
Please define an "International Incident".
HEREBY:
1. Gun ownership is banned from civilians
Should be:
Bans Civilians from owning a gun.
2. Military and police members will use guns against others only in crime attempts and international incidents.
Once again, International Incidents is undefined.
3. Owning a gun as a civilian will be punished with a 5 year sentence.
Why a mandatory sentence?
4. Police is allowed to carry only semi-automatic light guns.
Minor Grammatical Errors, besides that, why the restriction to Semi-Automatic? Further, how do you define a "Light Gun"? That could be interpreted any number of ways, for example, the FT Nation's Infantry Grade Laser, or the PMT' Nation's Pocket Grenade Launcher.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:03 am
by Versus Militia » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:07 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Versus Militia wrote:
i'm romanian, not a native english speaker
OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.
by The Silver Bloods » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:10 am
Versus Militia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.
and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:11 am
Versus Militia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.
and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.
by Bezkoshtovnya » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:16 am
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Wrapper » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:22 am
Versus Militia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: and, while players are willing to help and be patient, this is an English-based site, so the grammar and spelling of a proposal will need to be, eventually, put into a more natural English syntax. Just as a heads-up.
and that's why i posted this proposal here to help me out, not tell me how much it sucks and how stupid it is.
Kryozerkia wrote:Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership).
by The Land of Beer » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:27 pm
by Normlpeople » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:59 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership). Further, Gun Control does not cover the use of firearms by police and military forces, only that of civilians.
by Old Hope » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:41 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Friday Freshman » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:49 am
The Silver Bloods wrote:Versus Militia wrote:
"If you're afraid of laws you don't like and they're about to be initialized in your nation, go ahead and resign from the World Assembly, a true WA Member should look and evaluate in a decent manner a proposal, my choice if I want to submit the proposal!"
I evaluated this proposal and I believe it is extremely flawed due to the fact that many nations on NationStates have guns legal, you can't ban them. If this goes through miraculously, I will be sure that I'm the first person to write the repeal resolution.
by Friday Freshman » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:55 am
Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:Learn how to grammar OP
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tigrisia
Advertisement