NationStates

Danitze wrote:
We respectfully disagree with your interpretation, and hope that this proposal is remade into a more refined version. We are looking forward to the debate.

"Which part, the bit about further blockers on gun control being legal, or the part where your far-fetched scenario isn't a war of conquest? The latter can be solved by sharing the definition inherent to the proposal:

4. Defines "conquest" as the acquisition of territory through military force by a successful state at the expense of another state; for the purpose of this resolution, conquest shall not include:
instances where member nations seek to neutralize hostile states that pose a persistent or existential threat to their sovereignty or security or

"As for the former, I don't think I need to quote the Secretariat's rules at an experienced ambassador like yourself...right?

"You are entitled to your opinion, but your facts, ambassador, are tenuous at best."

Regardless of the trade and transfer of weapons, this legislation has been attempted in the past. It has as such been repealed. The act of arms trading or "transfers" as you refer, is as old as man itself. If you feel that this agreement will somehow accomplish anything that the "black-market" will not undermine; I feel you are sadly mistaken.

Simply changing the verbiage and re-submitting an act such as this after it has been defeated is as insulting as it is ineffective. Should we not be addressing "new" issues here as World Delegates? Not rehashing the same legislation that has already been defeated?

Jhotenhall wrote:Regardless of the trade and transfer of weapons, this legislation has been attempted in the past. It has as such been repealed. The act of arms trading or "transfers" as you refer, is as old as man itself. If you feel that this agreement will somehow accomplish anything that the "black-market" will not undermine; I feel you are sadly mistaken.

Simply changing the verbiage and re-submitting an act such as this after it has been defeated is as insulting as it is ineffective. Should we not be addressing "new" issues here as World Delegates? Not rehashing the same legislation that has already been defeated?

"A discerning eye would notice that the original resolution was repealed on specious grounds. But even then, I do not believe a repeal on a particular topic forecloses the possibility of legislation on the topic forever. I do not believe that is how democracy works. Indeed, this will go to vote again within the next year or so.

I also find the argument that the 'black-market' will wholly undermine this resolution to be unconvincing. Simply because the black market exists absolutely does not mean there should be legal avenues through which a genocidal dictator can buy weapons from member-nations."

I assume a man of your stature will understand that WA legislation will not stop a "Theoretical Boogie Man Genocidal Dictator" from engaging in violence if they are so inclined. A dictator has power because they already have a loyal military force who will carry out his/her actions. Weapons trading fuels economic growth and offers a way to help defend against such aggression.

OOC: Though it doesn't make much of a difference, I did vote for.

I have voted in favour for those reasons which I elucidated upon earlier in this thread.

"Although it appears this legislation, sadly, is doomed to fail (at least for the time being), the honorable J4kian delegation wishes to make known for the record that it stands firmly with Sciongrad in support of this proposal and the admirable ideals which it represents. Vote cast in favor (albeit with, it seems, only symbolic effect at this point), and the delegation sincerely hopes this proposal will come to vote again, perhaps with slight revisions to assuage the concerns of other delegations."

"Responsible Arms Transfers" was defeated 13,296 votes to 5,994.

Sigh..... So the WA ensures that police officers are required to read a pamphlet, but funding terrorist organizations with weapons is perfectly acceptable? Do people even read these things anymore, or do they just vote on who the author is?

John Turner wrote:Do people even read these things anymore, or do they just vote on who the author is?

OOC: Sounds a lot like US politics and elections.

John Turner wrote:

"Responsible Arms Transfers" was defeated 13,296 votes to 5,994.

Sigh..... So the WA ensures that police officers are required to read a pamphlet, but funding terrorist organizations with weapons is perfectly acceptable? Do people even read these things anymore, or do they just vote on who the author is?

"Ambassador, do you even bother reading past resolutions?"

Ogenbond hands Turner a copy of GAR#25.

Wallenburg wrote:

John Turner wrote:

"Responsible Arms Transfers" was defeated 13,296 votes to 5,994.

Sigh..... So the WA ensures that police officers are required to read a pamphlet, but funding terrorist organizations with weapons is perfectly acceptable? Do people even read these things anymore, or do they just vote on who the author is?

"Ambassador, do you even bother reading past resolutions?"

Ogenbond hands Turner a copy of GAR#25.

Not all terrorist organizations are recognized as terrorist organizations, now are they? For instance, I consider Bigtopia to be a terrorist regime, but the WA thinks it's perfectly fine for nations to arm them.

It comes down to a matter of perspective.....

John Turner wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Ambassador, do you even bother reading past resolutions?"

Ogenbond hands Turner a copy of GAR#25.

Not all terrorist organizations are recognized as terrorist organizations, now are they? For instance, I consider Bigtopia to be a terrorist regime, but the WA thinks it's perfectly fine for nations to arm them.

It comes down to a matter of perspective.....

"Ambassador, if you are going to assume that member nations will simply not comply with World Assembly law, I don't see why you are complaining that this resolution failed. After all, such nations wouldn't comply with this one, either."

OOC: Since my nation is neither MT nor human, I'm surprised that your ambassador can hear or see mine.

Wallenburg wrote:

John Turner wrote:Not all terrorist organizations are recognized as terrorist organizations, now are they? For instance, I consider Bigtopia to be a terrorist regime, but the WA thinks it's perfectly fine for nations to arm them.

It comes down to a matter of perspective.....

"Ambassador, if you are going to assume that member nations will simply not comply with World Assembly law, I don't see why you are complaining that this resolution failed. After all, such nations wouldn't comply with this one, either."

OOC: Since my nation is neither MT nor human, I'm surprised that your ambassador can hear or see mine.

Who said anything about compliance? Is Bigtopia classified as a terrorist regime by international law?

Nice strawman though.....

John Turner wrote:Who said anything about compliance? Is Bigtopia classified as a terrorist regime by international law?

"Of course not. Bigtopia doesn't exist."