NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed!!] Responsibility in Transferring Arms

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

[Passed!!] Responsibility in Transferring Arms

Postby Sciongrad » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:52 pm

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to promoting international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of armaments,

1. Defines "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possesses a practical application in military conflict, including the designs or subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;

2. Defines "transfer" as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivision thereof, or non-state entity associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. Defines "end-user certificate" as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

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:
  1. instances where member nations seek to neutralize hostile states that pose a persistent or existential threat to their sovereignty or security or
  2. instances where member nations seek to reclaim territory taken from them by force with no intervening period of de facto peace;
5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
  1. those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
  2. future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
  3. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the transfer of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer;

7. Urges member nations to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

8. Prohibits the international transfer of armaments if:
  1. there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
  2. there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, except in instances where the transfer is absolutely necessary in protecting national security, provided that even those transfers do not violate the other provisions of this resolution or,
  3. there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest and;
9. Further prohibits the transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.


"Sciongrad is pleased to reintroduce meaningful legislation aimed towards ensuring that member nations are not complicit in human rights violations. We trust that the World Assembly has, since our last attempt, recognized the error of their ways, and is prepared to support this draft. Anyway comments are welcome."
Last edited by Sciongrad on Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:00 am, edited 10 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:01 pm

Fairburn: What's the point anymore? This will either fail at vote or be repealed instantly after its passage. Just go ahead and define debris as debris.

Neville: Wrong resolution.

Fairburn: Oh, wait, this is Responsible Arms Transfer. My mistake. Same comments apply, though. I've seen ping-pong matches with less back-and-forth action.
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8429
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:47 pm

PARSONS: I am going to have to analyse the text of this proposal to determine whether it is within the constraints of the compromise reached between our delegations during the last attempt to pass legislation on this topic.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Schnitzengrubenstein
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Jul 31, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Schnitzengrubenstein » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:30 pm

The Delegation of Schnitzengrubenstein would propose further that the use of such weapons by any party willing to act on a non-aggressor be considered including administrative bodies and entities.

This said, the delegation also would bring to light the international importance of the Arms Industry when handling business. Such companies should not be so willing to those who would consider using such weapons to violate principles of non-aggression, namely acting upon parties which do not harm anybody.

The integration of weapons and smart-technology meant to deter violence, and within reasonability, assess the cognitive[-emotional] state and stability of the user (without disregarding privacy, but also ensuring the least possible misuse/abuse of weaponry) can also be investigated.

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:55 am

We would have to oppose this as gun stores would not be able to purchase stock as they would not be the intended final recipient.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:50 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:We would have to oppose this as gun stores would not be able to purchase stock as they would not be the intended final recipient.

"The proposal does not prohibit trading weapons to intermediaries. It only requires that intended final recipients sign end-user agreements. If a gun store is not the intended final recipient, they don't need to do anything."
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:35 pm

According to clause 7, a manufacture can not transfer their product to a shop as the shop is not intended final recipient. So yes, this proposal dose prohibit trading weapons to intermediaries.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4516
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:38 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:According to clause 7, a manufacture can not transfer their product to a shop as the shop is not intended final recipient. So yes, this proposal dose prohibit trading weapons to intermediaries.


"In order to put this nonsense to rest, the Imperium recommends that language be added that specifies the intended final recipient, as the intended final recipient of the transaction."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM. This nation does not represent my actual political beliefs.

Imperium Central News Network: Fourth Fleet reports successful engagements against Aeravahn forces in the Exterior Territories | Contact lost with 3rd Legion, presumed destroyed | TCO - Desolate Star destroyed in raid by Aeravahn forces | Military Overseer addresses concerns of Aeravahn Incursion: "No immediate concerns" | Indomitable Bastard #283

My battery is low, and it is getting dark.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:42 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:According to clause 7, a manufacture can not transfer their product to a shop as the shop is not intended final recipient. So yes, this proposal dose prohibit trading weapons to intermediaries.

"That is not what that says. Clause 7 does not make any prohibition at all. It makes the transfer of a weapon to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate. It does not say that any arm that's ever transferred must be going to its final recipient."
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8429
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:45 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:According to clause 7, a manufacture can not transfer their product to a shop as the shop is not intended final recipient. So yes, this proposal dose prohibit trading weapons to intermediaries.

Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the transfer of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer;

Though, some greater clarity may be desired for sure. A rewrite of the clause could move quite far to that end.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:49 pm

It does a prohibition as it states the transfer must of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer. As the local shop is not the intended final recipient, the manufacturer could not transfer their product to the shop or a broker.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:55 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:It does a prohibition as it states the transfer must of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer. As the local shop is not the intended final recipient, the manufacturer could not transfer their product to the shop or a broker.

"If the local shop is not the intended final recipient, then it doesn't need to sign an end-user certificate? The clause doesn't say that every transfer must have an intended final user, just that any transfer that does must include the signing of an end-user certificate.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:14 pm

Actually, it does mandate that every transfer must be to the final recipient. A gun shop is not the final recipient, so how can they fill out the end-user certificate you require? How is a manufacturer gonna transfer their product without said paperwork? And what form is your end-user certificate gonna take?

The only issue I have is that there is no provisions for legitimate businesses buying stock in order to stay in business.
Last edited by Jarish Inyo on Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8429
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:12 am

Jarish Inyo wrote:Actually, it does mandate that every transfer must be to the final recipient. A gun shop is not the final recipient, so how can they fill out the end-user certificate you require? How is a manufacturer gonna transfer their product without said paperwork? And what form is your end-user certificate gonna take?

... the transfer of their armaments to an intended final recipient [is] conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer.

The transfer of the armaments to an intended final recipient is conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer.

We cannot pretend that the transfer of the armaments is all transfers when it is clearly transfers-to-an-intended-final-recipient. It does not say that the transfer of armaments is conditional... it says the transfer of armaments to an intended final recipient is conditional.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19494
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:20 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Jarish Inyo wrote:Actually, it does mandate that every transfer must be to the final recipient. A gun shop is not the final recipient, so how can they fill out the end-user certificate you require? How is a manufacturer gonna transfer their product without said paperwork? And what form is your end-user certificate gonna take?

... the transfer of their armaments to an intended final recipient [is] conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer.

The transfer of the armaments to an intended final recipient is conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer.

We cannot pretend that the transfer of the armaments is all transfers when it is clearly transfers-to-an-intended-final-recipient. It does not say that the transfer of armaments is conditional... it says the transfer of armaments to an intended final recipient is conditional.

"I must agree with Ambassador Parsons. Even by the most tenuous reasoning, you cannot deny the basic grammatical structure of this clause. The mandate applies to final sales exclusively. Any other interpretation is in bad faith and stands as an affront to Reasonable Nation Theory. No even remotely sane national government will interpret this to require direct sale from manufacturers to end-users only, especially when it is directly opposed to such policy and can easily interpret the resolution in a more accommodating way."
Last edited by Wallenburg on Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:31 am

My first problem is this ...

Defines "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possesses a practical application in military conflict, including the designs or subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;


The definition is vague. What is a "practical application in military conflict?" Military officers often carry light arms which are generally not considered military grade weaponry. Does this mean all types of guns or only those weapons that should only be used by military forces (such as fully automatic weapons systems). I can see reasonable people go either way on this, and so it's hard to argue one way or the other because of it.
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:12 pm

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:My first problem is this ...

Defines "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possesses a practical application in military conflict, including the designs or subassemblies necessary in their construction or production;


The definition is vague. What is a "practical application in military conflict?" Military officers often carry light arms which are generally not considered military grade weaponry. Does this mean all types of guns or only those weapons that should only be used by military forces (such as fully automatic weapons systems). I can see reasonable people go either way on this, and so it's hard to argue one way or the other because of it.

"I'm not convinced that the clause is unreasonably vague. I could rename the resolution "responsible transfers of everything" and change the definition of arm to "literally every single object," and it wouldn't matter because clause 9 explicitly qualifies when these transfers are to be limited. In other words, I don't care if arms, medicine, or water can be considered arms if you squint really hard, turn you head 270 degrees and turn of the lights, because for those transfers to be circumscribed, there must be reasonable suspicion that the items will be used to carry out human rights violations. So I really don't care that much about the definition being too broad. Now, if you think it excludes things that should be included, then I'll gladly hear you out."
Last edited by Sciongrad on Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Cogoria
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Jul 18, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Cogoria » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:18 pm

Due to universal conscription within Cogoria, most citizens are armed by the state sometimes with weapons purchased abroad. Does this mean that our troops have to fill out end-user certificates for foreign powers to know who has been equipped with what? This seems like a possible risk to national security.

User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:47 am

Sciongrad wrote:"I'm not convinced that the clause is unreasonably vague. I could rename the resolution "responsible transfers of everything" and change the definition of arm to "literally every single object," and it wouldn't matter because clause 9 explicitly qualifies when these transfers are to be limited. In other words, I don't care if arms, medicine, or water can be considered arms if you squint really hard, turn you head 270 degrees and turn of the lights, because for those transfers to be circumscribed, there must be reasonable suspicion that the items will be used to carry out human rights violations. So I really don't care that much about the definition being too broad. Now, if you think it excludes things that should be included, then I'll gladly hear you out."


"It seems like a lot of work just to invoke a single 'Don't sell things to nasty wars' clause. There are a lot of other clauses that I am worried about that a bad definition will cause problems. There are a lot of things enforced on the national domestic level in possible violation with the spirit of the people of the nation that worries me more, even though I, personally agree with them, from the principle of subsidiarity."

"Consider the question of provision 6, the registration of 'manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments' ... that definition of armaments is going to have a dramatic impact on the economy, on the level of government, and so forth depending on the interpenetration of the vagueness of the definition of the first clause. Because, when you get down to it, the metal fold-able shovel not only as a 'practical application in military conflict' but you can, in an emergency, shove the pointed end into an opponent's gut making it a 'weapon.' Do we need all manufacturers, exporters and brokers of fold-able shovels to be registered?"

"My personal preference would be a negative definition that limits the definition to those weapons that do not have a practical application to civilian uses. Certainly this might allow a foreign force to be equipped with Hello Kitty bright pink semi automatic AK-45 rifles but ... wait a second ... I've got to get that image out of my mind ... anyway, I'll speak again about this in an hour or so, I probably need a stiff drink at this point."
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17654
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:40 am

Sciongrad wrote:
Jarish Inyo wrote:It does a prohibition as it states the transfer must of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer. As the local shop is not the intended final recipient, the manufacturer could not transfer their product to the shop or a broker.

"If the local shop is not the intended final recipient, then it doesn't need to sign an end-user certificate? The clause doesn't say that every transfer must have an intended final user, just that any transfer that does must include the signing of an end-user certificate.

"But wouldn't accepting that interpretation render this proposal toothless anyhows, by allowing all transfers that don't have "intended" final recipients when initially carried out? After all, a national government buying weapons for its army to use in a war of conquest probably doesn't know at that stage which soldiers are going to be issued with which individual weapons, but could [reasonably] legitimately claim those soldiers collectively as the final recipients ..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:16 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:"If the local shop is not the intended final recipient, then it doesn't need to sign an end-user certificate? The clause doesn't say that every transfer must have an intended final user, just that any transfer that does must include the signing of an end-user certificate.

"But wouldn't accepting that interpretation render this proposal toothless anyhows, by allowing all transfers that don't have "intended" final recipients when initially carried out? After all, a national government buying weapons for its army to use in a war of conquest probably doesn't know at that stage which soldiers are going to be issued with which individual weapons, but could [reasonably] legitimately claim those soldiers collectively as the final recipients ..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"Not necessarily. If a good doesn't have an intended final recipient, that would simply obviate the need for an end-user certificate. The provisions of clause 9 are not limited strictly to intended final recipients. According to my reading of the proposal, clause 9 would event prevent the sale of arms to retailers if there is a likelihood those arms will be used in violation of any of the regulations listed."
Last edited by Sciongrad on Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:35 am

Natalia1, are you sure you're not trying to mix two different category proposals into one? It looks to me like you're trying to do a Gun Control one about individuals being the "intended recipient" and how to make them sign the end user certificates, and a Global Disarmament one about nations' militaries possibly using them for WA resolution defying purposes.

Also, what exact minimum is going to satisfy clause 3? A simple paper with the text "I intend to be the only owner of this gun, sign here" apparently would. You don't really need something three pages long in small print - unless, of course, your nation's laws require it. And what about individuals who have signed the certificate, but later want to get rid of the gun by selling it legally?

Weapons are forbidden in Araraukar except for law enforcement2, so I admit being a little vague on the civilian gun owning and selling practices, but I know certain nations think there's nothing wrong with that, and they'd probably be upset if such rights were severely restricted.

1OOC: It's an Araraukarian custom to use first names, unless you're in "viciously polite mode", so Janis sometimes forgets (sometimes intentionally) to use last names, and usually intentionally foregoes any titles (except "ambassador", and the Wrapperian "Wad").

2Araraukar doesn't have an army, but it has a fairly sizable police force. The regular people have learned, in times of need, to improvise. As Janis knows from personal experience, with some preparation common office supplies will serve you well in a melee.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:00 am

Araraukar wrote:Natalia1, are you sure you're not trying to mix two different category proposals into one? It looks to me like you're trying to do a Gun Control one about individuals being the "intended recipient" and how to make them sign the end user certificates, and a Global Disarmament one about nations' militaries possibly using them for WA resolution defying purposes.

"This proposal does not qualify as gun control, in the opinion of my government. The resolution is intended to disarm certain national or non-state groups by restricting the transfer of weapons, it is not intended to restrict an private individual's ability to own a gun. If at any point an individual is barred from owning a gun, that restriction is only incidental to the broader proscription on transfers for certain enumerated purposes."

Also, what exact minimum is going to satisfy clause 3? A simple paper with the text "I intend to be the only owner of this gun, sign here" apparently would. You don't really need something three pages long in small print - unless, of course, your nation's laws require it. And what about individuals who have signed the certificate, but later want to get rid of the gun by selling it legally?

"A legal document that confirms that the person purchasing the arm is the final recipient is all that clause 3 requires. The proposal doesn't forbid resale, it merely creates a paper trail for who the intended final recipient was. If an arm registered to an individual ends up in the hands of terrorists, then we now know who to approach."

Weapons are forbidden in Araraukar except for law enforcement2, so I admit being a little vague on the civilian gun owning and selling practices, but I know certain nations think there's nothing wrong with that, and they'd probably be upset if such rights were severely restricted.

"Individual rights are not really curtailed here, even if one believes that owning a weapon is a right. But even then, Sciongrad believes the harm posed by the unrestricted trade of weapons dwarfs whatever cost is involved in placing certain limitations on firearm transfers."
Last edited by Sciongrad on Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8429
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:12 pm

PARSONS: What were the changes recently made to the text?

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2971
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:26 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: What were the changes recently made to the text?

"All of them were cosmetic (OOC: formatting errors)."
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads