Inhumane Arms Act (Draft)

[Araraukar]

1. Corrosive substances designed to be sprayed onto someone's eyes and blind him like this. Honestly, I do not think this is used in a military scale, but it is an option for terrorists.

OOC: Terrorists by definition do not respect the law. Even if you banned anyone using a certain kind of weapon, that wouldn't stop the terrorists and other lawbreakers from using the weapon. Please remember that when debating your proposal. Also, I don't think most attacks using corrosive substances are done with substances designed for that use, but rather with everyday pipe cleaners or lab chemicals.

2.-4. I could forbid development of this kind of weaponry, thanks for the idea.

It's still a bad idea, considering the weapons and their uses are nonexistent.

5. For example, gases intended to be used to kill a victim. Tear gas isn't intended to kill.

No, but toxic chemical weapons are already allowed defensively. As are crowd control agents (non-toxic). So you could only disallow their offensive use, which has already been disallowed by a resolution.

I really appreciate your efforts to make this draft better.

You're welcome.

[The Peninsular]

1. The proposal also bans the production of these weapons. And there are some definetly which are specifically designed to do it.

2.-4. Yeah, you're probably right...

5. So this point goes out, too.

[Bears Armed]

- A wepaon that destroys nerves inside the human body, to a degree where there's too much damage.

An example, please. I honestly can't think of anything that would destroy nerves but not the surrounding tissue.

OOC: Some of our 'Future tech' members might have, for example, Neural Disruptors...

[The Peninsular]

An example, please. I honestly can't think of anything that would destroy nerves but not the surrounding tissue.

OOC: Some of our 'Future tech' members might have, for example, Neural Disruptors...

Well, that's a point...

So should I have them covered now or not??

[The Pkunk Alliance]

While we Pkunk despise the very idea of war, it is the responsibility of any sovereign state to defend itself and ensure that its citizens will not be harmed by hostile powers.

As such, this Act may significantly reduce the ability of states to defend themselves from aggressive regimes, especially non-WA members who demonstrate aggressive behaviors. Another delegate has keenly brought up terrorists and how they would be unaffected by this proposal, but we would like to address our own concerns.

"Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured."

While the intent of this proposal is admirable, we are extremely concerned regarding the rights of a nation to stockpile and utilize weaponry that could cause irreparable damage to hostile targets. A key example is the use of antimatter as a weapon. Antimatter, as various GA members may know, is the most effective substance for striking hostile spacecraft and destroying them utterly, ensuring that the threat posed by said craft will not harm innocents. Antimatter, by definition, "inflict(s) permanent damage that can not be cured." This legislation would ban antimatter and reduce that means of defending against hostile craft. Unfortunately, with the prevalence of murderous starships over 100 km in length, there are few weaponized substances that can puncture and devastate such threats as efficiently or even effectively as Antimatter.

I suppose, however, that most civilizations would find nuclear weapons to be more relevant for their circumstances. Nuclear weapons would certainly be banned by this resolution, and while disarmament might be a worthy goal in terms of environmental protection and the safety of noncombatants and civilians, it is also an extremely powerful form of weaponry that can deter aggression and, if necessary, destroy various otherwise resilient targets (including large asteroids) that could pose a threat to member states. Nuclear weapons, unfortunately, have various consequences including radioactive fallout that is difficult to cure, whose effects linger in victims. Even so, would it be wise to ban them all?

We believe that such a proposal is an unacceptable risk in terms of defending the innocent and civilians from the many threats that lurk in the void, and must reject this proposal in its current form.

[The Peninsular]

While we Pkunk despise the very idea of war, it is the responsibility of any sovereign state to defend itself and ensure that its citizens will not be harmed by hostile powers.

As such, this Act may significantly reduce the ability of states to defend themselves from aggressive regimes, especially non-WA members who demonstrate aggressive behaviors. Another delegate has keenly brought up terrorists and how they would be unaffected by this proposal, but we would like to address our own concerns.

"Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured."

While the intent of this proposal is admirable, we are extremely concerned regarding the rights of a nation to stockpile and utilize weaponry that could cause irreparable damage to hostile targets. A key example is the use of antimatter as a weapon. Antimatter, as various GA members may know, is the most effective substance for striking hostile spacecraft and destroying them utterly, ensuring that the threat posed by said craft will not harm innocents. Antimatter, by definition, "inflict(s) permanent damage that can not be cured." This legislation would ban antimatter and reduce that means of defending against hostile craft. Unfortunately, with the prevalence of murderous starships over 100 km in length, there are few weaponized substances that can puncture and devastate such threats as efficiently or even effectively as Antimatter.

I suppose, however, that most civilizations would find nuclear weapons to be more relevant for their circumstances. Nuclear weapons would certainly be banned by this resolution, and while disarmament might be a worthy goal in terms of environmental protection and the safety of noncombatants and civilians, it is also an extremely powerful form of weaponry that can deter aggression and, if necessary, destroy various otherwise resilient targets (including large asteroids) that could pose a threat to member states. Nuclear weapons, unfortunately, have various consequences including radioactive fallout that is difficult to cure, whose effects linger in victims. Even so, would it be wise to ban them all?

We believe that such a proposal is an unacceptable risk in terms of defending the innocent and civilians from the many threats that lurk in the void, and must reject this proposal in its current form.

With "victim" I mean living beings (therefore it wouldn't ban antimatter), and I despise the idea that a nation is willing to defend itself with weapons that can have such horrible effects on living beings! I honestly do not see why a military is in need of using such weaponry. Also, the possession of nuclear weaponry is a risk not worth having, as everyone to whom the owner of these weapons poses a threat, will arm themselves immediatley. Also, there are other methods to nuking asteroids, for example to "push" them away with normal, but far more strong rocket engines, as only a small deterance in the asteroid's speed could cause it to miss us.

[Aclion]

An example, please. I honestly can't think of anything that would destroy nerves but not the surrounding tissue.

OOC: Some of our 'Future tech' members might have, for example, Neural Disruptors...

For modern tech/WW2T Organophosphates come to mind. Many are weaponized as nerve agents already(Sarin and VX are both OPs). It's true those are too lethal to be covered by this proposal, but there are plenty of others used in agriculture and industry that can cause neurological disorders if not handled with respect.
It's not implausible to me that a nation might use one of them to cause permanent nerve damage without killing, especially if they subscribe to the doctrine that leaving crippled solders is better then dead ones because they cost more for the enemy to care for.

[Araraukar]

1. The proposal also bans the production of these weapons. And there are some definetly which are specifically designed to do it.

OOC: In that case, an example, please? Do kids these days even use the "broken record" saying anymore? "Corrupted audio file" doesn't sound quite right...

5. So this point goes out, too.

At this point you're in need of a re-think, because you're not left with much if you can't prove 1) that there are weapons specifically designed to injure people permanently rather than kill them, 2) that such weapons were used extensively enough to require international legislation, and 3) that their use wasn't already allowed by an existing resolution in a limited manner and otherwise banned.

So, speaking out-of-character, what are you actually wanting to ban? What RL thing sparked this idea? Did you read about someone throwing acid in someone's face? Wouldn't that go under regular grievous assault, rather than some supranational law about crimes against humanity (in real life it would be called that, in WA legislation I think they're termed war crimes, whether it happened during a war or not).

---

OOC: Some of our 'Future tech' members might have, for example, Neural Disruptors...

OOC: Well, it was an OOC post so the assumption was that the request was for an OOC reference... And even thought I'd be willing to accept that, then I'd have to ask why don't we already have resolutions banning other "scifi weapons" that are often as bad or worse as the existing RL ones. Hell, matter-antimatter annihilation reaction is much more energetic than nuclear fission, yet only one is legislated upon. Particle beam weapons can do much worse damage than lead bullets. We have a resolution trying to prevent the grey goo situation, but that's for uncontrolled multiplication event - to my knowledge using them as weapon isn't restricted (they only need to have the shut-down mechanisms to be legal, but then so do most other major weapons, it doesn't mean you had to give the command codes to your enemies).

And if we're going towards the scifi end of things, I've been thinking and trying to unsuccessfully push away the thought that given the tech some people around here have, no injury is truly permanent, thus invalidating the whole proposal. So I've tried to argue based on what can be done in RL.

---

It's not implausible to me that a nation might use one of them to cause permanent nerve damage without killing, especially if they subscribe to the doctrine that leaving crippled solders is better then dead ones because they cost more for the enemy to care for.

OOC: That's why I've pointed out GA #272, Chemical Weapons Accord, as that already allows the use of chemical weapons in defensive manner and bans it in offensive manner.

From that resolution:

For the purposes of this protocol "Chemical agents" shall be defined as:

• "Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,
• "Riot control agent": any chemical substance that is used with the intention of non-lethally incapacitating and subduing sapient beings solely through the chemical effects of such agent,

Looking at that, the "chemical weapon" would encompass everything chemical that this proposal could realistically affect.

One thing I noticed when looking at #272 again; there might be a chance in legislating for riot control agent use, as that mentions this: "within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation".

[The Peninsular]

1. The proposal also bans the production of these weapons. And there are some definetly which are specifically designed to do it.

OOC: In that case, an example, please? Do kids these days even use the "broken record" saying anymore? "Corrupted audio file" doesn't sound quite right...

5. So this point goes out, too.

At this point you're in need of a re-think, because you're not left with much if you can't prove 1) that there are weapons specifically designed to injure people permanently rather than kill them, 2) that such weapons were used extensively enough to require international legislation, and 3) that their use wasn't already allowed by an existing resolution in a limited manner and otherwise banned.

So, speaking out-of-character, what are you actually wanting to ban? What RL thing sparked this idea? Did you read about someone throwing acid in someone's face? Wouldn't that go under regular grievous assault, rather than some supranational law about crimes against humanity (in real life it would be called that, in WA legislation I think they're termed war crimes, whether it happened during a war or not).

---

OOC: Some of our 'Future tech' members might have, for example, Neural Disruptors...

OOC: Well, it was an OOC post so the assumption was that the request was for an OOC reference... And even thought I'd be willing to accept that, then I'd have to ask why don't we already have resolutions banning other "scifi weapons" that are often as bad or worse as the existing RL ones. Hell, matter-antimatter annihilation reaction is much more energetic than nuclear fission, yet only one is legislated upon. Particle beam weapons can do much worse damage than lead bullets. We have a resolution trying to prevent the grey goo situation, but that's for uncontrolled multiplication event - to my knowledge using them as weapon isn't restricted (they only need to have the shut-down mechanisms to be legal, but then so do most other major weapons, it doesn't mean you had to give the command codes to your enemies).

And if we're going towards the scifi end of things, I've been thinking and trying to unsuccessfully push away the thought that given the tech some people around here have, no injury is truly permanent, thus invalidating the whole proposal. So I've tried to argue based on what can be done in RL.

---

It's not implausible to me that a nation might use one of them to cause permanent nerve damage without killing, especially if they subscribe to the doctrine that leaving crippled solders is better then dead ones because they cost more for the enemy to care for.

OOC: That's why I've pointed out GA #272, Chemical Weapons Accord, as that already allows the use of chemical weapons in defensive manner and bans it in offensive manner.

From that resolution:

For the purposes of this protocol "Chemical agents" shall be defined as:

• "Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,
• "Riot control agent": any chemical substance that is used with the intention of non-lethally incapacitating and subduing sapient beings solely through the chemical effects of such agent,

Looking at that, the "chemical weapon" would encompass everything chemical that this proposal could realistically affect.

One thing I noticed when looking at #272 again; there might be a chance in legislating for riot control agent use, as that mentions this: "within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation".

Well, what I've actually been trying to ban is weapons, that should be considered inhumane.

[The Peninsular]

Also, just post what you think should be the definition of "Inhumane Arms"

[Araraukar]

Well, what I've actually been trying to ban is weapons, that should be considered inhumane.

OOC: Real life examples of such weapons, please?

Also, just post what you think should be the definition of "Inhumane Arms"

OOC: In my opinion? All weapons that cause injuries or death. But you can't ban most of them due to previous resolutions either allowing them or already banning them. And you can't ban guns even if you had a flawless proposal, because there are enough gun nuts (luv you guys nevertheless, you know who you are ) on this site who do not to want to relinguish their weapons even in a make-believe reality.

[The Peninsular]

Well, what I've actually been trying to ban is weapons, that should be considered inhumane.

OOC: Real life examples of such weapons, please?

Also, just post what you think should be the definition of "Inhumane Arms"

OOC: In my opinion? All weapons that cause injuries or death. But you can't ban most of them due to previous resolutions either allowing them or already banning them. And you can't ban guns even if you had a flawless proposal, because there are enough gun nuts (luv you guys nevertheless, you know who you are ) on this site who do not to want to relinguish their weapons even in a make-believe reality.

Combat knives with barbed hooks for example. What i am also trying to ban is: Rays that cause mental unhealable mental illness, weapons that cause irreversible damage to the nerve system, etc. In this game, there certainly is at least one nation who just fucked around with their arms development and got stuff like that.

[The Peninsular]

Everyone, just tell me one simple thing:

Do you think this proposal is acceptable?

[Araraukar]

With "victim" I mean living beings (therefore it wouldn't ban antimatter)

OOC: Missed this earlier. Living beings tend to be made of matter, and thus would certainly be affected by antimatter. In addition to which, the annihilation reaction releases massive amounts of energy, which would "fry" any living things anywhere near it.

Also, the possession of nuclear weaponry is a risk not worth having

Tell that to all the nations who resist NAPA repeals in the fear of them being banned... Also, NAPA specifically allows member nations to have (but not use) nukes, so this trying to ban them would make this illegal for contradiction.

Combat knives with barbed hooks for example. What i am also trying to ban is: Rays that cause mental unhealable mental illness, weapons that cause irreversible damage to the nerve system, etc.

OOC: I keep asking for OOC examples of such weapons, and you put in "nerve disruptor rays". Seriously? And why are knives with barbed hooks worse than knives in general? (Also, I think you mean serrated knives, not knives with actual hooks.)

In this game, there certainly is at least one nation who just fucked around with their arms development and got stuff like that.

Well, yeah, but if something affects only one or two nations out of the 27k total of them, then it's probably not an international issue.

Everyone, just tell me one simple thing:

Do you think this proposal is acceptable?

Acceptable in what way? As an idea? Noble but not really workable. In format? Not currently. Like the victim definition that appeared randomly in a weird location, is badly written, and isn't used anywhere in the proposal that I can see except in further definitions. Clauses 4 and 6 still suffer from the sentence construction making them affect a lot more things than was probably the intention.

[Kalinin K7]

THIS IS BAD IDEA NO WEAPONS ARE INHUMANE IF YOU MESS WITH KALININ YOUR SOLDIERS DESERVE PAINFUL DEATH

[Mallorea and Riva]

THIS IS BAD IDEA NO WEAPONS ARE INHUMANE IF YOU MESS WITH KALININ YOUR SOLDIERS DESERVE PAINFUL DEATH

So you've posted in all caps in all three posts you've made so far on the forums. That does not inspire confidence. You're allowed to RP with zeal, but just tone it down a notch. It's garish posting.

[DuuLoc]

I believe that although each and every nation does have the right to build up a significant military and research/create weapons that are effective, inhumane weapons should be outlawed. There are just too many atrocities committed for these brutish devices to remain.

[Araraukar]

inhumane weapons should be outlawed.

OOC: What would you define as inhumane weapons? Remember that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have already been accounted for.

[Ricoux]

Also, I added some more definitions. Also, some dictatorships may agree if they read it properly as it doesn't effect their militaries and their torture chambers too much. I think.

They want to conquer using pain. this stops that. Gas chambers under this are classified as Cruel and Inhumane.

[Ricoux]

Also, I added some more definitions. Also, some dictatorships may agree if they read it properly as it doesn't effect their militaries and their torture chambers too much. I think.

But are Torture chambers not classified as In humane and cruel. Whats the difference between gassing someone to death and using acid to dissolve an arm permanently crippling someone besides the death factor

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Torture is already illegal. Having a look through the Passed Resolutions list prior to drafting would save everyone (especially authors) a lot of trouble.

[New Morthyr]

What do you guys think of it:

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Definitions:

Victim: The word "victim" describes in the case of this act an intelligent life form, who suffers from a destructive or injurious action.

SEEING that “Inhumane Arms“ are specifically designed to cause a long, painful, torture-like death or injury.
RECKOGNIZING the danger posed by “Inhumane Arms“, as they are often used by terrorists, organized criminal groups, radical insurgents and sometimes military groups against innocents.

(1) DEFINES "Inhumane Arms" as:

1. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured, whether this damage be mental or physical.
2. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to alter the victims DNA and hereby to kill the victim.
3. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim instantly, but to cause a painful death over a long period of time.
4. Weapons that are equipped with barbed hooks or spikes that are meant to be used against the victim.

(2) BANS the use and production of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(3) BANS the posession of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(4) DECLARES voluntarily assissting persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(5) DICTATES that already existing Inhumane Arms possessed by member nations must be destroyed within the next 150 days.

(6) PLACES the WA member nations UNDER THE OBLIGATION to:

1. PROSECUTE persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms.
   
2. DETAIN persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms by any means neccessary, immediately after the offense has been validated.
   
3. PROSECUTE persons who voluntarily assist persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues, whether the damage done be high or low.

(7)URGES WA member nations to do everything in their power to contain illegal arms trade

If you make weapons illegal, then only crooks will use them, and citizens will have nothing to defend themselves with.

[The Peninsular]

What do you guys think of it:

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Definitions:

Victim: The word "victim" describes in the case of this act an intelligent life form, who suffers from a destructive or injurious action.

SEEING that “Inhumane Arms“ are specifically designed to cause a long, painful, torture-like death or injury.
RECKOGNIZING the danger posed by “Inhumane Arms“, as they are often used by terrorists, organized criminal groups, radical insurgents and sometimes military groups against innocents.

(1) DEFINES "Inhumane Arms" as:

1. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured, whether this damage be mental or physical.
2. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to alter the victims DNA and hereby to kill the victim.
3. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim instantly, but to cause a painful death over a long period of time.
4. Weapons that are equipped with barbed hooks or spikes that are meant to be used against the victim.

(2) BANS the use and production of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(3) BANS the posession of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(4) DECLARES voluntarily assissting persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(5) DICTATES that already existing Inhumane Arms possessed by member nations must be destroyed within the next 150 days.

(6) PLACES the WA member nations UNDER THE OBLIGATION to:

1. PROSECUTE persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms.
   
2. DETAIN persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms by any means neccessary, immediately after the offense has been validated.
   
3. PROSECUTE persons who voluntarily assist persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues, whether the damage done be high or low.

(7)URGES WA member nations to do everything in their power to contain illegal arms trade

If you make weapons illegal, then only crooks will use them, and citizens will have nothing to defend themselves with.

I do not make weapons themselves illegal. Read the draft properly before complaining.

[Araraukar]

I do not make weapons themselves illegal. Read the draft properly before complaining.

OOC: *cough* "(3) BANS the posession of said Inhumane Arms without exception"

[Wallenburg]

Victim: The word "victim" describes in the case of this act an intelligent life form, who suffers from a destructive or injurious action.

"Unnecessary definition, in my opinion, but still acceptable."

SEEING that “Inhumane Arms“ are specifically designed to cause a long, painful, torture-like death or injury.
RECKOGNIZING the danger posed by “Inhumane Arms“, as they are often used by terrorists, organized criminal groups, radical insurgents and sometimes military groups against innocents.

"You may want to have these clauses after the definiton of 'inhumane arms', rather than before. The structure of the draft suffers when you have definitions and preambulatory clauses mixed together."

(1) DEFINES "Inhumane Arms" as:

1. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to inflict permanent damage that can not be cured, whether this damage be mental or physical.
2. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim, but to alter the victims DNA and hereby to kill the victim.
3. Weapon systems and weapons whose specific aim it is not to kill the victim instantly, but to cause a painful death over a long period of time.
4. Weapons that are equipped with barbed hooks or spikes that are meant to be used against the victim.

"The second part of this definition is nonsensical, as it says that weapons meant to kill their targets are not meant to kill their targets. The fourth part of the definition confuses me, as these do not qualify, in my opinion as inhumane arms. This would include pikes, spears, and several kinds of explosives that are quite capable of killing enemies without causing any excessive suffering."

(2) BANS the use and production of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(3) BANS the posession of said Inhumane Arms without exception and DECLARES it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

"You can probably combine these two clauses and save up on space. Also, your use of capitalization is rather unconventional, and will likely discourage some delegates from voting for this. The established formatting conventions have served us well, and breaking from them tends to weaken proposals. You can set the first word in the clause in all capitals, but all other words should be left unformatted."

(4) DECLARES voluntarily assissting persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

"I am sorry, but I do not understand this clause. The way I read it, offering any sort of help at all--whether it has to do with inhumane arms or not--to those convicted of producing or possessing 'inhumane arms' would be a criminal offense."

(5) DICTATES that already existing Inhumane Arms possessed by member nations must be destroyed within the next 150 days.

"Including historical artifacts?"

(6) PLACES the WA member nations UNDER THE OBLIGATION to:

1. PROSECUTE persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms.

"That's not how the justice system works. You cannot convict someone until they have been charged, prosecuted, and found guilty. I believe you meant 'charged' rather than 'convicted'."

DETAIN persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms by any means neccessary, immediately after the offense has been validated.

"That is rather overboard. There is no reason for member states to pour unlimited resources into apprehending someone for having 'inhumane arms'. Also, we are running into the same problem with regard to your use of 'conviction'."

PROSECUTE persons who voluntarily assist persons who have been convicted of possession and/or production of Inhumane Arms in obtaining Inhumane Arms, producing them, selling them, evading arrest, concealing their crimes, robbery and financial and money issues, whether the damage done be high or low.

"Even if that assistance has nothing to do with 'inhumane arms'?"

"This is a good start for a draft, but it needs a lot of work. The format is somewhat broken, and some of the mandates go beyond that which is just and even that which is legal under World Assembly law."

I do not make weapons themselves illegal. Read the draft properly before complaining.

OOC: *cough* "(3) BANS the posession of said Inhumane Arms without exception"

OOC: I believe that the author objected to the implied "all" before "weapons" in the statement they quoted. The author is explaining that not all weapons are prohibited under this proposal.