[DRAFT] Universal Ban on Firearms Act

[Altanni]

Lets just put it to a vote!

If it passes great if not its dropped!

That assumes it'll even get to vote. The whole "must be enacted in 7 days" is illegal for messing with game mechanics, so it probably won't get pasr the GenSec. And on top of that, you'd need 113 approvals before it gets voted on by everyone. Submitting a proposal isn't that easy.

[Essu Beti]

I for one is in favour of this draft, why do normal law abiding citizens need guns for anyways?

"For if the government tries to murder them, and don't you even try to say it doesn't happen."

[Cylonarus]

Lets just put it to a vote!

If it passes great if not its dropped!

I doubt it will get passed by GenSec anyways, and even if it does become a resolution-at-vote its going to fail miserably.

[Cylonarus]

I for one is in favour of this draft, why do normal law abiding citizens need guns for anyways?

"For if the government tries to murder them, and don't you even try to say it doesn't happen."

"Exactly. If guns are made illegal, and the government tries to commit mass murder, then what the hell will citizens have to defend themselves with? STICKS?!"

[Keshiland]

If its so sure to fail a public vote then I dare you to put it to one. Anything less is all talk.

[Altanni]

If its so sure to fail a public vote then I dare you to put it to one. Anything less is all talk.

It's your proposal, submit it if you want. Just keep in mind the number of votes against you're guaranteed to receive.

[The Sheika]

If its so sure to fail a public vote then I dare you to put it to one. Anything less is all talk.

It doesn't even have to go to vote to fail, quite a few ambassadors have already explained why this is a bad idea for international legislation. If you want to impose such a ban in your nation, you are more than welcome.

[Keshiland]

If its so sure to fail a public vote then I dare you to put it to one. Anything less is all talk.

It doesn't even have to go to vote to fail, quite a few ambassadors have already explained why this is a bad idea for international legislation. If you want to impose such a ban in your nation, you are more than welcome.

So you guys are scared of liberal ideals or ideas that differ from your own getting a shot. How cute. I am going to simply say this (I will take out the 7 days thing that makes it illegal) If your not afraid of this passing the public vote then send it there! If you are scared then, by all means, stop it! I guess im the fool for thinking that the GA was impartial and passed bills that were legal regardless of personal opinion.

[Altanni]

So you guys are scared of liberal ideals or ideas that differ from your own getting a shot. How cute. I am going to simply say this (I will take out the 7 days thing that makes it illegal) If your not afraid of this passing the public vote then send it there! If you are scared then, by all means, stop it! I guess im the fool for thinking that the GA was impartial and passed bills that were legal regardless of personal opinion

Why would people support something that goes against their nation's beliefs or is harmful to them? Legality isn't the only reason to support something.
And once again, it's your damn proposal, submit it your damn self. No one's taking it to public vote for you.

[Frisbeeteria]

I guess im the fool for thinking that the GA was impartial and passed bills that were legal regardless of personal opinion.

Stop taking this personally. I mean it.

People here post mostly in-character, and most of the characters have extreme views. A lot of them are dictators of one sort or another, and they're roleplaying their nation's leaders and ambassadors. Plus, it's traditional and appropriate to attack the idea here in the drafting thread, so the author has an opportunity to change things around to make it more palatable to a wider audience.

It's meant to be a learning opportunity with your peers in the WA. If all you're going to do is attack your opponents, go ahead and submit it and watch it die in the Approvals stage.

[Keshiland]

it's your damn proposal, submit it your damn self. No one's taking it to public vote for you.

I'm simply asking will the delegates let it go to public vote if proposed? Its not damn complicated! Either you believe in democracy and will let the public vote on a LEGAL proposal or you will subvert democracy and kill it!

[The Sheika]

it's your damn proposal, submit it your damn self. No one's taking it to public vote for you.

I'm simply asking will the delegates let it go to public vote if proposed? Its not damn complicated! Either you believe in democracy and will let the public vote on a LEGAL proposal or you will subvert democracy and kill it!

Please refrain from turning this into something that it isn't. There is no grand conspiracy to kill your proposal, there is no subversion of democracy. There was a member nation who at one time acted if that were the case because their bill was wildly unpopular. Don't be like them, please be reasonable.

[Altanni]

it's your damn proposal, submit it your damn self. No one's taking it to public vote for you.

I'm simply asking will the delegates let it go to public vote if proposed? Its not damn complicated! Either you believe in democracy and will let the public vote on a LEGAL proposal or you will subvert democracy and kill it!

I ain't a delegate, so don't get mad at me if the delegates don't approve. And again, legality isn't the only reason to support something. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many proposals that get defeated. You need to take criticism when other people give it and reconsider if your proposal is as great as you think it is.

[Keshiland]

It's meant to be a learning opportunity with your peers in the WA. If all you're going to do is attack your opponents, go ahead and submit it and watch it die in the Approvals stage.

1. Its no that im taking it persinally
2. I have basically been told by the conservative controlled apporval board that it will not be approved because THEY don't like it.

[The Sheika]

It's meant to be a learning opportunity with your peers in the WA. If all you're going to do is attack your opponents, go ahead and submit it and watch it die in the Approvals stage.

1. Its no that im taking it persinally
2. I have basically been told by the conservative controlled apporval board that it will not be approved because THEY don't like it.

This is not a matter of liberal or conservative. For example, I am far from conservative but I feel that your proposal is better suited to individual nations as opposed to the WA as a whole.

[Cylonarus]

It's meant to be a learning opportunity with your peers in the WA. If all you're going to do is attack your opponents, go ahead and submit it and watch it die in the Approvals stage.

1. Its no that im taking it persinally
2. I have basically been told by the conservative controlled apporval board that it will not be approved because THEY don't like it.

*citation needed for that whining*

[Cylonarus]

Also I think this entire thing is a troll proposal anyways.

[Cruxa]

This is yet another example of Keshiland's WA incompetence, suggesting a full-on weapons ban. A the wording is wrong (as pointed out in the previous posts), and though the actual method stated here (government taking guns) isn't impossible, it's a breach of civil liberties in almost any democratic nation. Honestly, Keshiland, I'm starting to think that you don't want to write an actual piece of legislation with actual political goals and so you choose to make noise about bans instead.

[Jarish Inyo]

This isn't the first time the author just has stated that a proposal go to vote and taken it personally when told that the proposal wasn't very good.

There are reasons why civilians should have guns. Many RL examples. But for general reasons, here are a few. One could be that a civilian lives in an area where there is no law enforcement for hundreds or thousands of miles and they have a right to self defense. Also, civilians may hunt for food to feed their families.

And just a reminder, it's already been pointed out this proposal would be contradicting a current resolution that already grants member nations the right to decide their own domestic gun laws.

[Cruxa]

This isn't the first time the author just has stated that a proposal go to vote and taken it personally when told that the proposal wasn't very good.

There are reasons why civilians should have guns. Many RL examples. But for general reasons, here are a few. One could be that a civilian lives in an area where there is no law enforcement for hundreds or thousands of miles and they have a right to self defense. Also, civilians may hunt for food to feed their families.

This.

[Cylonarus]

And just a reminder, it's already been pointed out this proposal would be contradicting a current resolution that already grants member nations the right to decide their own domestic gun laws.

[Essu Beti]

I'm simply asking will the delegates let it go to public vote if proposed? Its not damn complicated! Either you believe in democracy and will let the public vote on a LEGAL proposal or you will subvert democracy and kill it!

OOC: Legal drafts don't automatically go into the queue for public voting. First, they have to pass quorum- 6% of total regional delegates need to approve it. Delegates, not individual nations. A delegate is by no means obligated to approve a proposal and no it is not subverting democracy for someone not to- it filters out those proposals that are really, really poorly written, or are ultimately pointless, while still being legal. Only then does it reach public vote.

If you want your proposal to reach quorum, you need to campaign for it, but throwing around charged phrases like 'killing democracy' is a great way to make people not listen to you. Stomping your feet and demanding an immediate go to popular vote is a great way to make people not listen to you. Taking things personally is a great way to make people not listen to you. And not acknowledging our IC or OOC concerns is a great way to make people not listen to you. I reread this thread and you never answered our character's concerns. All you did was say "well let's put it to a vote!" and get insulted when people still expressed concerns.

[Covenstone]

I for one is in favour of this draft, why do normal law abiding citizens need guns for anyways?

"For if the government tries to murder them, and don't you even try to say it doesn't happen."

I can honestly say we (as a government) have never tried to kill our citizens. Our citizens may try to kill each other at various times, and we find that it is a lot harder for them to do that if they don't have guns with which to do it. Or at least a lot harder to do it easily and in great numbers before the police (or other citizens) can stop them.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I for one is in favour of this draft, why do normal law abiding citizens need guns for anyways?

Teran Saber: "I can think of quite a few reasons. Do you care for me to list them?"

[Covenstone]

I for one is in favour of this draft, why do normal law abiding citizens need guns for anyways?

Teran Saber: "I can think of quite a few reasons. Do you care for me to list them?"

Probably best not. In the same way that debates about proposals about abortions really shouldn't be turned into debates about abortion, I am not certain anyone would benefit from turning this into a debate about gun control, as opposed to a debate about a proposal about gun control.

Because in both cases (gun control and abortion) both sides think they are right, both sides think they have the ultimate, final argument that will win the day and neither side can ever accept that the other side might have a point. So in the end we just go round and round and round and round and end up right where we started, only a hundred pages later.

And don't we all have better things to do?