Advertisement
by Kiravian WA Mission » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:05 pm
by Justosia » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:29 pm
by Furry Things » Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:51 am
by United States of Americanas » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:13 am
by Cantonese Union » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:54 am
by Kenmoria » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:24 am
Cantonese Union wrote:The Cantonese Union will not support this resolution as it will force weaponization of the populace in the name of "self-defense".
This proposal also allows individuals to treat the Government's security services as a threat to their family and attack them if, for example, a family member is sentenced to death for committing a severe crime. We hope this resolution does not get passed.
The Cantonese Union recommends other WA member states that support this resolution to invest in Law & Order and stronger weapon controls.
by Illemenia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:29 am
by The American Liberation Front » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:41 am
United States of Americanas wrote:This seems like a forced addition of weapons rights in countries where such rights are not given for religious or safety reasons.
Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible.
I will remain firmly against this and all weapons rights laws.
by Liberimery » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:45 am
United States of Americanas wrote:This seems like a forced addition of weapons rights in countries where such rights are not given for religious or safety reasons.
Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible.
I will remain firmly against this and all weapons rights laws.
by Bears Armed » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:48 am
United States of Americanas wrote:Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible.
by Sonderweg » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:57 am
Kenmoria wrote:“The proposal doesn’t afford any qualifications on scenarios where’s the idea of self-defence is silly. A police officer shooting a mass murderer about to kill someone, for example, does not necessitate the murderer’s family killing said policeman or woman. Luckily the WA populace appear to recognise this flaw. If the authoring delegation wishes to redo this, adding an exemption for governmental agents acting lawfully would be much appreciated.”
by Glyski » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:26 am
by Nuclear Wastelands » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:29 am
by Araraukar » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:50 am
Kenmoria wrote:“The proposal doesn’t afford any qualifications on scenarios where’s the idea of self-defence is silly. A police officer shooting a mass murderer about to kill someone, for example, does not necessitate the murderer’s family killing said policeman or woman.”
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Anarcho-Capitalist Democracy » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:30 am
Illemenia wrote:The United States of Illemenia will wholeheartedly support this resolution. The right to Life* is a cherished Right that all people have. While I personally abhor guns, I strongly defend the right of anyone who owns one for the safety of themselves and their family. May this resolution pass.
*This is not Pro-Life as in abortion...
by Anarcho-Capitalist Democracy » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:36 am
Cantonese Union wrote:The Cantonese Union will not support this resolution as it will force weaponization of the populace in the name of "self-defense".
This proposal also allows individuals to treat the Government's security services as a threat to their family and attack them if, for example, a family member is sentenced to death for committing a severe crime. We hope this resolution does not get passed.
The Cantonese Union recommends other WA member states that support this resolution to invest in Law & Order and stronger weapon controls.
by Anarcho-Capitalist Democracy » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:41 am
United States of Americanas wrote:This seems like a forced addition of weapons rights in countries where such rights are not given for religious or safety reasons.
Thou shalt not kill is in the Bible.
I will remain firmly against this and all weapons rights laws.
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:46 am
Justosia wrote:The Holy Kingdom of Justosia is proud to support this resolution for the God given right of self defence.
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:48 am
Glyski wrote:I must vote against. As stated above multiple times, some areas are to vague. For 3b, it states "The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented," but who determines what is excessive and what is not? There's a lot of grey lines and I don't feel comfortable at all to vote for this.
Cheers and Good Service,
Glyski Prime Official: Art'hur Snow - WA Member - Eqilism
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:49 am
Cantonese Union wrote:The Cantonese Union will not support this resolution as it will force weaponization of the populace in the name of "self-defense".
This proposal also allows individuals to treat the Government's security services as a threat to their family and attack them if, for example, a family member is sentenced to death for committing a severe crime. We hope this resolution does not get passed.
The Cantonese Union recommends other WA member states that support this resolution to invest in Law & Order and stronger weapon controls.
by Cantonese Union » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:55 am
Anarcho-Capitalist Democracy wrote:Cantonese Union wrote:The Cantonese Union will not support this resolution as it will force weaponization of the populace in the name of "self-defense".
This proposal also allows individuals to treat the Government's security services as a threat to their family and attack them if, for example, a family member is sentenced to death for committing a severe crime. We hope this resolution does not get passed.
The Cantonese Union recommends other WA member states that support this resolution to invest in Law & Order and stronger weapon controls.
I fail to see where it demands that people be weaponized. From what I understand, it simply assures people the God given right to self preservation with the means they have. If it is in a nation where they can have guns then they can have guns and if they can only have kitchen knives then they can use kitchen knives. Nowhere do I see a statement that makes all weapons legal, instead it just says they may use what they have available.
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:59 am
Cantonese Union wrote:Anarcho-Capitalist Democracy wrote:
I fail to see where it demands that people be weaponized. From what I understand, it simply assures people the God given right to self preservation with the means they have. If it is in a nation where they can have guns then they can have guns and if they can only have kitchen knives then they can use kitchen knives. Nowhere do I see a statement that makes all weapons legal, instead it just says they may use what they have available.
This proposal legalizes the usage of firearms from the Black Market as tools of self-defense since there is no clause prohibiting the usage of illegally acquired firearms in this proposal. We believe that this would lead to increased weaponization of the populace.
I don't speak for every other country but self-defense isn't banned here, nor is it a crime. We do not need an incredibly vague international law for this, especially since it allows citizens to "defend" themselves from Law Enforcement in scenarios such as trying to evade police after committing a robbery.
by Cantonese Union » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:03 am
Saranidia wrote:Cantonese Union wrote:
This proposal legalizes the usage of firearms from the Black Market as tools of self-defense since there is no clause prohibiting the usage of illegally acquired firearms in this proposal. We believe that this would lead to increased weaponization of the populace.
I don't speak for every other country but self-defense isn't banned here, nor is it a crime. We do not need an incredibly vague international law for this, especially since it allows citizens to "defend" themselves from Law Enforcement in scenarios such as trying to evade police after committing a robbery.
The police officer can also defend themselves however besides it' says defend life.
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:05 am
Cantonese Union wrote:Saranidia wrote:
The police officer can also defend themselves however besides it' says defend life.
That is not the point. The point is that it will create incredibly complex legal problems (criminals suing the state and claiming they shot officers in self-defense), increase crime, increase illegal gun ownership...
It is not our problem that an alarming amount of World Assembly member states seriously think that implementing vague self-defense laws is something we should all do.
by Tinhampton » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:11 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement