[PASSED] Repeal "Right to Self-defence"

[New Bremerton]

This is a liberal or a commie being hurt emotionally because they can't admit they had fun at the shooting range. The right to self defense is a God given right and I will not allow some liberal or commie take that right away

The right to self-defense is a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism and of personal liberty and responsibility. Supporting this repeal is what's illiberal and authoritarian. In our nation at least, self-identified liberals and centrists are in full support of the right to self-defense. It's the socialists, conservatives, communists and fascists who tend to oppose such a basic right. Thankfully, our constitution has managed to hold these authoritarian tendencies at bay for millennia.

[The Evergreen Dreamscapes]

against. even assuming the previous resolution does extend to self-defence against cops, this would be a bonus and not a flaw

[Novgorod-Pskov]

This is a liberal or a commie being hurt emotionally because they can't admit they had fun at the shooting range. The right to self defense is a God given right and I will not allow some liberal or commie take that right away

The right to self-defense is a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism and of personal liberty and responsibility. Supporting this repeal is what's illiberal and authoritarian. In our nation at least, self-identified liberals and centrists are in full support of the right to self-defense. It's the socialists, conservatives, communists and fascists who tend to oppose such a basic right. Thankfully, our constitution has managed to hold these authoritarian tendencies at bay for millennia.

Different nations will have different problems; some may already be struggling with gun problems, and similar.
The right to self-defense act enables criminals to own a gun legally; and that will not be a good thing for all nations.
As such, it should be an issue that should be tacked by each nation individually, as one solution cannot work for all nations.
Thus, I support IA's repeal.
This is not a simple issue, and so cannot be resolved by a simple law.
Every nation must be at liberty to decide its own method of resolving this.
As well as this, despite being a liberal nation, the government, and the vast majority of the people, support this repeal.
Allowing all citizens to carry guns and knives 'for self-defense' is far too dangerous, and can easily be misused.

[Caracasus]

The right to self-defense is a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism and of personal liberty and responsibility. Supporting this repeal is what's illiberal and authoritarian. In our nation at least, self-identified liberals and centrists are in full support of the right to self-defense. It's the socialists, conservatives, communists and fascists who tend to oppose such a basic right. Thankfully, our constitution has managed to hold these authoritarian tendencies at bay for millennia.

Different nations will have different problems; some may already be struggling with gun problems, and similar.
The right to self-defense act enables criminals to own a gun legally; and that will not be a good thing for all nations.
As such, it should be an issue that should be tacked by each nation individually, as one solution cannot work for all nations.
Thus, I support IA's repeal.
This is not a simple issue, and so cannot be resolved by a simple law.
Every nation must be at liberty to decide its own method of resolving this.
As well as this, despite being a liberal nation, the government, and the vast majority of the people, support this repeal.
Allowing all citizens to carry guns and knives 'for self-defense' is far too dangerous, and can easily be misused.

The resolution this is repealing does not allow criminals or anyone to own guns legally if the nation in question has outlawed or restricted gun ownership. It only allows self defrnse with guns if the nation allows people to have guns.

[Cantonese Union]

We will be supporting this repeal due to the flawed nature of Resolution #448.

We'd also like to make clear that we are not against the right of self-defense and it is not illegal in our nation. We will support future resolutions that would enshrine the right of self-defense in international law unless they are as flawed as the aforementioned resolution.

[Kenmoria]

This is a liberal or a commie being hurt emotionally because they can't admit they had fun at the shooting range. The right to self defense is a God given right and I will not allow some liberal or commie take that right away

The right to self-defense is a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism and of personal liberty and responsibility. Supporting this repeal is what's illiberal and authoritarian. In our nation at least, self-identified liberals and centrists are in full support of the right to self-defense. It's the socialists, conservatives, communists and fascists who tend to oppose such a basic right. Thankfully, our constitution has managed to hold these authoritarian tendencies at bay for millennia.

“I will point out that the resolution in question allows a mass murderer’s family to ‘defend’ that person from being killed by the police, even if the criminal is currently in the process of murdering someone. I’m sure not even the most liberal states, and Kenmoria is quite a liberal nation with strong libertarian parties, would see this as reasonable.

Also, an ambassador made the arguement, when the target resolution was at vote, that a member nation could simply declare all responses to be disproportionate as a person should first call the police before taking matters into his or her own hands. This makes the GA 448 - Right to Self-Defence, completely useless.”

[The big oak]

Against.

[Novgorod-Pskov]

Different nations will have different problems; some may already be struggling with gun problems, and similar.
The right to self-defense act enables criminals to own a gun legally; and that will not be a good thing for all nations.
As such, it should be an issue that should be tacked by each nation individually, as one solution cannot work for all nations.
Thus, I support IA's repeal.
This is not a simple issue, and so cannot be resolved by a simple law.
Every nation must be at liberty to decide its own method of resolving this.
As well as this, despite being a liberal nation, the government, and the vast majority of the people, support this repeal.
Allowing all citizens to carry guns and knives 'for self-defense' is far too dangerous, and can easily be misused.

The resolution this is repealing does not allow criminals or anyone to own guns legally if the nation in question has outlawed or restricted gun ownership. It only allows self defrnse with guns if the nation allows people to have guns.

I was not talking only about guns.

[Blackledge]

Against, in part due to the disingenuous telegram sent to urge for its support.

[Gagium]

The sneaky World Assembly is voting 80% in favor of a mere three-lined repeal of something that just passed yesterday?

Right..

Against.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Now, how in god's name, does that translate into the following?
"Believing that persons suspected of breaking the law should not be permitted to employ self-defense measures against law enforcement officers acting within the realm of their duties".

The resolution in question does, in no way, shape, or form condone, or otherwise permit, the use of the Right to Self Defense, and by extension, the concept of the Right to Life, as a defense for attacking L.E.O.s..... Even if you DONT support the literal resolution that protects the Right of someone to LIVE, which I believe is a small group, this "resolution" to repeal the guarantee that someone can defend themselves from assailants without the worry of prosecution should legitimately appear to have derived from a tantrum as a result of "not-getting-ones-way", as was mentioned by another:

The issue comes in when, if someone is escaping from police and feel the police are an immediate threat to their safety, like being shot, which can happen when running from the police, then the criminal fleeing the police in this case would be able to shoot the cop in self-defense since there's no exception for that in the wording of GA# 448.

GA# 448 definitely has some pretty open wording, and this repeal would allow GA# 448 to be replaced by a better written resolution in the future. As long as GA# 448 is in place, there's no way to fix the issues.

ANGRY BOLD TEXT IN ALL CAPS

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

Should I assume that's a position that you've come to on your own, or are you just blindly following your dictatorial delegate?

[Libervalley]

The FCN finds no legitimate reason to repeal the Right to Self-defense resolution. The stated concern is that this resolution would be used to legitimize the use of force against law enforcement officers but this is clearly not allowed when the resolution states that the threat must pose a clear and immediate danger.

If law enforcement officers are performing their duties properly and not being used by the government to oppress the people then there is clearly no right to use violence against law enforcement in this resolution.

The immediate proposed repeal is highly suspicious and hints that there are ulterior motives in repealing this resolution. It may be the case some in favor of the repeal want to be able to use absolute government force against their own citizens to oppress them and therefore don’t want any resistance from their own citizenry.

Whatever the motivation or reasoning against the Right to Self-defense resolution it is clearly a legitimate and needed resolution. The Federation of Conservative Nations finds no problems with the Right to Self-defense resolution and urges all WA members to vote against the repeal.

FCN Delegate,
Libervalley

[Ru-]

Full support. This highlights just one of many problems with the target and the delegation from Ru hopes to see a swift and successful reppeal effort.

If there was "many problems" with "Right to Self-Defense", then I would expect this proposal to be a hell of a lot longer, to list them out.

It has listed the most important reason because it is such a critical problem that it alone is enough justification for repeal. It doesn't matter if Ru can identify more reasons to stand against the target resolution. (we know from our own experience in dealing with them that the delegate from IA likely does not share all of our objections)

there is no need to keep beating a dead horse into the ground here by listing everything that can be wrong with a vague and overly broad proposal. At a certain point it would just be in poor taste.

[Cosona]

Would it not be better to simply amend the resolution to cover that scenario? I'm voting against.

[Kingdom of Dywanaco]

Ridiculous. Against.

[Gagium]

If there was "many problems" with "Right to Self-Defense", then I would expect this proposal to be a hell of a lot longer, to list them out.

It has listed the most important reason because it is such a critical problem that it alone is enough justification for repeal. It doesn't matter if Ru can identify more reasons to stand against the target resolution. (we know from our own experience in dealing with them that the delegate from IA likely does not share all of our objections)

there is no need to keep beating a dead horse into the ground here by listing everything that can be wrong with a vague and overly broad proposal. At a certain point it would just be in poor taste.

I don't necessarily see the problem with a "vague and overly broad" proposal that essentially simply guarantees a person's right to the use of self defense and then allows the country in question to further expand on that with the usage of further legislation within the individual nation. A proposal that's "vague and overly broad" but still gets the point across while giving ample room for YN to still determine specifics in law shouldn't be repealed simply because it doesn't infringe enough on the country's laws.

It seems like anyone that wants to repeal Right to Self-defense is doing so simply because they don't want individual nations to be able to decide more on the specifics (Or they simply don't like citizens being able to use self defense against oppressive governments).

[Cantonese Union]

Would it not be better to simply amend the resolution to cover that scenario? I'm voting against.

It's impossible to amend resolutions if they've already passed, which is why repealing and then rewriting it is the only option.

[Apocalypse Now and Then]

Fully against this ridiculous instarepeal.

[Zoozibar]

Support

[Caracasus]

The issue comes in when, if someone is escaping from police and feel the police are an immediate threat to their safety, like being shot, which can happen when running from the police, then the criminal fleeing the police in this case would be able to shoot the cop in self-defense since there's no exception for that in the wording of GA# 448.

GA# 448 definitely has some pretty open wording, and this repeal would allow GA# 448 to be replaced by a better written resolution in the future. As long as GA# 448 is in place, there's no way to fix the issues.



I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

Should I assume that's a position that you've come to on your own, or are you just blindly following your dictatorial delegate?

I would assume they have noticed the gaping loophole in the resolution. If more people read the debates and resolutions before gleefully mashing the for button at a title that appeals to them, we wouldn't need so many repeals.

[Northeast American Federation]

"We here in the Northeast American Federation are compelled to oppose this repeal. These claims of vagueness and the alleged ability to engage in violence against law enforcement are deceptive covers for the real intention of some of the other member nations. It is evident to us that not all member nations believe that people have a right to self defense, and indeed will oppose any measure that attempts to enshrine that right. I think if we look more closely at the motives of some of those voting in favor of this repeal, we will find the truth of the matter. Oppressive nations will always seek to oppose the rights of the people to defend themselves, and we cannot in good conscience support them in their efforts."

-Ambassador Gregory Williams

[Kustonia]

Against.

The Right to Self-Defense is a part of the Natural Right to Life.

[Separatist Peoples]

Against.

The Right to Self-Defense is a part of the Natural Right to Life.

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

[Northeast American Federation]

Against.

The Right to Self-Defense is a part of the Natural Right to Life.

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

"Perhaps the repeal will not, but I believe the concerns of the Kustonian delegation may be similar to ours. A surprising number of nations do not believe the people have a right to self defense, and may seek to impose their views upon the rest of us in a so-called 're-write' of the policy."

- Ambassador Gregory Williams

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Against.

The Right to Self-Defense is a part of the Natural Right to Life.

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

It should be a universal right that all nations should guarantee their people, just like a certain degree of freedom of speech.