[Draft] Restrictions on Youth Weaponization

[Wallenburg]

"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is an issue of international import."

"Aha! I knew the National Sovereignty argument wasn't dead, it's merely developed a code-name!"

"International importance" is a different argument than "national sovereignty", although you have correctly identified that the two share very similar playing fields. An argument that X resolution is "not an international issue" means 1) the issue does not inherently concern multiple states at once, in the way that oceanic oil spills and terrorism do, or 2) the issue is "not important enough" to merit international attention, in the way that the order of presentation of athletic delegations to international sports competitions is technically an international issue, but is in absolutely no need of international legislation. In contrast, the "national sovereignty" argument asserts that a given issue, international or not, must be left to the whims of member states, and that international legislation represents an unreasonable encroachment upon the right of member states to self-govern.

Both arguments can crop up in response to similar proposals, especially since proposals of questionable international importance tend to represent encroachment into policies that many member states would rather maintain full authority over. Even so, they are indeed separate arguments.

[Morover]

Hello, again! Sorry for the delay, I have been rather busy today, for there was a minor disturbance within my branch of Morover's ambassadorial offices.

I'd argue that most of this replacement plagiarizes the resolution it intends to replace. Many of your clauses are obviously just reworded versions of the clauses of the repeal target. The two unique additions to this replacement are the exception for emergencies and the additional requirements upon educating children to use firearms.

On your fifth active clause, I must ask why firearms education must take place within a "government-mandated area" instead of at any location safe and designed for firearms practice.

I must also question why this eliminates the provision for the safe storage of any firearm in a residence with children and the requirement that individuals living with children must demonstrate knowledge of proper firearm safety and responsibility in order to acquire firearms.

Overall, I really don't see the need for a repeal + replace here.

I'd agree with you that many of my clauses are reworded versions of the clauses of General Assembly Resolution #235. This is because I believe that the Act is mostly fine, with the notable exception of the things I have added. Initially, I was not going to replace the target of the repeal. However, it was brought to my attention that in order to appeal a resolution such as Resolution #235, I should have a replacement ready to replace it. I felt the target resolution had fatal flaws, and I believed that the repeal is essential to removing these flaws (and still do). When writing the replacement resolution, I made certain that I kept true to the spirit of the original resolution, while still fixing the flaws. I do not believe that it is plagiarism, as I have explained before in the thread, merely reusing the concept in order to assure that the replacement still holds the same weight as the original did.

On the topic of my fifth clause, I was not quite sure on how to word it, because "government-mandated" was not quite right, but I believe that the original resolution was rather vague in what qualifies as "education," so I made sure to expand upon that, while still leaving it up to an individual nation. I used the phrase "government-mandated" because it showed that control was given to the nation itself, not to the individual teaching the child how to use the gun (or the child themselves, for that matter). To put simply, I added that awkwardly worded phrase in order to change the position of a proper education to be defaulted to the government, rather than the individual.

I removed the clause concerning the safe storage of firearms as well as the education requirement of adults living with children because I believe that the addition of the requirement of education for adults who live with children is infringing on a nation's rights to allow or disallow adults to have firearms freely. In hindsight, I should have added an additional clause that still instates the requirement of safe storage in a home with children, but I still believe that this clause should merely provide provisions to be sure that children must be properly educated in order to receive a gun, not adults. I will add that as soon as possible.

You will have a very hard time replacing this without running afoul of Responsibility In Transferring Arms. You need to demonstrate that people below the age of majority are "individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action."

OOC
Am I the only person here who reads the title as being about turning youths into weapons?
^_^

Yeah. I was expecting a child soldiers ban.

After reading over General Assembly Resolution #399 ("Responsibility In Transferring Arms"), I understand your point and will further clarify that uneducated children are dangerous.

"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is an issue of international import."

Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't recall discussing the issue of international imports?

---

I would like to once again apologize for my delayed response. I am looking to propose the initial repeal soon, so I hope that the international community can continue to help me edit this proposal.

[Wallenburg]

After reading over General Assembly Resolution #399 ("Responsibility In Transferring Arms"), I understand your point and will further clarify that uneducated children are dangerous.

IIRC, it will be insufficient to show that armed and unprepared children are dangerous, or that they have the potential to engage in unlawful behavior at some point. You will have to demonstrate that such children present the danger of imminent unlawful action. It's a pretty high bar.

[Morover]

After reading over General Assembly Resolution #399 ("Responsibility In Transferring Arms"), I understand your point and will further clarify that uneducated children are dangerous.

IIRC, it will be insufficient to show that armed and unprepared children are dangerous, or that they have the potential to engage in unlawful behavior at some point. You will have to demonstrate that such children present the danger of imminent unlawful action. It's a pretty high bar.

I believe that my addition to the proposal does show the danger of the possibility of unlawful actions to occur at a moments notice.
("Aware that children do not have the same impulse control as adults, which may lead to the rapid emergence of a threat if provided with a weapon.") - showing that due to a lack of impulse control, children can quickly become a threat (which may or may not be unlawful, dependant on the nation, but it can be safely assumed that most nations will have any threats posed by firearms are unlawful).

I may be misinterpreting the situation, but I do believe I covered my bases rather well in at least that regard.

[Araraukar]

-

"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is an issue of international import."

Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't recall discussing the issue of international imports?

OOC: SP means "importance". As in, why should someone in Morover care whether CDSP gives weapons to its children?

[Separatist Peoples]

-
Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't recall discussing the issue of international imports?

OOC: SP means "importance". As in, why should someone in Morover care whether CDSP gives weapons to its children?

OOC: I said import intentionally, which is an archaic way of saying importance. But yeah. This.

[Morover]

OOC: SP means "importance". As in, why should someone in Morover care whether CDSP gives weapons to its children?

OOC: I said import intentionally, which is an archaic way of saying importance. But yeah. This.

Personally, I don’t believe this is an issue of international importance. I believed that due to the way the original was written, it made it give the power to the people, which is not what is necessarily important in some nation’s societies.

However, after I proposed repealing GAR#235, many expressed concern that the resolution was essential, and that in order to repeal it, I’d need to replace it. Understanding their point, I drafted this up, which gives more power to the government to decide, while still ensuring the protection of their people.

I hope this clarifies.

OOC: Apologies, was not aware of the slang of the World Assembly.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Dammit, I wasn't the first to bring up child soldiers.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I said import intentionally, which is an archaic way of saying importance.

OOC: Apologies, was not aware of the slang of the World Assembly.

OOC: It's not WA slang. And to be fair, I just assumed SP's phone's autocorrect was acting up again.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I said import intentionally, which is an archaic way of saying importance. But yeah. This.

Personally, I don’t believe this is an issue of international importance. I believed that due to the way the original was written, it made it give the power to the people, which is not what is necessarily important in some nation’s societies.

However, after I proposed repealing GAR#235, many expressed concern that the resolution was essential, and that in order to repeal it, I’d need to replace it. Understanding their point, I drafted this up, which gives more power to the government to decide, while still ensuring the protection of their people.

I hope this clarifies.

OOC: Apologies, was not aware of the slang of the World Assembly.

"The resolution is entirely unessential. It needs no replacement. Firearm policy is one area in which the World Assembly has little place."

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend adding line breaks between your clauses to aid reading comprehension, as currently this looks very much like a wall of text.”

[Morover]

“I recommend adding line breaks between your clauses to aid reading comprehension, as currently this looks very much like a wall of text.”

I already had one line between each, but I have increased the space to two lines, in order to facilitate easy reading.

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend adding line breaks between your clauses to aid reading comprehension, as currently this looks very much like a wall of text.”

I already had one line between each, but I have increased the space to two lines, in order to facilitate easy reading.

(OOC: Thank you; due to the way [list] code works, a space of just one line is unnoticeable.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: The drafting thread for the resolution you're trying to replace can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=210155

I suggest you read it to see what opposition the original faced and how the author dealt with it.

[Morover]

Unfortunately, I must abandon this proposal. While I still plan to submit the repeal, I have come to the conclusion that a replacement is not necessary. However, if I do receive enough backlash, I may come back to this resolution and sort out the kinks, though I do believe that it is in a rather sad state as it stands.

Feel free to join in on the conversation of the repeal here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=458371

Thank you all for your contributions to this draft.