[DRAFT] Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms Act

[Athenoi]

"It is advised that you do so. My benefactors have antimatter bombs, and will use them." Myrtis said in a serious tone. "Also, ambassador of the Sepratist Peoples, are you free this weekend?"

"Benjamin Bell, at your service, madam," says Bell, leaning down from the desk and offering a hand. "and thank you, ladies! I'll be here at the WAHQ all week!"

"It is nice to meet you." Myrtis says, she gets up to leave. "I must be going, I have Dionysian 'celebration' to attend. Being a Maenad is taxing."

[New Molsona]

The last clause "Forbids any nation to discriminate against anyone..." has been removed

[New Molsona]

IC: I'd like to adjourn the meeting for the night. I'll be watching a football game from my home nation if anyone's interested.

OOC: I have to go.

[The Republic of Mattlandia]

IC: I'd like to adjourn the meeting for the night. I'll be watching a football game from my home nation if anyone's interested.

OOC: I have to go.

Good Riddance haha

[Separatist Peoples]

"Benjamin Bell, at your service, madam," says Bell, leaning down from the desk and offering a hand. "and thank you, ladies! I'll be here at the WAHQ all week!"

"It is nice to meet you." Myrtis says, she gets up to leave. "I must be going, I have Dionysian 'celebration' to attend. Being a Maenad is taxing."

"Dionysian? That hardly sounds taxing, Ambassador. It sounds like a normal night at the Strangers' Bar."

[West Angola]

I have no knowledge of weapons that do not exist yet, you're going to need to help with those definitions

As has been pointed out to the Ambassador previously, the World Assembly Headquarters exists at a dimensional flux point. Ignorance of technology beyond that of your own nation is willful, and can be easily overcome by simple research on the Ambassador's part.

[Ardchoille]

There are a number of points in this thread that need addressing. In the meantime, several of you should continue your ambassadors' interactions in the Strangers Bar or another venue of your choosing, several more should adjourn to General and a few could definitely use the time to read the Rules more carefully.

EDIT: OK, first let's get the technical stuff out the way:

Dude, just leave. You're not welcome here. Please only post here if you have a suggestion for the draft.

You may not be aware that there’s no thread ownership in the GA. That means the person who starts the thread does not have the right to say who can post in it. In forums where that’s the case, attempts to stop other posters having their say can be seen as provocation (flaming or trolling). The part not crossed out is all you need, and by itself would be a helpful reminder.
tl;dr: right idea, unsuccessful application.

While I certainly don't support this resolution, I don't think that this is a House of Cards violation. It's a preamble - if memory serves, mods have ruled in the past that preambulatory clauses can include references to other resolutions because there is no effect on the actual legislation of the proposal should the referenced resolution be repealed.

You wouldn’t be thinking of the ruling on Repeals, would you? If not, I’d appreciate a link to the ruling (though I know that’s asking a lot, especially if the comment was on Jolt). Thing is, context is important. It sounds logical, but it may have been intended to apply only to a particular draft. You’ll notice that the example in the Rules of what NOT to do is clearly a prefatory clause: "RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103...". In general, I think a beginning author should avoid such nuances.

In this case, I’d advise the author to drop the wording “as noted in GA#183”. The phrase ties this proposal very closely to that Resolution. I can see two, possibly three, points people might choose to challenge on there – HoC, Honest Mistake and Duplication (reasonable force/reasonable strength) -- and, while the Hive Mind may not uphold any of them, it’d be a lot easier to just skip the drama. Plus, if one must, it’s always possible to imply in the text, “GA, you’ve said this before”, but save the specifics for the drafting thread.

<snip>OOC: All statistics on NS are made up.

Nope, some are supplied by the game through the player’s Issues decisions and, if their nation is in the WA, through the effects of WA Resolutions. Whether players accept or ignore those stats in their RPing is, however, up to them.

The WA, and the GA and SC within it, is purely gameside.
As such, your "gun homicides", "abortion rate" and "Church-issued marriage licences" don't mean anything here.

I see you explained the “gameside” comment later, and Dark Star made the main points, so I’ll just note here that both the GA and the SC have (differing forms of) RP built in. If not, we’d be clicking Yes/No buttons on, “Do you want members’ ‘political freedoms’ stats to change?” or “will we let this bunch of players keep on preventing others from accessing this web page [link to Liberation Proposal target region]?”
For “compliance”, please use the search bar at the top left of the forum. We’ve had entire threads on it. Whatever, if it had anything to do with this thread, it would be quite in order for New Molsona to cite his RPd loophole on gay marriage. It would also be in order for others to query it.

Now, let's see if the whips and scorpions are ready ...

New Molsona, given your history, I'm skipping from one-day ban to *** seven-day ban for trolling ***. It should not have escaped your notice that you have progressed from warning, to ban, to a longer ban. DEAT is definitely on your horizon and, given your proven failure to learn, DoS looms.

Your behaviour in this thread encompassed not only your repeat offence of threadjacking a gun control thread with abortion and gay marriage arguments, but also your spamming in the RP fiasco. Plus the instances of your following one of your threadjacking posts minutes later with a "let's get back on topic" plea that was probably as infuriating to other players as the threadjack itself. But we'll go with this post as the finale, when "muslims provoked the crusades <snip>" was followed by:

If they weren't killed, there would be more terrorism today.<snip>

Now to those who contributed to the threadjack. Yes, in some cases you may have been "just answering a question from another poster". But if the other poster was threadjacking, your answer was too.

Mattlandia: you were called out for the same thing in the earlier thread, and you were spamming and flaming before the threadlock: add them together and you get a *** one-day ban ***.

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories: *** warned for threadjacking ***, example here.

Kelinfort: *** warned for threadjacking, *** example here.

Which brings us to the segment that seems to have been the shock-horror moment, the RPing with Ambassador Bell twerking naked, huge Ambassador Watson vomiting and Ambassador Myrtis literally needling her opponent.

Despite the ineradicable mental pictures, most of that wasn't outside the bounds of normal RP. In one of the RP forums, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for content, and mods don't rule on RP quality.

Further, RP has been a feature of the GA from the start, and quirkiness has been actively encouraged by the community. It is not wrong to RP in GA threads. Particularly if you make the effort to make your IC posts mildly funny or interesting, and relevant to the thread topic.

However, you are supposed to know when to stop (hint: before you get to four pages of irrelevance). You are not supposed to RP maliciously, in a way that makes clear you are snarking at the player, not the character. And you are not supposed to RP as a means of spamming a thread to lock when the subject or its author is not to your liking.

Consequently, Separatist Peoples, *** warned for spamming ***. Athenoi, this first, unofficial warning will, I hope, make you more careful with posts such as this, which looks OOC, and with overdoing RP.

Without the OP for a week, players may be able to redeem themselves somewhat by concentrating on the text of the proposal. There are also two (so far?) others on the same subject, which may be open to less heated discussion. Try it. Thread unlocked.

[Seveth]

I would still not vote for this law because of our ideological differences, but here is one suggestion in order to make it better.

Defines 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

Defines the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

You say that the violent crime is determined by the nation's laws, but then turn around and define it for the proposal. This is contradictory in my opinion, but I could be missing something.

[Ikania]

Boy am I happy this happened. Thank you Ardchoille.

This attempt at a resolution was slightly better, but horrible nonetheless. The definition of Assault Rifle dictated that it is a select-fire weapon. This effectively mandates the sale of Machine Guns, Miniguns and Rocket Launchers to the common populace. Neverminding the fact that nobody will ever vote for this. I would definitely advise New Molsona to leave the WA, as he seems to have no problem violating the rules, and proudly doing so. He is trying to force his concepts of "freedom" on the Assembly, and it would be much better if he just left.

[New Molsona]

I would still not vote for this law because of our ideological differences, but here is one suggestion in order to make it better.

Defines 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

Defines the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

You say that the violent crime is determined by the nation's laws, but then turn around and define it for the proposal. This is contradictory in my opinion, but I could be missing something.

If I don't define it, any nation can call speeding a violent crime and take guns away from bad drivers.

[New Molsona]

Boy am I happy this happened. Thank you Ardchoille.

This attempt at a resolution was slightly better, but horrible nonetheless. The definition of Assault Rifle dictated that it is a select-fire weapon. This effectively mandates the sale of Machine Guns, Miniguns and Rocket Launchers to the common populace. Neverminding the fact that nobody will ever vote for this. I would definitely advise New Molsona to leave the WA, as he seems to have no problem violating the rules, and proudly doing so. He is trying to force his concepts of "freedom" on the Assembly, and it would be much better if he just left.

Please don't continue the threadjack, learn from my mistakes. If you have any suggestions for 'assault weapon', that would be greatly appreciated.

[Dooom35796821595]

Boy am I happy this happened. Thank you Ardchoille.

This attempt at a resolution was slightly better, but horrible nonetheless. The definition of Assault Rifle dictated that it is a select-fire weapon. This effectively mandates the sale of Machine Guns, Miniguns and Rocket Launchers to the common populace. Neverminding the fact that nobody will ever vote for this. I would definitely advise New Molsona to leave the WA, as he seems to have no problem violating the rules, and proudly doing so. He is trying to force his concepts of "freedom" on the Assembly, and it would be much better if he just left.

Please don't continue the threadjack, learn from my mistakes. If you have any suggestions for 'assault weapon', that would be greatly appreciated.

I have a suggestion for assault weapon, don't use it as the term was made up by the American administration and has no real meaning.

Like I previously mentioned making a resolution on firearms is going to be very vague, or a massive list of definitions. Try to stick to terms like semi auto, full auto and bolt action, words that don't need an included definition and cannot be loopholed. You may also want to consider limiting the scope of the resolution to only include chemical propellant projectile weapons, to avoid tech level arguments.

[Festavo]

Mr. Ambassador, I support this legislation and will gladly vote YEA if it makes it to a vote...

[Bodobol]

Boy am I happy this happened. Thank you Ardchoille.

This attempt at a resolution was slightly better, but horrible nonetheless. The definition of Assault Rifle dictated that it is a select-fire weapon. This effectively mandates the sale of Machine Guns, Miniguns and Rocket Launchers to the common populace. Neverminding the fact that nobody will ever vote for this. I would definitely advise New Molsona to leave the WA, as he seems to have no problem violating the rules, and proudly doing so. He is trying to force his concepts of "freedom" on the Assembly, and it would be much better if he just left.

Please don't continue the threadjack, learn from my mistakes. If you have any suggestions for 'assault weapon', that would be greatly appreciated.

It's not just the assault weapon definition; the problem is you will never garner popular support for a resolution that forces nations to arm their populace, and any attempt to do so is futile.

[New Molsona]

Mr. Ambassador, I support this legislation and will gladly vote YEA if it makes it to a vote...

Thank you, your support is appreciated.

[New Molsona]

Please don't continue the threadjack, learn from my mistakes. If you have any suggestions for 'assault weapon', that would be greatly appreciated.

It's not just the assault weapon definition; the problem is you will never garner popular support for a resolution that forces nations to arm their populace, and any attempt to do so is futile.

There is nowhere in the draft that requires any nation to provide guns, it just requires nations to allow citizens to purchase firearms with their own money.

[Chester Pearson]

It's not just the assault weapon definition; the problem is you will never garner popular support for a resolution that forces nations to arm their populace, and any attempt to do so is futile.

There is nowhere in the draft that requires any nation to provide guns, it just requires nations to allow citizens to purchase firearms with their own money.

Seeing as you fully intend to proceed with this, I suppose I will just submit the blocker I have drafted, rendering this whole thing moot....

[New Molsona]

There is nowhere in the draft that requires any nation to provide guns, it just requires nations to allow citizens to purchase firearms with their own money.

Seeing as you fully intend to proceed with this, I suppose I will just submit the blocker I have drafted, rendering this whole thing moot....

link?

[Kelinfort]

Seeing as you fully intend to proceed with this, I suppose I will just submit the blocker I have drafted, rendering this whole thing moot....

link?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=277812

[New Molsona]

link?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=277812

You do realize that nowhere in this draft does it require anyone to own firearms, it just requires member nations to give their citizens the choice.

[Bodobol]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=277812

You do realize that nowhere in this draft does it require anyone to own firearms, it just requires member nations to give their citizens the choice.

Which no nation should be forced to do.

[People Who Say Ni]

Molsona, unless you can provide a reason for why gun rights are:
- civil right; or,
- human rights;
which are relevant on an international level,
this bill will not and should not pass. The gun control category should not be used for the legalisation of guns everywhere.

[West Angola]

You do realize that nowhere in this draft does it require anyone to own firearms, it just requires member nations to give their citizens the choice.

Ergo, a blocker doing precisely what it intends to do.

[New Molsona]

Molsona, unless you can provide a reason for why gun rights are:
- civil right; or,
- human rights;
which are relevant on an international level,
this bill will not and should not pass. The gun control category should not be used for the legalisation of guns everywhere.

Many resolution legalize something everywhere such as the resolutions that I have previously cited.

[Bodobol]

Molsona, unless you can provide a reason for why gun rights are:
- civil right; or,
- human rights;
which are relevant on an international level,
this bill will not and should not pass. The gun control category should not be used for the legalisation of guns everywhere.

Many resolution legalize something everywhere such as the resolutions that I have previously cited.

That's irrelevant to what he was saying.