NATION

PASSWORD

[Proposed]International Act of Gun Freedoms

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Missourian Rebels
Diplomat
 
Posts: 535
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

[Proposed]International Act of Gun Freedoms

Postby Missourian Rebels » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:13 am

Category: Gun Control:Relax
Strength: Very Strong
Proposing Nation: Missourian Rebels

This act Mandates in ALL member states, that:

REALIZING that many Civilians are seriously Hindered in certain areas by Gun Control
and STATING that any Weapon is allowed use of a Military Operative at Any Time during a Conflict including the Operative's unit,
this act ORDERS that all member states must allow the Use of all Small Arms that are not Explosive, including but not limited to: Assualt Rifles, Pistols, and Sub Machine Guns, as long as, the arms of question are registered,

This document also MANDATES that all member states MUST perform Detailed Background Checks, that MUST include, but are not limited to:
Criminal Record, Travel Record, Religion, and Political Views
Last edited by Missourian Rebels on Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:19 am

Hmm, the topic is a very tough one to crack because some member states may not trust its citizens with guns at all. I would in my opinion support a resolution that allows licensed gun ownership but I am not sure if all member states would agree, which may explain the lack of gun control resolutions on the WA.

Yours etc,

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8604
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:51 am

Additionally, I believe that the stipulation regarding listing religion for a background check could possibly be construed as discriminatory. As is, it is unlikely to be a violation of CoCR, but this proposal needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more to be worthy of serious consideration.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:53 am

Criminal Record, Travel Record, Religion, and Political Views

If I remember correctly the CoCR would have made the need for religious checks to be redundant or worse. In fact, checks for the criminal record and mental health will do just fine.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2453
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Philimbesi » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:04 am

REALIZING that many Civilians are seriously Hindered in certain areas by Gun Control


One of those areas being killing each other, which is why they are tightly regulated in USP, and we can not support deregulation to the extent this would force us to have. This is a national issue.
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

Ideological Bulwark #235

User avatar
Neutonica
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Neutonica » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:58 am

Philimbesi wrote:
REALIZING that many Civilians are seriously Hindered in certain areas by Gun Control


One of those areas being killing each other, which is why they are tightly regulated in USP, and we can not support deregulation to the extent this would force us to have. This is a national issue.


This delegate supports the view of USP, and thus is opposed to this proposal.

Dr Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Nullarni » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:36 pm

You see, this is the real test of those, like myself, who espouse the ideals of nations being able to govern their own citizens as they please.

My nation is very liberal in its gun rights, we feel that people should be able to freely acquire guns for sport and recreation. This proposal would support this, (for the most part... minus the registration and background searches,) and so I am inclined to support it. But, as I stated before, we believe that it is the right of every nation to govern their own citizens however and in whatever way they please, and that overrides our veiws on gun ownership.

I therefore cannot support this proposal.
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Freeoplis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 551
Founded: Dec 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Freeoplis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:14 pm

We can't support such legislation, weapons are tightly regulated for crime and safety reasons within our borders and wish that to remain the case.
The Republic of Freeoplis
Region of Absolution

User avatar
Novus Niciae
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5472
Founded: May 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Novus Niciae » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:37 pm

We would support this if you limited the possible caliber to be less than that use by police special tactical units and only permitted general purpose ammunition to be sold to be sold to civilians.

We do not want criminals wandering around with 50cal sniper rifles loaded with "cop killer" AP ammo.

We would also want a strict background check that includes a psych evaluation to be required to prevent mentally unstable people or people with a history of violent crime from legally obtaining a firearm.

We realize that a background check will not totally remove the problem of them owning potentially dangerous weapons but it will make it more difficult for them to do so.
For: Free thought, 2 state solution for Israel, democracy, playing the game.
Against: Totalitarianism, Theocracy, Slavery, Playing the system
Tech Level: FT

User avatar
Mikedor
Minister
 
Posts: 2375
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikedor » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:12 am

The Dominion would be unable to support such a resolution, as we view gun ownership by any other than the Armed Forces and Gendarmerie as dangerous and conducive to violent crime.

This also, in the eyes of the Dominion, interferes with the ability of the government to preserve public order.
Last edited by Mikedor on Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Welcome to 1938.

I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.

User avatar
Brogavia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5271
Founded: Sep 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Brogavia » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:09 pm

Novus Niciae wrote:We would support this if you limited the possible caliber to be less than that use by police special tactical units and only permitted general purpose ammunition to be sold to be sold to civilians.

We do not want criminals wandering around with 50cal sniper rifles loaded with "cop killer" AP ammo.


OOC: People who know nothing about guns should not suggest regulations about them. Police units tend to use commonly used cartridges. The AR-15 is chambered in .223 Remmington, so only allowing smaller calibers would mean restricting them to .22 LR, .204 win and the various .17 caliber rounds.

And the idea of criminals walking around with .50 BMG sniper rifles is retarded. Have you ever seen a .50 BMG sniper rifle? I have. They are around 30 lbs, and nearly 5 feet long. Trying to use that the way they use other weapons would be idiotic.
Playing NS since Jan of 2006

1010102, Unjustly Deleted

Agent of the Timegate, if you expose me I'll kill you

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9027
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:20 pm

What exactly is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a pistol?

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
Mikedor
Minister
 
Posts: 2375
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikedor » Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:37 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:What exactly is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a pistol?

- Dr. B. Castro


We are told that they feel the need for these weapons as a measure of self-defence. So the argument is redundant in a nation with a competent police force.
Welcome to 1938.

I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Nullarni » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:37 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:What exactly is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a pistol?

- Dr. B. Castro


Well, there are many different shooting sports that civilians enjoy on a recreational and competition basis... (That is to say, in nations which allow the ownership of such firearms.)
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Neutonica
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Neutonica » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:40 am

Nullarni wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:What exactly is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a pistol?

- Dr. B. Castro


Well, there are many different shooting sports that civilians enjoy on a recreational and competition basis... (That is to say, in nations which allow the ownership of such firearms.)


Yes...shooting sports. Like the historic game "Friendly Fire", where young nine-year old kids shoot each other with submachine guns. One with most blood left after three seconds wins.

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Nullarni » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:44 am

Neutonica wrote:
Nullarni wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:What exactly is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a pistol?

- Dr. B. Castro


Well, there are many different shooting sports that civilians enjoy on a recreational and competition basis... (That is to say, in nations which allow the ownership of such firearms.)


Yes...shooting sports. Like the historic game "Friendly Fire", where young nine-year old kids shoot each other with submachine guns. One with most blood left after three seconds wins.


:lol: Yeah, its related to a game called "footie" where young nine-year-old kids cut each other's foot off and see who is the last one to bleed out.

But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.
Last edited by Nullarni on Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2453
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Philimbesi » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:43 am

But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.


True, but anyone who requires a semi automatic rifle to hunt should probably find a different hobby.
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

Ideological Bulwark #235

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Nullarni » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:55 am

Philimbesi wrote:
But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.


True, but anyone who requires a semi automatic rifle to hunt should probably find a different hobby.


I'm not talking about hunting.
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Enn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1228
Founded: Jan 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Enn » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:45 pm

Philimbesi wrote:
But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.


True, but anyone who requires a semi automatic rifle to hunt should probably find a different hobby.

That's not so much 'hunting' as 'killing'.
I know what gay science is.
Reploid Productions wrote:The World Assembly as a whole terrifies me!
Pythagosaurus wrote:You are seriously deluded about the technical competence of the average human.

User avatar
Freeoplis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 551
Founded: Dec 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Freeoplis » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:48 pm

It's been 3 days with no response from the author, we feel this proposal shall slip by the wayside . . . just a hunch ;)
The Republic of Freeoplis
Region of Absolution

User avatar
Treforysl
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: May 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Treforysl » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:26 pm

Whilst not opposed in principle to weaker gun controls, we find the idea of political background checks unsupportable within the broad church of the Assembly.

Whose politics and when?

We are unable to support this.

R McLenann

Minister of Home Security
People's Republic of Treforysl

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7327
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:11 am

Nullarni wrote:But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.
My government cannot recall any sport which requires anything larger than an air rifle to accomplish it's aims.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Neutonica
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jun 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Neutonica » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:45 am

Hirota wrote:
Nullarni wrote:But in all seriousness there are legitimate shooting sports, which are quite popular in some nations.
My government cannot recall any sport which requires anything larger than an air rifle to accomplish it's aims.


OOC,

Apparently, there are pointless submachine gun shooting competitions like this one...
http://www.issmc.com/

User avatar
NFA Rulz
Envoy
 
Posts: 277
Founded: Jan 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby NFA Rulz » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:02 am

This act Mandates in ALL member states, that:

REALIZING that many Civilians are seriously Hindered in certain areas by Gun Control
and STATING that any Weapon is allowed use of a Military Operative at Any Time during a Conflict including the Operative's unit,
this act ORDERS that all member states must allow the Use of all Small Arms that are not Explosive, including but not limited to: Assualt Rifles, Pistols, and Sub Machine Guns, as long as, the arms of question are registered,

This document also MANDATES that all member states MUST perform Detailed Background Checks, that MUST include, but are not limited to:
Criminal Record, Travel Record, Religion, and Political Views.


Let’s see now…

1. Define “Assault Weapon”.
2. Weapons are not explosive. The ammunition, to give you a break, Might be. Banning civilians from owning explosive ammunition unless they have The Proper Paperwork is reasonable. Such a Permit should be reasonably hard to get but never impossible.
3. Law Abiding Civilians have the right to own any kind firearm they wish. This includes automatically reloading – Machine Guns of every and any variety and caliber – firearms.
4. Background checks for
4a. Criminal or mentally incompetent: Reasonable.
4b. Travel Record: Unreasonable.
4c. Religion: Unreasonable.
4d. Political Views: Unreasonable.
5. Define “Registration”.
Get off my lawn!

User avatar
NFA Rulz
Envoy
 
Posts: 277
Founded: Jan 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby NFA Rulz » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:07 am

Novus Niciae wrote:We would support this if you limited the possible caliber to be less than that use by police special tactical units and only permitted general purpose ammunition to be sold to be sold to civilians.

We do not want criminals wandering around with 50cal sniper rifles loaded with "cop killer" AP ammo.

We would also want a strict background check that includes a psych evaluation to be required to prevent mentally unstable people or people with a history of violent crime from legally obtaining a firearm.

We realize that a background check will not totally remove the problem of them owning potentially dangerous weapons but it will make it more difficult for them to do so.

A: .50 BMG Rifles cost a base of USD$10,000 each. Each round costs a Base of USD$10.
B: "cop killer" AP ammo". There is no such thing. Granted a rifle round has greater penetration than most pistol ammunition, but that is as far as that myth goes.
Get off my lawn!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bears Armed, States of Glory WA Office

Advertisement

Remove ads