| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Responsible Arms Trading; Proposed by Sciongrad | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 2 2015, 09:00 AM (180 Views) | |
| Christian Democrats | May 2 2015, 09:00 AM Post #1 |
|
HMSM James II
|
This proposal is seven hours away from a vote. In-game debate thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=292963
|
|
"I was born free and desire to continue so." | |
![]() |
|
| Christian Democrats | May 2 2015, 09:03 AM Post #2 |
|
HMSM James II
|
Against. This proposal unduly burdens the domestic arms trade; and, as far as the international trade goes, I'm not convinced that the General Assembly should be involved. Surely, nations, on their own, are capable of regulating the trade of small arms across their borders according to their own views on gun control. |
|
"I was born free and desire to continue so." | |
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 2 2015, 01:31 PM Post #3 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
I'm for. I think it's a solid resolution. There are some niggles with the resolution, I have, but I didn't get a chance to bring them up (I was actually planning on resurrecting Eduard Heir for the forum discussion). - Weird wording with 'excepting' in Clause Four. - What counts as 'World Assembly legislation on human rights' and does 'extant' include future legislation? - Is there not always a remote possibility that armaments supplied may later be used for less admirable campaigns? Could this act as a wider prohibition than the author intended. - Clause Five, 'Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate' doesn't seem to anticipate freedom fighters; naturally, freedom fighters and liberation armies receive boat loads of armaments from abroad and would not want to register with a government they do not recognize as legitimate and nor would said government want to accept their registration. Perhaps an international registry would be more neutral. - I'm worried about Clause Four's block with 'imminent lawless action' as the term; which law (domestic or international law) counts as lawless in absence of legal merit? And lots of bad actions can be lawful. Let's say, the WA is trying to protect, I dunno, travelling gypsies, who keep getting shot when they cross over private property, because some WA nations encourage people to carry guns and protect their own properties vigilantly with a trigger finger - gunning down a carnival of gypsies isn't necessary a 'lawless' action in this case, but it's a diplomatic issue nonetheless and I could see the WA having a role to play in domestic gun policy because personal security is gravely at risk. Edited by unibot, May 2 2015, 01:34 PM.
|
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| Opressed Ones | May 2 2015, 03:42 PM Post #4 |
|
Dedicated
|
For |
![]() |
|
| Sciongrad | May 2 2015, 05:10 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Poster
|
For. |
![]() |
|
| Kenny | May 2 2015, 08:57 PM Post #6 |
|
WASC Suicide Bomber
|
For!
|
| About us | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic » |





12:21 AM Jul 11