[GA - Passed] Right To Self-Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Right To Self-Defense
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Nueva Rico | Onsite Topic​

Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and family from an imminent threat,

Cognizant that some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,

Acknowledging that government services put in place to protect the lives of public and safety from harm - such as a police force - are not always readily available in a dire situation that may endanger the life of an individual and/or the lives of their family,

Hereby,

1. Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,

2. Further defines “arms” as any weapons, munitions, or equipment designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage, including, but not limited to, firearms, knives, explosives, etc.

3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

4. Assures member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force, either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,

Co-authored with DiRito-Opolis.
Click to expand...

Please vote: For, Against, Abstain, or Present

Sharing detailed opinions along with your vote are encouraged and appreciated!
 
Ministry IFV:
It is difficult to know if the current proposal is genuinely concerned with improving civil rights or if simply seeks to try and resolve violence by enabling further violence. The author cites the lack of legislation on this subject as a potential tool of oppressive regimes, but a right to self-defence never extends to acts of violence against one's government, so that argument makes little sense. The proposed justification for an individual's (often weaponized) self-defence is too broad and too open to interpretation. This leaves great potential for a disproportionate defence response, based not on the actual threat in each situation, but on the individual's interpretation of that threat. This often leads to fatal mistakes. A one-size-fits-all legislation does not work in this case, and it is the opinion of the Ministry that any nation's rights to self-defence should develop organically, over time, and perhaps through individual judiciaries.

For this reason, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the proposal.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure how I feel about this, Self defense is a very complex issue that may be better addressed on a national basis

Against for right now
 
For.
Self-Defense should absolutely be a right, it saves one's life and potentially others in the process. Everything mentioned in this proposal is crystal clear to me.
 
Nations "... deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,"?

Oh please.

Let nations organically develop their judicial/legislative notions and scope of self-defense instead of bludgeoning such vague terminology which only makes sense in the context of American common law.

Against.
 
Last edited:
Against.

This is a matter that should be dealt with by a Nation.
WA should only be involved on Nation v's Nation Self -Defence matters.
 
Against.
(and overwhelmingly so)
This is a little back-door NRA type shananigans with some window dressing. Rights to reasonable self-defense are quite common, and they certainly don't require the legislated inclusion of weapons where they may be absent. Essentially, this proposal seeks to impose a 'right to bear arms' on every nation in the WA, whether it's wanted or not. Given how catastrophic this type or legislation continues to be for the obvious real-world example, we may as well be legislating a pox on all houses. Utter tripe.
 
Against.
This is something that should be dealt with on a national basis.
 
For: This bill obviously does not make it impossible for nations to limit what types of guns are available to the public so I do not see why that is coming up unless you are of the mind that the public should not have guns period then though I disagree, I can understand your concern.
 
FOR. The right to self-defense should not be confused with a "right to bear arms". In nations where guns are totally prohibited and virtually nonexistent, muggers and burglars are less likely to be killed anyway. You can be charged with possession of a firearm, but not for using that same firearm to defend yourself. See clause 5. OOC I have a huge problem with the NRA and their extreme pro-gun agenda.
 
every individual has a right to defend themselves from danger.
what we need to work on is that what "tools" they are allowed to use to defend themselves.
 
My problem with is the implication of 2.

It defines "arms" in one of the most dangerous ways in regards to self-defense. It basically creates Stand-Your-Ground doctrine but increases bounds of it to include Grenades, Artillery Pieces, hell you can read directly into that, that it creates a right to use Nuclear Weapons against people.

While you might think I am taking it too far. The one limiter on the use of force for defense is 3.b which is vague enough to drive a tank through. What is "excessive" If someone has a knife they can only defend themselves with knives? If they have a pistol, can you only defend yourself a pistol of equal specifications? And it only gets more muddy from there, if someone breaks into a home what is excessive? Hitting them with a baseball bat? What about a Machete? Chainsaw?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top