[GA - Defeated] Right To Self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
bowloftoast

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Right To Self-defense
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Nueva Rico Co-Author: DiRito-Opolis | 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,

c) The force used is not agin law enforcement or any other lawful force that does not infringe upon the rights established by this Assembly,

4. Affirms 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,

6. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to infringe upon the efficacy of law enforcement or to promote violence,
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
So if someone looks at me the wrong way I can't disintegrate them with my plasma sword?

Against

Imo this issue is handled better on a national basis
 
Part of the premise here is that nations have not, in the past, guaranteed this right to citizens. That's what I view as the point of this proposal. Based on that judgement...

For

WA is on NPA deployment- Bobberin0
 
I don't think we need a resolution for this, tbh. This issue should be addressed by each nation, not by the WA.

Against.

WA: Aenglaland
 
FOR.

Self-defense is a right all citizens of a nation must have, in order to protect themselves and their families against immediate danger. This is especially important in cases where law enforcement would not arrive in time, or where the presence of law enforcement officials adds danger.

WA Nation: Artemizistan (https://www.nationstates.net/nation=artemizistan)
 
Against
The author tries to justify this proposal because nations may use the lack of a WA legislated right to self defense as a tool of oppression. The proposal then goes on to say that force can not be used against law enforcement or any other lawful force (let's assume military or any purpose-built national agency).
Any 'oppressive' force within a nation would surely come in the form of a lawful agency like police, military, or the like. It's not going to be citizen to citizen oppression, so the whole exercise is pointless, and the stated goals of the proposal aren't achieved if it passes.
These agencies would be operating within the established laws of that nation. So any use of force against those agencies would still be criminal, regardless of the passage of this proposal. Any subsequent appeal around a use of force against those agencies, by a citizen, would then be carried out within the same nation, and decisions subject to their national law. Case dismissed.
You can't suck and blow at the same time.
Theoretically good, but really badly executed in this case.

WA nation THX1138
 
bowloftoast:
[snip]
Any 'oppressive' force within a nation would surely come in the form of a lawful agency like police, military, or the like. It's not going to be citizen to citizen oppression, so the whole exercise is pointless, and the stated goals of the proposal aren't achieved if it passes.
Click to expand...

I can't entirely agree with this. ISIS could be defined as an oppressive force within a nation without being a lawful one.

I dislike people having guns, but do believe that other forms of self-defense are useful. Martial arts for one. Such were developed to defend against use of 'lawful' use of force by an oppressive regime.
Does anyone consider that an inappropriate use of force by the populace?

For.
 
Janus:
I can't entirely agree with this. ISIS could be defined as an oppressive force within a nation without being a lawful one.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the only nation that would deny it's citizens the right to defend themselves from a domestic terror organization would be one that was in cahoots with such an organization. That brings us into another realm, where ample preventative legislation already exists.

What this proposal claims is 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,' Governments don't maintain a controlling presence over citizens by denying them the right to defend themselves from each other. They maintain that presence by denying the right of citizens to defend themselves from the government, or its agents, or any tacitly supported bad actors. Any government that would be using such tactics is already ignoring WA law and human rights.

The problem of this proposal is the huge disconnect between the problem it claims to be addressing (government oppression) and the solution it offers: A right for citizens to defend themselves from everyone except the government that's oppressing them.
 
Now where have I seen this before.

Ah yes, here (and here).

While I would support the Rise To Self-Defense, it should be dealt on a national basis, not by an international organization. Why is arms just inputed into there when it's a resoluation about Self Defense? Alright, I get you can bear arms for Self Defense. That I support but it should be on a National Basis like I stated before. This Resoluation is just mainly just that, Self Defense. No where as do I see it state arms being used.

We repaled this for a reason, let it stay repealed.

Against.

Once again, my WA Nation is on NPA Deployment. That nation is AFTER DOING AN OOPSIES DINO.
 
We opposed this before and I see no reason not to oppose it again. Once again we are faced with a resolution that hasn’t fundamentally changed from its flawed previous form.

Against

And with 3-5 vote has been cast Against.
 
I think the right presented is worth defending on an international scale. I don't think we need to confuse this with gun regulation as both can be enforced without direct contradiction.

For.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top