The rights of man

[Glomin]

the right to bear arms would not be included, if your nation wishes to allow its citizens to be armed then that is its business however it is not a universal right (this would lead to the bizarre idea that any treaty made in relation to this would result in you not being able to disarm POW's due to them having the right to be armed.....).

The right to freedom of thought or conscience as it is in the draft idea (note not of action or of speech) is because it should be the right of everyone to have freedom within themselves. (i.e. peoples beliefs shouldn't result in punishment only their actions (speech can be an action regarded as harmful (so if you incite people to burn churches/schools/whatever your words and then they do your speech was a harmful action)))

The freedom of liberty is the idea that people should not be imprisoned or made to act against their will, now obviously there are exceptions.  Criminals should be imprisoned and/or made to act against their will to protect society (their will to commit more crimes for example).  Soldiers/those in government service should expect to have to do things they may not wish to do however they do so in exchange for certain things (pay/citizenship/etc) and so it is an agreement between the citizen and the state (note however that this doesn't preclude conscription).  Those who are dangerously ill either mentally or physically can be restrained from mingling with society both for their and society's good (i.e. to stop them injuring themselves or others).

These rights are merely the basis of building other treaties in the future.

[Myroria]

Delfos - At least my citizen's won't be murdered by the thousands because they can't own guns.

Needless to say, Myroria will not sign this treaty and finds countries that don't allow the right to bear arms restrictive.

[Delfos]

how can you even consider the right to bear arms a human right.

[Myroria]

Because without the right to bear arms, citizens are not given the ability to revolt. If the populace can not revolt, it is asking for dictatorship. Dictatorship brings the violation of the more important human rights.

At least include the right not to be drafted. The right to choice.

[Delfos]

that's something, a human right is the one that lets them live free, bearing arms isn't exactly anything related to it,
and to your comment, most of the European population doesn't bear arms and lives in a peace paradise, I even made a joke earlier about thinking of going to a Californian engineering school, i didn't want to get shot there.
People can revolt without fire-arms, and it works when it's really strong. Actually it seems to work better without arms than with them. I haven't seen any 'revolution' attempt in USA since Nixon spanked those hippies..so if those hippies were armed, USA would be a hippie land?
You made a comment, i made a comment, lets just stop here.

[Myroria]

Oh, please. Most dictatorships won't fall because a few soldiers stuck roses or carnations or tulips or whatever in their guns. Sure, some will, but the vast majority of dictatorships are far more brutal.

[Pachamama]

Actually I have to side with Myroria here.
First for some information The European population DOES carry and own firearms.
In Germany you can posses firearms if you are a sports marksmen, forest warden or hunter.
You have to be in a gun club to own a firearm and you must prove that you need it for sports purposes.
You have to be a member for at least one year and make a expertise test on technology, safety and law concerning firearms.
In Germany there are 2,000,000 official sport marksmen.
In England the government prohibited the owning of firearms.
Scotland Yard makes a regular survey amongst burglars they have caught.
The Question "Do you care if somebody is at home while you are trying to break into that home" was answered by 5% with "No I don't care"
After the law was in effect Scotland Yard noted that 50% answered "No I don't care"
Also the gang shootings and armed crimes by gangs have risen drastically in the now arms-free England.

Also please not when looking at the table that Australia has the same gun laws as Great Britain.

If Delfos doesn't want to go to California ES he also better not go to Erfurt in Germany. There was a school shooting too.

Also we should understand that just someone does not do a bad thing because he does not have the possibility to do it does not make him a good person.
What makes him a good person is that he does not do it even so he could.

And what happened at Erfurt and California is not the result of firearms but of the humans that use them.
And before someone Starts complaining that he could have killed less people if he did not have a gun.
I Japan a mentally unstable man killed several children in a pre-school and injured many more with a kitchen knife.
And many experts see the Erfurt shooting as a result of the failure of society, school, and even the authority's and parents.
Not something that was started with a gun.

We could have this turn into an endless discussion but I agree with Glomin here.
Humans should be given basic rights. But there are rights that should be decided by the governments. The right to bear arms is one of those.
If Myroria allows it's people to bear arms that's his decision. If Delfos doesn't allow it to his people then it's his decision too.

Well and about what Xyrael said.
Those human rights should be taken with some common sense.
I do not see it as a violation to "The right to water" if there is a drought and people have a lack of water.

Sure if you wish to find a reason to attack that country then their "Rights violation" could be a good reason.
But not if you are sensible about it.
And being sensible is not something granted by some god.
It is your decision to be sensible about it.
Laws, rights and treaty's should not be used as an excuse to stop thinking and become unreasonable.

[Delfos]

ooc: and that's why 'most' of the europeans don't own weapons. And most of who does are illegal or just bare sportsmen or hunters or whatever. We are not allowed to have a firearm for protection, we already have the policemen to protect.

It was a joke about the California school, i even doubt there's shootings there..well not as much as fire. There's also two schools, one in Essen and another in Cologne that are appealing for a foreign graduation, and i won't care about being shot or not.

Yes England is a problem, but as i said, they are quite an exception rule in EU.

Firearms kill, and that's a direct threat or violation of the Right to Live. Jailing is something else, the person didn't respected the rule of society, and gets away of it. That's normal, but death penalty is a violation of the human right to live. So that's how i face it, and i will sure defend this in Taijitu if necessary. So the right to bear arms is a menace to social security and human rights. The one with bigger or faster gun will rule, and we will be back to the far-west cowboy land. Retrograde! lol

Anyway, this is only a generic treaty, it will take ages to get a specific treaty, so we need to go in parts, 1st a generic that everyone can agree, without the right to bare arms because there's quite allot of controversy, and then if you think the right to bear arms has anything to do with the right to live you can submit it. /ooc

[Pachamama]

OOC. You want to get schooling in germany . Welcome then.
If we ever meet over here I will invite you to a drink, and probably a hefty discussion. 
No shootings I promise.

IC

I agree with you on the order of things.

I am going to side with you on the death penalty issue.

I am not siding with you on the firearms issue.

Some reasons I have already stated.
There are others that are specific to my nations history and social structure.
Should you be interested I will explain them to you. 

[Delfos]

I am, I've nothing better to do..oh, i gotta sleep, study and go to classes...but expose it, I'll read it as soon as i get here. Maybe in a few minutes?

[Xyrael]

You want to see school shootings, please look at statistical information regarding Wisconsin. I believe there have been over five incidents in the past two years. In Los Angeles, the last major incident involved gang violence outside of Venice High School, and didn't occur on the premises.

Also, you are using skewed statistics to validate your argument in relation to the burglary. I'd like to ask the number of burglary-related murders which have occured after this law was enforced. Does not the Right to Life usurp the more mundane Right to Property? When one Right violates the other, what do you do? Turn to a treaty and go "oh hey look there's guidelines"?

[Delfos]

please specify, what do you mean by the right to life usurp the right to property?

And right to property isn't very good, what it's normally said it right to privacy and right to have a shelter, doesn't really mean it has to be his/her shelter. This practically means that whatever shelter they receive must have a private quarter, and the simplest form of this right is a tent. Doesn't automatically makes it his/her property, because it can be an humanitarian aid tent as example, that's one of the goals of humanitarian aid, to enforce human rights even when they do not exist or threatened by war or pest or whatever.
So human rights are very important to get a direct constitutional answer for humanitarian organizations or humanitarian aid from nations...it will be very hard to get signatures here, i bet most of the IPO members will sign, leaving most of any other very undecided or reluctant.

[Rabarac]

What Xyrael and others have described is called the 'collision effect,' it's something that comes up in constitutional government systems; where one guaranteed right may seem to infringe upon another.  Usually the courts are responsible for drawing the lines and saying which or whose right trumps what in any given scenario where it is not black and white.  Since there is no court system to interpret this (i.e. RL World Court), this will have to be an extensively long and mind-numbingly detailed treaty which would delineate what action is to be taken in any given scenario.  Such a document would be larger than the U.S. Tax Code.  Alternatively, you create a Taijitian Court to make rulings based on said treaty.  But then you have a world government, and then things will be forced on members of the treaty here which they may not be able to perceive at this time.  This begins to violate one of the five elements of the Rule of Law.

Right to Property is what was originally enumerated by John Locke, next to the rights of life and liberty.  Right to privacy is far more vague and can be applied to almost anything.  No wonder the serious political philosophers of the Enlightenment never placed the government with the responsibility of protecting the 'right to privacy.'  The right to life can be effected by nature, but also by men, and that is where government's responsibility steps in.  The rights of food and water are equally unenforceable against nature, but government should protect from violations against men.  These kind of drizzle down to specific laws and regulations, not just 'we guarantee these rights.'  Rights are ideas, laws are action.

[Pachamama]

Thank you Rabarac.
You put my thoughts into words.
I am sorry here but my English is not THAT good. Especially on legal matters and expressions.
Were I would have bogged this down with lengthy and awkward discussion you said it short and clear.

Delfos
I will come back to you for the info I promised you but I have currently other business. So please wait some time.
And to avoid a misunderstanding i was referring to my RP nation.

Xyrael
I removed the link because I have my doubts in the site the info is placed on (But not in the Info itself) I will try and bring up my point with Info from Scotland Yard if possible.
But you should consider that a criminal who breaks into your house will not spare you or your live because you do not have a gun.
Also about dictatorships.
If being unarmed would solve the problem 6 million German Jews and 2 million Cambodian civilians would be still alive.
They were mainly killed because they could not defend themselves.

And to finally clear one thing.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people and they will by any means available.
I know a army depot were several thousand guns are stored since decades and no one there has ever died.
The difference between an Axe that is used to chop wood and one that is used to kill someone is the will of it's user. Not that of the Axe.
This is my opinion. My 

[Myroria]

Being defenseless does not make sheep safe from predators. The same goes for humans.

And that's all I have to say about that.