Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

It was written that:
>I don't kow about that. That presumes that as humans we don't share
>certain common views on what an inalienable right is and on how we'd
>like to be governed. I'm pretty sure you'd find that everyone would
>like a say in their governance, rights to safety and prosperity and
>the like.

these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the right
to
own lots and lots of artillery - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in my
own
home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains out
with!")

Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so our
universal NAC rights have hit a snag...unless all the gun nuts kill
themselves off in the 2nd ACW...This is without mixing religion into
things.

An NAC-wide basic bill of rights would have to have provision for 'local
amendments that do not contravene the aforementioned Rights of all NAC
subjects'. This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
administrations that had a majority of gun nuts, while the rest of the
citizenry in other regions wouldn't bother with 'rights' like this. At
the
same time, if an NAC region tried to introduce new amendments that did
break the NAC Rights, they'd be stopped.

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html -DS2/SG2/mis-