We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Firearms Limitation Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2366
Description[?]:
| Whilst accepting that for certain employment opportunities there is a requirement for the use of firearms, and also accepting that the primary function of firearms is to cause harm to others, the Government will reintroduce limitations on the ownership of firearms. Those requiring the use of firearms as part of their profession will only be allowed to own aforementioned firearms after passing a strict mental evaluation and receiving written confirmation of support from a respected member of the public (Medical professional/Bank manager/Local Government official etc) who will be required to attest for the member who wishes to own said weapon (should any event occur, the professional will not be held accountable for the actions of those who recieve a licence) and will be registered by the Imperial Firearms Agency. Firearms are limited to single shot pistols and rifles, with a maximum caliber of .22. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Current: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Proposed: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:17:50, February 25, 2007 CET | From |   Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | We will not support this at all. We have fought hard for the rights of Hobrazians, and we'll be damned if we see them taken away! This bill is against progress. |
| Date | 23:23:36, February 25, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | This bill is for safety and the freedom of Hobrazians. |
| Date | 23:27:14, February 25, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | This bill puts a limit on the freedom of individuals, there can be no denying this. You are saying "nope we can't allow you to spend your own money, money that you spent hard working hours for, on this particular inanimate object because we don't agree with you having it." Our position is that it isn't your place to tell anyone how to run their own life. |
| Date | 23:30:54, February 25, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | "This bill puts a limit on the freedom of individuals, there can be no denying this." - Actually, we do deny this. What we do is increase the freedom of the individual by decreasing the risks of people leaving their own home. We remove the risks, or at least decrease them, and so increase their freedom. |
| Date | 23:36:12, February 25, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | But decrease their freedom in choosing how to run their own life. In fact we would argue that these measures would not increase safety, but just the opposite. Because, as we all know, gun control results in only criminals having guns. You are taking away a tool that the law-abiding citizen has to increase their safety of person. This law is a death sentence to anyone who has a break-in. |
| Date | 23:39:14, February 25, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | No it isn't. The majority of criminals, especially petty thieves, don't use firearms and if we reduce the number of firearms available we also reduce the number of criminals with firearms. We also reduce the risk of personal injury to people using firearms because, and here's the clincher, they won't have any. It's very difficult to harm oneself with a firearm if you don't have one. |
| Date | 23:46:02, February 25, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | Except they very point that you are missing is that there is no possible way of limiting the amount of firearms on the streets. It's a failed concept that will never ever be successful. There are so many examples as to why it isn't even funny. But you'll never learn. |
| Date | 23:49:29, February 25, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | Says the Party that insists that increasing the number firearms will make people safe... |
| Date | 23:51:19, February 25, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | It is a proven fact. |
| Date | 23:56:38, February 25, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | No it isn't. It is a leading statement. |
| Date | 20:57:23, February 26, 2007 CET | From | Classical Republican Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | OOC: no, guns are GOOD. IC: If professionally required, that would prevent people from being able to protect themselves in the event of crime.... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 205 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 192 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again." - Bill O'Reilly |