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: The Individual Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Zardugal Anarchist Party
Status[?]: defeated
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 2442
Description[?]:
| This bill seeks to replace the police force with a vigilante system enforced by armed citizens. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: People must first obtain a permit in order to carry concealed weapons.
Current: Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly.
Proposed: Any legal weapon may be concealed when carried.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Current: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Proposed: The government does not operate or fund any police.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Weapons allowed to private citizens.
Old value:: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried.
Current: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried.
Proposed: Citizens may own any type of weapon. They may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:55:23, August 11, 2007 CET | From |  Ancient and Noble Order of the Cavaliers | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | "And what, exactly, is to keep evil people with guns from dominating those that don't? What will happen when these vigilante groups go too far? A very lofty proposal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions." -Sir Bartholomew Gosnold, Directory Member |
| Date | 00:16:07, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Liberals | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | Your party represents nobodies best interests. |
| Date | 05:53:37, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Zardugal Anarchist Party | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | IIt is not surprising that a member of the political machine is afraid of dismantling it. Keep in mind this act would create a society in which the majority of people would be armed, and hence everyone would be able to protect themselves. Would you kill someone if their family was armed? Would you shoplift if the staff had weapons on them? Imagine if everyone had a gun, then everyone would have the same level of power at their disposal, that is true equality. Instead, you propose the status quo where only those criminals who intend to do harm are armed, and the population at large are easy targets. |
| Date | 06:11:27, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Ancient and Noble Order of the Cavaliers | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | "What if you're that desperate that you would attack someone, anyone? If someone has a handgun, an enterprising theif will pack a shotgun, if the store clerk is carrying a shotgun, the theif will have an assault weapon, if the man walking his dog has an assault weapon, the theif will come from behind with a knife. Furthermore, if everyone has a gun, I would make the guarantee that crimes of passion would increase ten fold. Guns do not create a deterence, they create and incentive to carry bigger, and more deadly weapons than the other man." -Sir Bartholomew Gosnold |
| Date | 06:24:29, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Zardugal Anarchist Party | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | The thing you don't seem to understand is that criminals or 'enterprising thieves' are already willing to illegally acquire the bigger gun, at least with this act the shopkeeper has a legal avenue in which he can protect himself. If the law worked, and criminals had no access to weapons i would agree with you, but the current state of affairs is that only criminals are armed while law-abiding citizens follow the law, which leaves them vulnerable. I think a person holding a gun is much like a country holding a nuclear arsenal, and if the cold war tells me anything mutually assured destruction is quite the deterrence. |
| Date | 17:53:40, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Liberals | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | Yes lets all live in fear. |
| Date | 20:56:45, August 12, 2007 CET | From | Ancient and Noble Order of the Cavaliers | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | "A nuclear weapon is not the same as a hand gun. Heavy machine guns and tanks were meant to deter warfare in the years leading up to the first World War, but that clearly did not work. There will always be thieves and villains, and to pretend that by making every gun legal will remove these people from our midsts is a fantasy." -Sir Bartholomew Gosnold |
| Date | 05:22:59, August 14, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | You are correct Cavalier Party. HOWEVER, It will give upstanding citizens the ability to protect themselves from those thieves and villains. |
| Date | 10:20:57, August 14, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the The Individual Protection Act |
| Message | We're voting against this bill, only because we believe that for a judicial system to function, the government must fund a police force, though we passionately agree with articles 2 and 3. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 401 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken |