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: Concerning Gun Control
Details
Submitted by[?]: Feathercreek Ecological Partnership
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: January 2446
Description[?]:
| There is an absurd contradiction in our legislation; all police officers not from specially trained firearms units are restricted to non-lethal weapons, while citizens are allowed to have guns (and even conceal them in some states) as long as they have no history of mental illness. It is obvious this needs adjustment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: Local governments may set and enforce concealed carry laws.
Current: Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly.
Proposed: Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly.
Article 2
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: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Proposed: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Current: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Proposed: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:49:58, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Feathercreek Ecological Partnership | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | As always, we encourage a healthy discussion and will listen to any suggestions or criticisms presented. |
| Date | 08:51:18, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Christian Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | The CNF can support this bill. |
| Date | 09:26:38, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Unified National Party | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | Great Ideas! We fully agree |
| Date | 14:15:01, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Al'Badara Republican Party | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | ACAP fully stands behind such a bill. We find our police officers unprotected and unarmed in such a changing world full of militant extremists. |
| Date | 15:47:07, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Enlightened Cosmic Brotherhood | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | No. Non-Lethal weapons have worked fine for years. The people deserve the right to carry weapons to protect them from others and especially to protect themselves from the growing and if the Homophoic Nationalist Front had it's way, Fascist, government. You're creating two sides. The armed and loyal, and the unarmed and oppressed. This is a bill just looking for a problem. No. |
| Date | 18:18:47, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Feathercreek Ecological Partnership | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | I thought you would welcome a bill that fixes our legislature, but you argue that it is not the right solution? I am steadfast on bills 1 and 3, and believe that gun control is important, but perhaps I could allow the ownership of guns, strictly controlled. That's as far as I'll go. There is absolutely no need for an individual to conceal a weapon, and the police need guns if just as a symbolic gesture. I will send it off to vote with the changes made. |
| Date | 20:49:30, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | completely against this bill. We need to toughen up gun laws not relax them |
| Date | 01:48:30, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Feathercreek Ecological Partnership | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | This is toughening gun laws for our citizens. Unlike before, there are strict license conditions for owning a gun, and they cannot legally conceal them. Only for the policemen are the laws more lax, and I decided that because if you are a policeman you need a gun. Working as a police officer is a dangerous profession. Criminals will get hold of guns some way, and policemen need to have at least a standard pistol to defend themselves. These are : 1. You believe this isn't toughening gun laws enough, in which case I can argue that small steps are better than no steps at all. 2. You believe that policemen should not be equipped with standard firearms (pistols and the like), to which I point you to my first paragraph. 3. I misunderstood your response. 4. You misunderstood the bill. I urge you to read the proposition again and reconsider, or at least to give me a more detailed response so we can have a better debate. |
| Date | 03:13:56, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Enlightened Cosmic Brotherhood | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | Criminals will get ahold of guns no matter what. Just like people get ahold of drugs if they want them, and prostitutes will always exist. Furthermore, the majority of violent crimes are done with unregistered serial-numberless weapons. Why would a Mob boss buy his gun legally? Make them illegal and you're making it so just the bad guys and police have it. Furthermore, police don't need lethal weapons. Nonlethal weapons work just as well, save lives, and prevent cops from having the urge to kill someone just for a petty crime. Finally, you take all guns from out of citizens hands. This is illogical. The right to bare arms is common sense. Democracy Now! fully believes in the following quote: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."-George Washington |
| Date | 03:36:30, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Feathercreek Ecological Partnership | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | If criminals can get all guns no matter what, why can't police bear arms to protect themselves? You may be playing the devil's advocate, and you make several good points, but as a whole your argument seems very contradictory. This is not taking all guns out of the populace's hands, this is advocating licensing guns and taking measures that we don't sell firearms to criminals. Concealed weapons policy is a bad idea for obvious reasons; first off, by definition a concealed weapon won't deter criminals. Also, if we catch someone preparing to commit a crime, he can just show a concealed weapon license. I want to sort this out, in this bill or the next, so tell me, what specifically are you opposed to? Other parties that disagree with this proposition, feel free to chime in as well. |
| Date | 23:57:34, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Enlightened Cosmic Brotherhood | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | Police can protect themselves. There is a higly trained heavily armed Police Force for dealing with violent and armed criminals. We aren't playing devil's advocate, this is how the DN! feels. With government in Al'Badara becoming more and more oppressive it's even more important to allow the common people to own sufficent arms to protect themselves from such tyranny. Strict License Laws is a very bad thing. How strict? The current law is fine in regards to gun ownership. We've already expressed why your average beat cop doesn't need 12 high-powered pieces of lead in their hand. As for concealed carry laws, we are in favor of the FEP's proposed idea. We're also very pleased that the FEP is willing to openly listen to different ideas and other parties. |
| Date | 07:19:45, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Feathercreek Ecological Partnership | To | Debating the Concerning Gun Control |
| Message | Thank you all for your time and input. Expect to see a similar, more agreeable bill put for debate soon. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 39 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 41 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle |