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: Home Defense Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Socialist Labor 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: January 2515
Description[?]:
| The National Goverment bears the responsibility to take every measure to protect the people. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: Every public building is required to feature provisions for civil defence, but there is no requirement for shelters to be open to the public.
Proposed: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Article 2
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 standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:40:45, January 09, 2008 CET | From |  Boston Tea Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | While arguments can be made for #1 and #3, The BTP cannot see any viable justification for centralizing any industry and will vote against #2 no matter what. The fact that we prefer the current state of the laws for Articles 1 and 3 does not help our view of this bill. |
| Date | 14:44:09, January 09, 2008 CET | From | Unity Of Peoples Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | We don't agree with changing 1 & 3 our views are right in line with what the current legislation is for both of them. Local govt. should be responsible for constructing shelters, and police should be able to carry all non-lethal weapons. We are all for changing article 2, but not to what you have proposed. Private defense industries should be allowed, but they shouldn't be our only defense, the state should own one as well. |
| Date | 18:45:23, January 09, 2008 CET | From | National Socialist Labor Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | 1. National Defense is a national responsibility. That is the reason we have a "national" army. Since we are left vulnerable to attack by possesing no NBC deterrent, the least we could do is dig holes for our population to hide in. 2. Private industry has but one goal...PROFIT. We could get much more for our defensive spending by nationalizing the defense industry. Why do you insist on paying a middle man for goods we could produce ourselves? 3. UPP, I think Police should be able to carry non-lethal weapons as an additional option to deadly force. But police need to carry firearms as well. I understand that we have "special units" who are armed with the latest weaponry. By the time these units are brought into play the criminals have escaped. Police must be able to meet deadly force with deadly force. In the end we must ask ourselves, who do we have a responsibitlity to protect? Do we vote yes on this bill and protect our citizens or do we vote no on this bill and continue to protect the interests of foreign nations and criminals. |
| Date | 18:57:03, January 09, 2008 CET | From | National Socialist Wester Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | We agree with all these motions and would vote in favour of this bill. |
| Date | 22:29:44, January 09, 2008 CET | From | Moderate Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | Though we're prepared to discuss article 3, we will never accept this bill as a whole, because of the two first articles. |
| Date | 01:04:55, January 10, 2008 CET | From | Centre | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | #1: The local government it currently doing an effective job of providing enough shelters for all of our residents. There seems to be no need to take this responsibility away from them. #2: A free market stimulates innovation for one reason: GREED. Greed is good. It encourages competition and advancement while culling the ineffective. We cannot take industries from the private sector because then the rate of innovation in those sectors will stagnate. Do you really want to be the last guy on the block to develop the latest hardware? That is what we will be if we start giving all our weapons developers and manufactures regular gov't paychecks and remove the pressures of a capitalist market. #3: We support gun ownership, but it is statistically proven that nations that have non-lethally armed police have a higher arrest rate and lower crime rate. Many attribute this to increased community connections that the officers rely on. Since they cannot count on a weapon for backup they turn to the community. This means they also earn the trust of the community and can perform their jobs more efficiently. |
| Date | 14:38:07, January 10, 2008 CET | From | National Socialist Labor Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | I have removed the defense industries proposal in the spirit of compromise. |
| Date | 19:14:24, January 10, 2008 CET | From | Boston Tea Party | To | Debating the Home Defense Act |
| Message | Centre has put forth convincing points regarding all of the Articles, which the BTP agrees with. Our vote is no. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 194 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 307 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it. " - Ann Coulter |