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: Anti Gun Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
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: October 2115
Description[?]:
| There is no need to allow citizen's to owe and use fire arms. The policeforce is well trained and equiped. They are guarding the communities succesfully. The ownership of weapons will only danger society unnecessary. It also assumes that the Government apparently is incapable to provide sufficient safety for its civilians. Violence can only be used by the Government (armed forces, police etc). |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Current: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Proposed: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:38:52, September 22, 2005 CET | From |  Corporatism Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | Citizens need to have weapons to protect them from us, that is the whole point of gun ownership and freedoms to have weapons if you look at history all tyranny has started by the confiscation of the weapons, it makes me wonder what direction your party is in if you want to disarm your people. Do you have somthing planned for the citizens?, do you think the government is supposed to be a babysitter?. Also there is a flawed view in this .. you want to ban guns from law abiding citizens? so the criminals have more control over them? .. Criminals do NOT obey the law, so what will happen is the good people unarmed and the criminals and the government armed. that is not good at all. It takes 5-15 minutes for the police to arrive, it takes only 3 seconds to save their life with their own gun. Let's stick to the criminals, instead of making all citizens slaves to the state. (Thats another fact slaves were not allowed to have arms why do you think?) |
| Date | 18:40:58, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Corporatism Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | The Corporatism party will vote fully against any measure where the state believes it is god. I.E telling grown people they cannot defend themselves from criminals or even the state itself. That is not liberty that is tyranny. |
| Date | 19:41:03, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | Corporatism Party, you wanted slavery. You wanted the state to be god and make people wear clothes, when in fact that is going against the belief of God in the Bible and got Adam and Eve thrown out of Eden (in a roundabout kind of way) |
| Date | 20:06:48, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Sojuz Ljudej (People's Union) | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | I'm not supporitng this either |
| Date | 22:45:49, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | Corp. Party: Are you going to provide every household with a first-aid kit and dismiss docters and nurses ? Do you remove firemen from office and give every houshold a fire extinguisher ? Just because once and a while they are needed ? I suppose not because we have a Government to provide us with that. Therefore we pay taxes. Well one of its main tasks is to protect its citizens against all sorts of danger. So we have the police for instance to guard neighbourhoods from crime. If we are not able to provide this what's the use of..... So, we believe the policeforce only is responsable. By allowing people to have guns we create an artificial sense of safety. The SLP favours to abolish the ownership of guns by adults. It will lower the crime rate and gunrelated accidents as well. |
| Date | 01:26:09, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | "It also assumes that the Government apparently is incapable to provide sufficient safety for its civilians". Yes it does. |
| Date | 22:32:26, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | "Are you going to provide every household with a first-aid kit and dismiss docters and nurses ?" You imply that it is an either/or. Surely you accept that it is possible to have a first aid kit at home AND there still exist doctors and nurses? "Do you remove firemen from office and give every household a fire extinguisher" You imply that it is an either/or. Surely you accept that it is possible to have a fire extinguisher at home AND there still exist firemen? If you do accept that it is logically possible for first aid kits to exist in the same universe as doctors, and fire extinguishers to exist in the same reality as firement, surely it is not such a great leap to imagine that you can have guns AND police. I'm sure that everyone here would agree that having a first aid kit and access to doctors is better than just one or the other. I'm sure that everyone here would agree that having a fire extinguisher AND access to a fire department is better than just one or the other. So extending your own analogy, having guns and police is better than just or the other. "So we have the police for instance to guard neighbourhoods from crime. If we are not able to provide this what's the use of..... " Maybe you live in the one crime-free neighbourhood in the world, but everyone else accepts the police cannot guard neighbourhoods from crime. "By allowing people to have guns we create an artificial sense of safety." No, by banning guns you create an artificial sense of safety especially when you claim that the police can guard neighbourhoods from crime. "It will lower the crime rate" Where is your supporting evidence for this assertion? "[it will lower] gunrelated[sic] accidents as well". Hey, here's a thought, banning cars will reduce car accidents. Banning sports will reduce sports injuries. Banning DIY will reduce accidents in the home, etc. You may want to ban people from doing anything that might get them injured, we prefer to treat people with respect and trust they will either be responsible gun owners or be willing to accept the consequences of carelessness. |
| Date | 01:11:43, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | The bottom line is that if we should have a public service that's able to protect it's people well. If that's not the case the Government has to improve the level of service and should not choose the easy way out. We don't want Wild West scenes. Furthermore we find a striking comparison with the reason why the SLP doesn't want the death penalty: the chance of killing someone who is innocent is just not acceptable. |
| Date | 02:07:22, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | The bottom line is that we don't and never will have that sort of public service. It does not exist. The easy way out is just to ban anything that you think makes life difficult. There is always the chance of killing someone, you can kill someone with a car, you can kill them with knife or a frying pan, or by 'letting' them smoke 60 cigarettes a day, or drinking a bottle of scotch every day. You can kill them through negligence such as in an industrial accident. Those are all terrible, but they are the cost of freedom. It is not the same as when the state deliberately kills someone as an act of punishment for a crime that the same state created (i.e., the state has the power to make any law it likes, and the power to punish people). Your comparison is simply not equivalent. |
| Date | 02:19:41, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | By the way it has nothing to do with personal freedom. It's beside the point. In our view the Government only has the exclusive right to use violence. Beside that we clearly differ on the role of Government in society. |
| Date | 02:25:28, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | I would like to add: freedom of speech, religion and thought is not related to a, in the view of the LP, so called freedom to shoot. |
| Date | 02:55:33, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Anti Gun Act |
| Message | "By the way it has nothing to do with personal freedom." Of course it does. Whenever the government bans ANYTHING it interferes with personal freedom. "It's beside the point. In our view the Government only has the exclusive right to use violence." Well, that's the real fundamental difference between our parties. We believe that the government has no exclusive rights. We believe that the government derives any rights it has from the people and that hence there do not exist any rights that can reside solely in the state. "I would like to add: freedom of speech, religion and thought is not related to a, in the view of the LP, so called freedom to shoot." We never suggested that gun ownership had anything to do with freedom of speech, religion or thought. While we, of course, insist that those rights exist and are inalienable, we have never claimed that those are the only rights that exist by the people. Moreover, we have never claimed that there is such a thing as a freedom to shoot. Indeed we do not think there is a freedom to shoot, since many ways of shooting would cause harm and would thus be actionable. Having the inalienable right to own and carry a firearm is a long way from having an inalienable right to shoot. You can never cause harm by simply carrying a weapon, and therefore the state has no right to interfere. In contrast you can cause plenty of harm by shooting someone, and therefore the state has the right to interfere by creating criminal offences of murder, assault, etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 443 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 112 |
| Random fact: The majority of nations in Particracy are "Culturally Protected" with an established cultural background. Only the "Culturally Open" nations are not bound by the rules surrounding culture. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation. |
| Random quote: "I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats." - Woody Allen, on the Ku Klux Klan |