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 Restriction Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Christian Royalists
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: July 2036
Description[?]:
| Guns should only be allowed to be owned under strict licensing laws. |
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 | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | We believe that gun ownership should be legal and never regulated. Citizens should be able to defend their property from other citizens or insurgence and from the govenment if necessary. SBP-387 also supports citizens right to form militias.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | Conservative Christian Royalists | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | defnding property is ok as long as it is strictly regulated. however its when the words defense and murder become mixed up that problems begin. there is absolutly no need for the citizens of kirlawa to form militias, as the Global Christian League would see the arming of gangs as a declaration of war against the government and principals of the kirlawan confederacy. if a government is doing its job properly people should not need to protect themselves. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | lol So if the nation is "safe" it's ok to ban all of the guns/weapons eh? I understand where you’re coming from. Although, you must understand that allowing the majority to determine whether or not their neighbor can own an AK-47 is immoral and wrong. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people – just as fast food doesn’t make everyone who eats it fat and over weight. People have a choice to be responsible with their weapon or pay the obvious consequences – incarceration/death – Just as they have a choice to be responsible about their eating habits or face the consequences of being fat and unhealthy. The socialist revolution is close at hand; if you give a little they will take a lot. Thus you regulate gun ownership, they will take the next logical step and ban all guns. If the majority decides to revoke the rights and freedoms of our citizens and turn the confederacy's government into a seeping mess of bureaucracy - the people should have the weapons to demand change - revolution. And besides, what if the Confederacy was attacked, invaded and occupied. All of the citizens would have to solely depend on the "federal military" to defend them. What if the "federal military" was defeated and or broken up and disorganized? The Confederacy's civilian population would be at the certain mercy of the occupying forces - utterly unable to defend themselves. |
| Date | not recorded |
From |  Dorvik Social Democrats | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | Regulation is there to prevent people who are mentally unfit to handle guns (children, mentally unstable people, ex-convicts, etc...) from buying guns. Also, why do people need AK-47's? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | Regulation is not just what you ALONE define it to be. When you give the majority (government) the power to define what freedoms are and what freedoms are not permissible, they can take any civil liberty they deem to be wrong and immoral, regulate it to ANY existent that feel to be antiquate and or make it completely illegal. You defined your interpretation of antiquate regulation concerning gun ownership by stating "Regulation is there to prevent people who are mentally unfit to handle guns (children, mentally unstable people, ex-convicts, etc...) from buying guns." Which is what YOU believe to be fair and just regulation. In prospective your belief/opinion is nothing more than a proposal for the majority to adopt. Now IF the majority declines to adopt your belief/opinion, it is then bound to the minority, where it is of no concern to the majority. You/minority are now disenfranchised. Majority rule puts everyone’s beliefs and freedoms at risk. I suggest you imagine a world where all of the social liberties you hold dear are illegal and nothing you say matters. That might seem absurd but it’s all within the power of the majority (government). To answer your second question: I already answered it above. Here it is again: “If the majority decides to revoke the rights and freedoms of our citizens and turn the confederacy's government into a seeping mess of bureaucracy - the people should have the weapons to demand change - revolution. And besides, what if the Confederacy was attacked, invaded and occupied? All of the citizens would have to solely depend on the "federal military" to defend them. What if the "federal military" was defeated and or broken up and disorganized? The Confederacy's civilian population would be at the certain mercy of the occupying forces - utterly unable to defend themselves.” I have defined what’s wrong with majority rule on other occasions and I’m trying not to repeat my self. Thus I did not outline everything that’s wrong with it here. I guess I need to put together a manifesto…lol. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | Thats entirely not true. Many things can be used to kill someone else. Lets take automobiles. If your not responsible with your auto you can easily kill someone else. Thus cars don't kill people - people kill people. Lets ban along with autos and guns, all those damn toaster ovens - THE KILLING MUST STOP. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kirlawa Green Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | True, but cars and toasters weren't specifically designed for killing! Firearms do not belong in the homes of people. Just look at all the accidents that happen every year. Recently, a four year old shot his little brother with a firearm... How can you let this happen? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | Again if a 4 year old stuck his hand in the toaster; thus cooking his hand and possibly causing his own death from shock and loss of blood - be illegal? It is not the majority governments place to safe guard and be parents to every single child. If parents are not responsible enough to teach their kids about gun safety (as I was) then it is their loss. And they should and will suffer the legal punishment of not being responsible parents as a result. Gun ownership should always be legal - here's another reason as stated above: "If the majority decides to revoke the rights and freedoms of our citizens and turn the confederacy's government into a seeping mess of bureaucracy - the people should have the weapons to demand change - revolution. And besides, what if the Confederacy was attacked, invaded and occupied. All of the citizens would have to solely depend on the "federal military" to defend them. What if the "federal military" was defeated and or broken up and disorganized? The Confederacy's civilian population would be at the certain mercy of the occupying forces - utterly unable to defend themselves." |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kirlawa Green Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | You think civilians should be able to retaliate enemy forces? Are you suggesting to give everyone a military training then? What a militaristic society would that be! I for one don't see the point of having an army and a police force if you give guns to just about anyone. Why not abolish the army and the police then and let everyone take care of themselves! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | none | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | Ahh yes freedom and control for only the majority...that’s a great society. Surely the majority and the government will always be fair and just in their ruling, certainly not corruptible and self-serving. I’ll put this in perspective. The American Revolution never would have taken place if weapons namely guns had been strictly prohibited. I mean you seriously believe in outlawing all guns? Then you also believe that in the Nazi Reich when the Jews were being forced to pack up their processions and cart off to the ghettos that they would not have benefited from owning guns? Let us not forget that the Majority elected Hitler in the first place. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kirlawa Green Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | So you're telling me that the Jews woudn't have been deported if the only had some guns? It takes more than just a couple of guns to stop the naz'is... And by the way, if you think it's a big danger to let the majority rule, what other system than democracy do you suggest we adopt? And do you really think a minority should be protected with guns? In Belgium we've got a majority of Dutch-speaking people and a minority of French-speaking people, but the French-speaking people don't need guns to protect themselves. We've solved the 'problem' on a civilized way by building in some security systems within our democracy and decentralising some departments. We don't need to shoot at other people to solve our problems... |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | The Jews could have at least been able to fight and attempt to defend their homes, property and their lives – better to fight and die than to have never have fought at all. Anyway there is such a thing as excessive majority rule and government intervention none of which you have any concept or concern about. More majority rule means less freedom. It doesn't matter if the minority is currently oppressed in your country. The problem lies in the possibility and what the past has taught us. The majority may be fair and just but things certainly can change; you obviously underestimate the power of the majority – it is boundless. I stand in favor of limited majority rule. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kirlawa Green Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | And what do you mean by limited majority rule? I still haven't heard an alternative political system from you, in which the minority would not be oppressed. Someone has to make the decisions and the way I see it democracy is still the way to do this, even if it means to 'oppress' the minority. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Firearms Restriction Act | | Message | I do not believe the majority should ever be able to "define" what other citizens can and cannot do. As long as it doesn't harm another person it should be legal - no matter what it is. There for I support "limited majority rule" and little government intervention. No sorry I cannot support gun licensing, I wish I could. The problem is as I just said with the majority having the power of “definition” regarding gun ownership at all. For example: Is revoking a little free speech ok, even if it’s just the derogatory subject matter? No it’s not, because the government would have the power of “definition” in regards to ALL speech. Thus power to make all free speech illegal. If the majority government has no power of “definition” concerning any freedom it cannot revoke it, period. There for I cannot support regulated gun ownership just as I can’t support regulating (censoring) free speech. I wasn’t always this radical lol. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 181 |
| no | Total Seats: 410 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
| Random quote: "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." - Henry David Thoreau
|