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: Right For Gun
Details
Submitted by[?]: Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa
Status[?]: passed
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: December 2044
Description[?]:
To reach license you need only
1) Be adult
2) No be mad
3) Not was in prison |
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: Individuals are not permitted to own firearms under any circumstances.
Proposed: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:20:10, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | The bill description is contradicting the bill content. What we will be voting on is "... strict license conditions". And obviously the libertarians cannot agree to this. I choose what means of self defense I buy. The government does not. Full stop. |
| Date | 12:27:14, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | That's not what the words mean. |
| Date | 12:39:51, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | Then leave it the way it is. The current law says "Adults are allowed to ... buy guns..." The only thing you say that you want to change is that you can't buy guns in asylums and prisons. Which you can't now either. But if we vote yes we vote yes to some unknown (random?) license requirements. It matters to me. |
| Date | 12:57:56, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | OOC: For roleplaying debates we can add definitions that are not in the proposals. And we can also write our own proposals. However, what goes into the legislation is that which we don't write ourselves, so I think we should not contradict it. |
| Date | 17:33:32, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | That's totally irrelevant to high school shootings. Those who do that genarally don't buy their guns, they take their parent's. |
| Date | 17:38:17, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | Once again, I know we are running out of new legislation to debate, but this has been debated time and again. We must vote no. |
| Date | 18:02:43, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | For information however, as the English language is the wonderful language it is, the licensing definitions given by the PNP do not contradict the proposal as it depends on how you define strict!!! (In some peoples eyes these definitions could be interpreted as such!!!!!) |
| Date | 18:12:37, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | Any license conditions are too strict, since they are wrong, but doesn't 'strict conditions' differ from mere 'conditions' in some way? |
| Date | 18:30:01, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Right For Gun | | Message | strict is one of those words that can mean anything!! Yes it certainly implies stronger conditions than mere conditions, but again as I say how strong depends on how you define and what you mean by strict. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 54 |
| no | Total Seats: 31 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: The Wolfsheim Virus is not a real actual disease in the conventional medical sense of the term. Rather, it is a cluster of symptoms which are just part of the general socio-economic disease that is capitalism. The main symptoms the sufferers are experiencing are a direct result of capitalist poverty, as in malnutrition, poor housing and so on, combined with psycho-somatic symptoms which are a direct consequence of the contradictions and stresses which are inherent to the capitalist system.
~ Friedrich Pfeiffer, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |