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: National Defense Military Weapons Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian Party of Darnussia
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2985
Description[?]:
| We would like to propose a change in the weapons that are used by the armed forces of Darnussia. 1. Change the rifle designated at the "Service Rifle" to the "M16A4" 2. Make the "Sig Sauer p226 9mm" the official sidearm of all special forces groups of the Darnussian military, and give members of the standard infantry a choice between the "M9 Beretta 9mm" or the ".45 ACP 1911A1" pistols. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:24:53, August 14, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | We do not dislike any of the listed weapons, however we must question the reason behind proposing them. Why use the M16? The AC 556 has a more powerful action and is less likely to cause stoppages. |
| Date | 03:26:42, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Rerum Novarum Party | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | Why replace the AS-50? |
| Date | 19:46:34, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | I edited out the replacement of the AS-50 after deciding it is just as good or better than the barrett m98. I maintain my position on the other replacements, however, for the following reasons: It is unecessary that our infantry carry a rifle chambered for the 7.62x39 (I am assuming you were referring to the AC 556 chambered for that round, because you said "more stopping power") when instead of every infantryman in a squad carrying the same m16a4 standard service rifle, one member could be carrying a higher powered battle rifle like the m14 or m21. And if we are comparing the 5.56mm AC 556 to the 5.56 AR-15 (m16a4), the AR-15 is by far the better the rifle. The handgun change is definitely necessary because simply applying the same handgun as the sidearm of "all of the forces of Darnussia" overlooks the specific needs of different types of military units. The sig 226 has proven itself time and time again to be the standard when it comes 9mm combat pistols; it is compact, accurate as hell, and rarely malfunctions, and for these reasons it is perfect for use by special operations forces who require precision, reliability, and stealth when it comes to the execution of their operations. And I think that canada's JTF2 and the United States Navy Seals would concede to this. As for more standard infantry units, the beretta FS (m9) is a fine pistol that has the ability to get the job done; the same would go for the 1911a1. |
| Date | 19:49:32, August 15, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | I suppose this is no reason to not use the other sig pistol you already had for the standard infantry either, but I don't think the proposed are bad ideas. |
| Date | 16:20:36, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | The AC 556 would be in .223/5.56 (I thought this would be assume because of the 556 in the name). It has more stopping power due to a longer barrel and a stronger action that can handle heavier loads. What makes you think the AR is better than the AC? The AC uses a more reliable (M14 based) action. AC 556's are also less expensive. We are ok with adding a handgun, like the p226, for special forces. We do not see the need for the beretta however. If military units opt for a lighter round, they could use either the p226 or maybe a 1911 in 9mm. |
| Date | 17:17:16, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | The length of the barrel really doesn't have an effect on the stopping power; it might give the gun a slightly longer range which would allow for a greater distance while still maintaining an effective stopping power, but the difference would be so miniscule that it is next to irrelevant. The AR-15 is a more accurate rifle, plain and simple. I'm not going to deny that the m14 is a more reliable action, but I wouldn't call the AR-15 unreliable either, and it just a more tactically sound weapon. |
| Date | 17:18:14, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | than the mini-14 that is. |
| Date | 23:44:56, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Paleofederalist Party | To | Debating the National Defense Military Weapons Act |
| Message | The length DOES have an effect on stopping power. Longer Barrel = more speed. Stopping power is a measure of energy, which = (1/2m)(v^2). Velocity has an exponential proportional effect on stopping power. One Accuracy test found the following (100 yards): Mini-14: 3.5" group; 1.8" high and 0.5" left 2.0" group; 2.7" high and 0.7" left 3.7" group; 0.8" high and 0.5" left 3.5" group; 1.0" high and 2.0" left 3.0" group; 1.5" low and 0.5" left AR-15: 3.5" group; 2.3" high and 0.3" right 3.7" group; 3.0" high and 0.7" right 3.5" group; 2.5" high and 1.5" right 3.3" group; 2.7" high and 0.8" right 4.0" group; 2.3" high and 0.5" right From my own experience, AR's can be extremely accurate when they are varmint / target models, usually with a bull barrel. However, I don't think that this would match your "tactically sound" criteria. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 62 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 99 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 14 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise." - Niccolo Machiavelli |