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: Police Weapons Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Selucian Masters 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: August 3250
Description[?]:
| According to the current laws in place, criminals are free to carry even the most destructive military weapons. It is only fair the the police are issued firearms that can repel criminals more effectively. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 carry military-grade equipment.
Proposed: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:32:55, January 26, 2012 CET | From | Democratic Reform Union | To | Debating the Police Weapons Act |
| Message | We know a better solution: to change current gun ownership laws so that criminals will not be allowed to carry military weapons. |
| Date | 22:32:58, January 26, 2012 CET | From | Selucian Masters Party | To | Debating the Police Weapons Act |
| Message | The case should be that criminals are not allowed to own any weapons at all. But despite the precaution, criminals, if they are absolutely motivated to do crime, will find a way to procure weapons since the criminal sphere is invisible to the government radar. They will not hesitate to attack our officers if the opportunity presents itself. A taser has no use against a pistol. To become public defenders, our police officers should be able to defend. |
| Date | 15:01:13, January 27, 2012 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Police Weapons Act |
| Message | This is surely not the right way in the fight against crime. As always the DRU points to the extreme and the SMP is again speaking out their harsh and restrictives points. The government believes, that the current policy is quite proper to fight against crime and if a extreme case, happens like the DRU describes it, the special trained firmearm units will take care of that case. |
| Date | 00:06:00, January 28, 2012 CET | From | Selucian Liberal Party | To | Debating the Police Weapons Act |
| Message | We cannot agree to thos. |
| Date | 02:40:26, January 28, 2012 CET | From | Selucian Masters Party | To | Debating the Police Weapons Act |
| Message | Criminals finding a way to possess guns is not an extreme case. It is only common, far too common. A special unit is not always available, whereas a well-equipped police can easily rise when the occasion calls for it. It is not as if the police are a sort of gestapo, and since the citizenry are well-armed themselves, fear of an equipped police force is really just irrational. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 304 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 446 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson |