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: Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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 2173
Description[?]:
| TBA |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: Any legal weapon may be concealed when carried.
Current: People must first obtain a permit in order to carry concealed weapons.
Proposed: Some categories of weapon must be carried openly, others may be concealed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Current: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Proposed: Only divorces that comply with religious doctrine are legal.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Current: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Proposed: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning parental qualifications.
Old value:: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Current: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Proposed: The government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test they are allowed to keep the children, but are watched for incompentence.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:59:55, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Redneck Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Supported. |
| Date | 17:35:01, January 13, 2006 CET | From | DaVidan Theological Monarchist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | 'The Rightist Party speaks Gods words on this issue. We fully support all of these measures.' - The Prophet DaVida |
| Date | 19:24:52, January 13, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | I only support article 1 |
| Date | 19:24:53, January 13, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | I only support article 1 |
| Date | 20:01:03, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Why only article 1? What's wrong with the others? |
| Date | 03:39:16, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | NICE! We'll support the measure in its entirity. |
| Date | 11:53:58, January 14, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | I can live with article 3. 4 is far too restricting , and article 2 doesn't appreciate that not everyone will have a fairytale marriage. |
| Date | 15:21:56, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Since this is a Christian nation, it is only appropriate that we ban divorce. and Article 4 is to ensure that parents will be good parents. |
| Date | 16:09:39, January 14, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | I say againg 4 is too restricting! furthermore i don't want this tobe a christian nation. If you seperarte 3&1 from this bill then i would support that. Otherwise it is at least 88 votes against this bill. |
| Date | 17:58:44, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Article 2-3 we oppose. Article 4 we might support... |
| Date | 01:00:49, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | The people want this to be a christian nation. Do you want to go against the majority? |
| Date | 14:00:14, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | The Patriot Party speaks truth. It has become apparent that the ONCP has not conformed themselves to the way this nation operates. |
| Date | 14:28:06, January 16, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | not all the people want our society to be christian and it is for those people that i speak. Infact the people would be more likely to vote for somoene based on their beliefs in the marketplace than their religous beliefs. That is a fact so i do speak for the majority. Perhaps that is why I am the biggest party? And the way the nation operated under the rightist party era in government wasn't effective. That under our government will change. |
| Date | 18:48:55, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Under our government, we didn't have as many scandals as we did under your government and the Socialist Governments. |
| Date | 04:12:12, January 17, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | 1 & 3 only 2 and 4 are entirely too restrictive. And don't argue Christianity for why divorce should be banned. Most sects allow it. |
| Date | 11:36:45, January 19, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | i agree with the freedom part. And what were these so called "scandals? . |
| Date | 17:19:57, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Restricting Civil Liberties Act 2170 |
| Message | Under the socialists regimes, there seemed to be a scandle every other month. Under right wing administrations, we have seen hardly any scandles whatsoever. We had ONE major scandle under a right wing government and he was more to the right than me and we all impeached him and his party imploded. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 135 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 164 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Anarchy stands for the liberation of the human mind from the domination of religion, the liberation of the human body from the domination of property, liberation from the shackles and restraints of government." - Emma Goldman |