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: Ban the gun and it's agression.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Devout Ecologists 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: January 2180
Description[?]:
| The gun has been a detriment factor in our society. It ruins lives, it destroys them. Literally. It gives seed to a spark of aggresiviness, just because the possibility is there. People can abuse this despising tool, by using it, or by buying it and selling or giving it to the wrong individuals. People grow up with the knowledge that guns are there, and this has an effect. A bad effect. We need to get rid of this symbol and tool of destruction. Destruction of people's live. This is not a matter of self-defense. People can defend themselves in an amount of numerous ways, which do not have to be as quick and lethal as this. We need to get rid of guns so that nobody can get their hands on them, this way nobody can use them. Let us revoke this aweful tool and turn to a life of serenity. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Current: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Proposed: Individuals are not permitted to own firearms under any circumstances.
Article 2
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 may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:40:25, February 01, 2006 CET | From | Advanced Intellectual Party | To | Debating the Ban the gun and it's agression. |
| Message | I agree with the sentiments of this proposal but I feel it has some problems. What would happen in a situation where armed police are required, such as an armed robbery where the robber has allready used his firearm? I know that the first part of this bill would make it harder for the robber to appropriate the firearm but there will always be such articles in society through criminality and the black market. But there does need to be some ultimate force that the police can use in situations such as terrorist attacks if called for so I think individuals should not be able to own firearms but there shoulf be specially trained firearms units in the police. |
| Date | 11:14:36, February 01, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Ban the gun and it's agression. |
| Message | As the second article currently reads, police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons. The current value is that specially trained firearms units may carry lethal weapons. But you can have non-lethal weapons by, for example, using tranquilizer ammunition. Point is, weapons can be specially developed and are there that have only non-lethal ends, but are effective in halting the opposition. The police can, infact, use such alternative weaponry to disable the opposition. That is a whole lot better then the ending of another person's life. |
| Date | 02:47:06, February 02, 2006 CET | From | People's National Unity Movement (RDL) | To | Debating the Ban the gun and it's agression. |
| Message | don't like 1, voting yes cos of two |
| Date | 07:48:10, February 02, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Ban the gun and it's agression. |
| Message | If I may ask, why do you not like one PNUM? I am glad you still vote yes. And why are the others against this proposal? RWE, LPP, 23CC? What moves you to oppose this? Do you like to see people die because of the gun? |
| Date | 03:44:21, February 03, 2006 CET | From | Lutte Féministe de Libération | To | Debating the Ban the gun and it's agression. |
| Message | No, but guns have a pracitical purpose (self defense), when one lives in rural areas. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 120 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 195 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 122 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Martin Luther King Jr. |