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: Weapons Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Patriot 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: September 2203
Description[?]:
| This act will still allow weapons but certain weapons will be allowed in designated places. Guns at police stations and shooting galleries knives at culinary schools and restaurents |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapons allowed to private citizens.
Old value:: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, but these may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Current: Citizens may own any type of weapon. They may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Proposed: Citizens may own any type of weapons, but certain types are restricted to designated places.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:16:57, March 16, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | There already is a bill about this. |
| Date | 02:01:47, March 17, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | No there isn't. If you read your proposal, you can see that it is vastly different than this one. This one goes more to what you are trying to push than the bill that you actually proposed. We'll support this bill. |
| Date | 00:30:24, March 18, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | We agree with the "designated places" part, as was mentioned in the other bill debate I believe. But what's your argument that the general public should be allowed to own any type of weapon? We believe the general public shouldn't own things like automatic machine gun/bazooka/grenade launcher/flame thrower.. Simply because there is no need for them, unless they have bad intentions off course.. |
| Date | 01:25:46, March 19, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | This act is actually the law that the SCP should've proposed but didn't. All weapons have their designated place so bazookas and machine guns shouldn't be a problem. |
| Date | 02:14:44, March 19, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | I'ld like to know why on earth you think people need this kind of armour for? Except for making trouble, I mean. Why would someone need a machine gun? For hunting?? We believe this bill will only make our streets, shops, and banks less safe. |
| Date | 21:14:32, March 19, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | Did you read the law currently in effect? They can still have machine guns with current law. Why didn't you raise these questions when the current law was debated? |
| Date | 22:22:25, March 19, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | uh?? Current law says "Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public" |
| Date | 03:33:22, March 20, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | You still didn't bring it up during that debate. We never specified what types of weapons were legal and what weren't. Therefor, thanks to loopholes, any weapon can still be carried. |
| Date | 13:41:11, March 20, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | that's just silly... |
| Date | 14:32:07, March 20, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | What that I actually pointed that out to you. You think loopholes are funny? They are funny but they have destroyed many laws in the past and they will continue to do so. Since we never specified what weapons are illegal, according to thelaw we have now, all weapons are still legal. Unless of course you can point to the part in the bill discription that names the banned weapons? |
| Date | 19:07:08, March 20, 2006 CET | From | Social-Conservative party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | Then we oppose then :) |
| Date | 02:51:35, March 21, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | Why do you think we opposed your bill? it never specified what weapons were illegal. |
| Date | 11:07:10, March 21, 2006 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | Why didn't you bring it up during that debate? |
| Date | 12:34:06, March 21, 2006 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Weapons Act |
| Message | Because I love loopholes :D |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 91 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 185 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |