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: Public Freedoms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Union Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2213
Description[?]:
| Recognizing the mature nature of our society and the high quality of its citizenry, let it be it enacted by the Republic: 1. That all individuals who do not have a history of criminal activity or mental illness may own a gun for personal defense and for the defense of their home. 2. That public nudity is tolerated and legal. 3. That there shall be no law or regulation on what is considered obscene in public. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
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 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Current: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Proposed: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Proposed: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:25:02, April 08, 2006 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Public Freedoms Act |
| Message | We cannot accept article 1 on pure safety grounds. Allowing the public to own firearms merely increases the risk of accidents and increases the feeling of fear throughout the Country without any improvements in any other areas. We may consider accepting articles 2 and 3 if viable arguments can be made for them. |
| Date | 20:10:46, April 08, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Public Freedoms Act |
| Message | I can support 1 and 2, but 3 is a bit much allowing intercourse in public. |
| Date | 20:47:26, April 08, 2006 CET | From | Union Party | To | Debating the Public Freedoms Act |
| Message | Our party has opted to move this bill to vote with out amendment or reduction. For seciton 1, the public has consistantly demonstrated a high level of maturity when it comes to personal affairs and thus any claims of gun ownership not being safe may have no basis in reality as a vast majority will be quite competant to own these weapons safely. And as well, it is in the best interest of all if the public is able to arm themselves in the event that this glorious government is overtaken by fascist elements who wish to impose totalitarian dictatorship on our great nation. That we fear is a greater safety concern than Billy Joe shooting himself in the foot. For part 2 and 3, again going with the maturity of our nation, these acts and displays will not be partaken by all citizens, but we should not limit the people's freedoms because some might be uncomfortable with them. If a segment of the population was uncomfortable with people wearing green hats, would we monstorisly ban green hats? No. Then it is silly to ban nudity and adult action from the public sphere. |
| Date | 22:59:00, April 08, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Public Freedoms Act |
| Message | We question the Union Party not making ammendments to this bill. They have been offered support by two Parties of this Republic on making modifications to this bill, and thusly their support should these modifications be implemented. In relation to the points raised: Article 1provides for no advantage to any section of society. Whether the public is competent in the use of firearms is not in question, what is in question is the way in which these weapons can be used and their effect on public safety. Should a hypothetical Fascist Party gain control of the government, allowing the citizens arms would make no difference, unless the Union Party supports allowing the general public owning anti-tank missiles, bazookas, and other large scale incendiary devices. We are not concerned about "Billy Joe shooting himself in the foot", rather we see the advantage of those questionable elements, in both the Government and individuals, that use the element of fear to keep control. Consider this, a Country that allows the ownership of weapons by its citizens is, at no point, concerned about revolution. Rather they have engineered a system of continous fear by which to control its citizens. How, you ask? Simple; person A hears that their neighbour owns a gun, so in order to protect themselves from person B they in turn buy a gun. Person A is also concerned about being robbed, murdered etc and knowing that the purchase of weapons, primarily firearms, are legal it must be expected that any criminals would be so armed, so has to arm themselves against them too. They are also bombarded with propoganda that the Government must be controlled, and the only way to guarantee their safety is to own a weapon. Should the population be armed, then the Police must be so armed, so in order to defend against possible Police brutality the person has to be armed. Criminals will continue to buy more and more expensive firearms that are more powerful, so both law abiding citizens and the Police must have more powerful weapons. What we introduce is a system of fear and a never ending arms race. Please tell us, how is this good for the Country? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 211 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 145 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science." - Dr. Martin Keeley |