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: Firearms Limitation Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! 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: November 2268
Description[?]:
| Whilst accepting that for certain employment opportunities there is a requirement for the use of firearms, and also accepting that the primary function of firearms is to cause harm to others, the Government will reintroduce limitations on the ownership of firearms. Those requiring the use of firearms as part of their profession will be allowed to own aforementioned firearms after passing a strict mental evaluation and receiving written confirmation of support from a respected member of the public (Medical professional/Bank manager/Local Government official etc) who will be required to attest for the member who wishes to own said firearm (should any event occur with said firearms owner, the professional will not be held accountable for the actions of those who recieve a licence). Firearms are limited to single shot pistols and rifles, with a maximum caliber of .22. |
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: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Proposed: Adult individuals may not own firearms unless professionally required.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:57:12, August 11, 2006 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | There is no reason why any person should require the ownership of a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill. We also find it very interesting to note that within just over 1 year of this Country allowing the ownership of firearms that we were hit by a terrorist attack killing 64. It is our position that the relaxation of those laws allowed for easier access to weapon materials to enter this Country, a loophole that should once again be closed. |
| Date | 22:00:48, August 11, 2006 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | Agreed. We must act now to repeal widespread gun legalisation before it is too late. |
| Date | 02:11:21, August 13, 2006 CET | From | Union Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | The Union Party understands deeply the needs of a people to be able to throw off an oppressive government and their need to be able to do so. So we oppose this criminal restriction that has been proposed. |
| Date | 10:47:35, August 13, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Firearms Limitation Proposal |
| Message | They do it the same way they always have, through the electoral process. Having the citizens armed with firearms does not increase their safety, rather it increases risk of harm. An armed citizenry demands the government be ever more involved in their lives in order to protect them, it's an odd link but tends to be a realistic progression. Person A needs to be protected from person B and having a bigger gun is never enough. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 230 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 55 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 115 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." - Edward Abbey |