Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[windjammer]

No, two seconds.

[windjammer]

Well,
I have a concern, this is with "military equipment will be destroyed".
I thank Bore and Yankee's concern for this bill, but there is a point I don't understand: if there is a surplus in term of military equipments, why destroying that? I mean, if there is a surplus, the best would be to reduce the amount of military equipment bought? That would be less expensive I guess???

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Not a big change, I just don't like destroying weapons because of cost issues.

[windjammer]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

Well, we can accumulate it somewhere?

I mean, destroying weapons, that's nos fiscal responsible!

[windjammer]

Thank you for your concern Sjoyce!

Yankee: not really . I believe this stock would only be temporary.

[windjammer]

Yankee, I guess it's you now who is in charge of the senate until the election of the new speaker?

[windjammer]

Will there be a vote on my amendment?

[windjammer]

That amendment could be read as allowing us to sell it to anyone, not just NATO.

Senator bore,
If I recall correctly, the End of Imperialism repeal was vetoed by former President DemPGH.

[windjammer]

I personally see no objection.

[windjammer]

Oooops,
I thought that the objection was if the VP should administer that or not.  Sorry

[windjammer]

Aye

[windjammer]

This is obviously not an important issue, but I don't understand why you all voted Nay?

[windjammer]

Would you be interesting in a staged process? You sell it to NATO and hold what you don't sell for a defined period of time, at which point if there are no takers you scrap it and use the scrap value for this program.

I don't understand.
I don't like destroying weapons because of COST ISSUES. I indeed don't want to spend taxpayer money for nothing. If indeed there is a surplus in term of weapon, what would be more advised to do would be to stock these weapons for a short time, reducing the number of weapons that are produced until we finally find a "balance" between the number of weapons that are produced and the weapon capital depreciation rate.

[windjammer]

But the thing is, I doubt that we would destroy the weapons if we had found a buyer for it. And once no one needs it, I guess it's best to see it destroyed, as these things are fairly dangerous when getting into the wrong hands...

Atlasians can freely wear explosive bombs, so that wouldn't change a lot of things, regarding security.


I motion for a final vote

[windjammer]

Nay. I don't like wasting taxpayer's money.

[windjammer]

Oh, I'm the only Nay