Northeast Assembly Thread

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As you know, we come from completely different perspectives on this... however, I don't have many concerns with this Bill...

The only thing that worries me - is it would potentially be challenged as it could be open to abuse... for example, a gun shop owner, may not want to sell a gun to someone of a particular ethnicity.

While I do like severe restrictions on the availability of lethal weapons, and shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone that they consider unstable ... however, having a coverall of "for any reason" - would counter anti-discrimination laws...

While gun shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone they consider a risk, a customer cannot be refused service based purely on race.

[tpfkaw]

If we include any exceptions in this law, then it becomes pointless, as firearms dealers will continue to sell to clearly unstable people because they're afraid of being sued.  If a person truly feels that he or she has been treated unfairly, they might alert the media, or organize boycotts or protests or any manner of things.  Achieving a world free of racial discrimination is an admirable goal, but it must come second to ensuring that innocent people are not murdered by homicidal maniacs.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Look, I don't disagree with that... however, I believe that this law's constitutionality would be challenged, and probably successfully.

[tpfkaw]

Which provision of the constitution would it be challenged under?

[Rowan]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

[tpfkaw]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.

[tpfkaw]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.

Is there anything in this law that prevents people from being treated equally?  (And, for that matter, why bold "race?")  If not, it's constitutional.  In any event, it's a proven fact that a black person accused of murder is significantly more likely to be convicted than a white person, and that blacks also receive harsher sentences.  If we as an assembly were to abolish all laws pertaining to murder, the sum total amount of racial discrimination would certainly decrease, but I think all will agree that the amount of murders would probably increase as well.  In the same vein, in theory more racial discrimination would be legal under this law (though you really don't think we'd have "FAR-RIGHT GUN NUT WON'T SELL TO BLACKS!" on Huffington Post or whatever within minutes?), but more importantly, it would have prevented the deaths of nine people at the hands of a psychotic gunman, in the Tucson shooting alone.

As I think you would agree from my example above (punishments for murder), preventing murders >>>>> preventing racial discrimination.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

[tpfkaw]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

When you say someone can refuse to serve someone for ANY reason... I mean... seriously.

[tpfkaw]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

Well, we know with 100% certainty that if this bill had been passed in Arizona last December this girl and 8 others would still be alive:



Do you think that she deserves to die to prevent the vanishingly unlikely proposition that Billy-Bob will forgo good business by not selling Jane a gun on account of her Jainism?  (And anyway, couldn't Jane just find someone other than Billy-Bob?  If it's so hard to buy a gun one wonders why liberals want to ban them so much).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

If people were serious about getting guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminal, there are more thorough ways to do it.

But since guns are here, and don't look like going anywhere... I do have significant concerns, by the way, since you resorted to emotional blackmail you concede my point that the promotion of racial discrimination is inherent in this Bill.

No person, let alone a child, deserves the horrible end they did in Arizona. By yet again, the gun 'rights' people try to deflect the issue to saying 'alright, we'll stop people who might appear unstable at the time..."

What about those that seem perfectly sane... then shoot a child?

Until people are serious about the prevalence and threat of weapons in the community, as well as living in the real world where responsibilities are just as important as rights, we can't have a reasonable debate on this.

I'm happy to see a Bill which addresses overall available of handguns, especially semi-automatic handguns... measure like this are a band-aid over a gaping hole.

[tpfkaw]

Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

I'll introduce a bill to ban knives and automobiles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think about these unstable criminals?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OOOH... "emotional blackmail."  Sounds very scary, and like something that Polnut has never done.  There is no "promotion of racial discrimination" (one remains confused by your obsession with racial discrimination to the exclusion of all others) in this bill at all.  You are introducing a bizarre hypothetical and saying that justifies letting people be killed (as they have been killed) in order to prevent said bizarre hypothetical.  I could have made the same bizarre hypothetical about Sbane's wind farm bill (how do we know that prime contracts wouldn't be awarded in a discriminatory manner, as they have in the past?), or your public transportation bill (how do we know that [the best] infrastructure won't be built only in heavily-white areas, as it has in the past?).  I'm sure you would argue that those are absurd hypotheticals, and that promoting environmentalism/public transportation stuff outweighs preventing those hypotheticals.  This bill is about preventing murder, which is a few lightyears beyond racial discrimination in the world of moral turpitude.

Indeed, I even brought the issue up in the debate over your public transportation bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe you ever provided a response.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Alright, take the racial discrimination element out...

There's the other issue... what about a person who appears perfectly calm... but is as unstable as the Arizona shooter... then goes and kills innocent people?

So what this Bill does, it relies on the gun seller, to know that a person is unstable, at the time of the gun sale. It does nothing to make the requirements to obtain a gun more thorough, and potentially weed out people who potentially unstable in general, not just at the time of the sale.

So it's fun to let those people carry on?

[tpfkaw]

Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Hunting, admiring on the wall, protecting oneself from rapists and murderers trying to break into your house while the police take 35 minutes to arrive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, gun sellers obviously couldn't weed out everyone, and I'm sure less scrupulous ones wouldn't (but by removing the requirement that they sell to everyone who passes the background check gun retailers would now be subject to lawsuits for negligence - I have no doubt that the gun retailer lobby is against this bill...).  But they would've weeded out Loughner, and probably quite a few others as well.  But saying that firearms retailers should have to sell firearms to obviously psychotic people because other people might be psychotic but not obviously so is like saying that the highway patrol shouldn't be allowed to pull over obviously drunk drivers because other drivers might be drunk but manifest symptoms later on.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apologies - debate period has ended.


We will now move  to vote on this Bill.

Please vote Aye or Nay... this period will last 24 hours.

[Rowan]

Nay

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[Free Palestine]

Aye

[Psychic Octopus]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

[Sbane]

Abstain

This was certainly a hard vote for me. I agree with the goals of the bill, but I think it more or less legalizes discrimination by gun owners. If we had just empowered gun owners to not have to sell to those who seem mentally/emotionally unstable, the bill would have been more effective imho.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Period for voting has ended.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 1

The Bill passes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I move that we consider Rep Sbane's Bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

Rep Sbane please speak to your Bill, the period for debate will last until 48 hours from now.