Northeast Assembly Thread

[k-onmmunist]

This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

[k-onmmunist]

This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.

Disraeli is a joke. "OMG EVIL FREDUM HATERZ OMG !!!!!" is the only argument he can provide.

Don't be an ass.

As to the new act, I oppose any attempts to restrict the right to bear firearms, as they are the best defence against invasion of property by criminals. Atlasia was historically a frontier country, and guns are part of our tradition.

[k-onmmunist]

The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.


Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.

Actually, I'd be willing to sign this as a compromise if Sections 2 and 5 were struck from the bill.

[k-onmmunist]

The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.


Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.

I would like to offer two amendments, one to strike Section 2, and one to strike Section 5.

[k-onmmunist]

Why would you be opposed to safety classes and I.D.s for getting a firearm? That's a pretty foolish thing to do.

I oppose any restriction on the production or selling of firearms, but it stands to reason this would be helpful and somewhat necessary.

Safety and Liberty can coexist within this bill and I defy you to prove otherwise.

I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

[k-onmmunist]

I would like to offer the following, amended version of the bill for debate.

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

[k-onmmunist]

I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

So, then released criminals or those with criminal backgrounds could get those guns anyway?... Also, it makes perfect sense to have gun safety courses available. What would be the point of having it if you can't use it? I see no reason why these should be stricken.

I support having them AVAILABLE. What he is asking is for it to be COMPULSORY. Also, criminals, if caught, would be facing extra time for using a firearm in aggression AS WELL as breaking the law by possessing one in the first place.

[k-onmmunist]

After a rethink, I've decided I'm willing to accept this as long as Section 5 is stricken:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

[k-onmmunist]

Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics...

Deal.

[k-onmmunist]

I'm a man of my word, and I see nothing wrong with this bill, so:

AYE.

[k-onmmunist]

Huzzah!

[k-onmmunist]

Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

[k-onmmunist]

Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

[k-onmmunist]

Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.

They're unsightly and inefficient. You would need a huge number of them just to power a single town, and it doesn't seem worth it, to be frank.

[k-onmmunist]

Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

I agree that wind power is not cost effective and only works when the wind blows.  But the Northeast government isn't building Cape Wind - a private company is.  If a private company wants to build a wind farm and thinks they can turn a profit, why shouldn't we support it?

Depends what this motion of support means.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye.

We're not yet voting.

I was voting for us to consider it.

[k-onmmunist]

As long as this applies to public sector jobs only, I don't see the problem.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye

[k-onmmunist]

Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Seconded.

Thirded.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye.

[k-onmmunist]

I would back this bill.

[k-onmmunist]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

[k-onmmunist]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

[k-onmmunist]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.