FT 9-05: Fremont Assault Weapons Ban Act (Final Vote)

[ON Progressive]

AN ACT
To ban Assault Weapons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: Assault Weapons Ban

1. The manufacture, sale, possession and use of Assault Weapons within the Commonwealth of Fremont is hereby illegal.

2. The sale and use of silencers or suppressors on guns in Fremont is hereby illegal.

Section 4: Implementation
1. This act shall be implemented immediately.
[/quote]

Sponsor: AustralianSwingVoter

24 hours to advocate.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I urge the chamber to look favourably on this bill.
This bill will introduce an assault weapon ban for the entirety of the region of Fremont. Such actions will prevent hundreds, nay thousands of deaths each year.
Before we pass this though, we do need to agree on the definition of an assault weapon. I did not define the term, as I felt that the entire chamber needs to agree on the term, as how we define it greatly affects the coverage of the bill.
Although it is basically certain that YE will veto this bill, given that he has stated he will, this is if anything better, as it allows us to conduct this debate with the entire public, rather than just between the 5 of us.
Thank you all, and I urge you all to vote Aye on this bill.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

So, everyone, I need you to answer this one questions on possible changes:

1. How should we define Assault Weapons?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Such actions will prevent hundreds, nay thousands of deaths each year.

Lol wut? Thats clearly bogus. Assault weapons make up like 2% of all gun homicides in Atlasia. In 2016 the FBI reported 374 homicides by ANY rifle, and thats for the entire country.

This moronic bill would do nothing but turn millions of citizens into criminals. You think survivalists and right wing types in Idaho and Montana are gonna just turn over their guns? You gonna do cabin to cabin searches of the entire vast backwoods of Fremont? There are millions of assault weapons in private hands. This wont prevent any deaths. It might actually increase them if you try confiscation between increased armed standoffs with law enforcement and provoked right wing militia types. This bill is retarded and I will sue if this or any similar garbage bill passes.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Such actions will prevent hundreds, nay thousands of deaths each year.

Lol wut? Thats clearly bogus. Assault weapons make up like 2% of all gun homicides in Atlasia. In 2016 the FBI reported 374 homicides by ANY rifle, and thats for the entire country.

This moronic bill would do nothing but turn millions of citizens into criminals. You think survivalists and right wing types in Idaho and Montana are gonna just turn over their guns? You gonna do cabin to cabin searches of the entire vast backwoods of Fremont? There are millions of assault weapons in private hands. This wont prevent any deaths. It might actually increase them if you try confiscation between increased armed standoffs with law enforcement and provoked right wing militia types. This bill is retarded and I will sue if this or any similar garbage bill passes.

Firstly, I am truly shocked that you could possibly oppose this bill. Who would have thought you would oppose gun control?
/s
Anyway, you are taking a little bit of hyperbole waaaaay to seriously. I said hundreds/thousands because I couldn't find a straight answer, and don't completely trust FBI numbers at the moment.

Anyway, I will probably amend this to include a gun buyback scheme, and limited grandfathering, and to make it clear that criminal penalties for possession are only activated if the firearm in question is used in an unlawful manner. Something along those lines.

[fhtagn]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

[YE]

I'll dive into this once I study for 2 tests that I need to ace to salvage my semester but restricting guns to the point where it affects everyone has limited returns, especially in today's polarized climate.

[YE]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

FWIW we likely have the money for a gun buyback program but I have serious reservations it's worth the return on investment anyhow.

But reaffiriming what I've said in private and in public before I will veto if I have the chance to. Despite not yet having operated anything more than a toy gun, I consider myself pro-gun. I am from an exurban area of an interior west state that unfortunately also was crushed when 59 people, including someone I barely knew in middle school and was friends with several of my friends in high school, lost their lives. I may be a liberal or at least considered on the left but I am not going to blindly agree with every hot button left wing issue. I am tired of seeing my twitter feed that is probably to the left of me as a whole come out and repeat the same talking points over and over anytime a mass shooting happens, and it got to a point where I realized that they were not doing anything except effectively dividing us up further. In order for government to succeed, all people need to have faith in our institutions, something that IRL (now how this line of thinking could apply to this game is an open question) has been declining for quite some time, and the last thing that we need, and do much in the case of a gun registry and an assault weapons ban, is to punish all gun owners, reduce their faith in government, and open the door for more far right militias all across Fremont, with guns now being purchased illegally on the black market.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

[fhtagn]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

It will barely put a dent in gun deaths, because the vast majority of them do not involve an assault weapon. And if you were a halfway decent elected official, you'd find better things to do with that $300 billion that actually helps people than trying to push a garbage buyback program that will not work.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

It will barely put a dent in gun deaths, because the vast majority of them do not involve an assault weapon. And if you were a halfway decent elected official, you'd find better things to do with that $300 billion that actually helps people than trying to push a garbage buyback program that will not work.

I would do more, but given Article I §6 there isn't much more we could legally pass. Mr. R. is already going to sue over this bill.

[fhtagn]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

It will barely put a dent in gun deaths, because the vast majority of them do not involve an assault weapon. And if you were a halfway decent elected official, you'd find better things to do with that $300 billion that actually helps people than trying to push a garbage buyback program that will not work.

I would do more, but given Article I §6 there isn't much more we could legally pass. Mr. R. is already going to sue over this bill.

I clearly meant an issue that will actually do anything for people. Your uneducated position on guns does nothing to help people and is a disservice to the region.

[YE]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

It will barely put a dent in gun deaths, because the vast majority of them do not involve an assault weapon. And if you were a halfway decent elected official, you'd find better things to do with that $300 billion that actually helps people than trying to push a garbage buyback program that will not work.

I would do more, but given Article I §6 there isn't much more we could legally pass. Mr. R. is already going to sue over this bill.

To be honest I don't this bill itself is unconstitutional - just not good policy and I wouldn't expect the court to strike it down.

[Devout Centrist]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

Maybe, but I've got my signature from Mr R in this thread, plus no end of entertainment.

[fhtagn]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

And I urge all Fremonters to ignore an MP that clearly doesn't care about their rights.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

And I urge all Fremonters to ignore an MP that clearly doesn't care about their rights.

Why do you care now? Save up all your anger for the inevitable referendum when YE vetoes this.

[YE]

It's been my practice when I was speaker and this was largely maintained when Scott was speaker and I was FM to not ask non-MP's to shut up. To be fair it's open to the speaker to maintain the standing orders but I don't want this thread to get too out of hand.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

It's been my practice when I was speaker and this was largely maintained when Scott was speaker and I was FM to not ask non-MP's to shut up. To be fair it's open to the speaker to maintain the standing orders but I don't want this thread to get too out of hand.

I don't see any problem with non-MPs debating in the thread. Especially given you are the only pro-gun MP.
But far more importantly, this bill will be going to a referendum. Therefore this bill will be debated publicly, and I think it's good to get that debate started early.

[fhtagn]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

And I urge all Fremonters to ignore an MP that clearly doesn't care about their rights.

Why do you care now? Save up all your anger for the inevitable referendum when YE vetoes this.

It's perfectly fair to call out regional legislators when they are being uneducated jokes at the time they are acting as such.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also people, we really need to decide how to define assault weapons.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

An amendment just to make it clear we have to define Assault Weapons

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: Assault Weapons Ban

1. The manufacture, sale, possession and use of Assault Weapons within the Commonwealth of Fremont is hereby illegal.

2. The sale and use of silencers or suppressors on guns in Fremont is hereby illegal.

Section 4: Definitions

1. Assault Weapons are defined as

Section 4 5: Implementation
1. This act shall be implemented immediately.
[/quote][/quote]

[Goldwater]

Wait, you didn't write this bill with a definition of "assault weapons" in mind? What exactly were you planning on banning?

[fhtagn]

1. The fact that you wrote this without a way to define assault weapons shows how much of a giant dumpster fire this trash bill really is.
2. What is the purpose of banning silencers and suppressors? Please do yourself a favor and watch a few videos showing how they work. If you still think they should be banned after knowing they don't work like the movies and video games make you think, you are just ignorant.
3. If you're going to make something illegal, you need to be able to clearly state the penalties for sale, use, and possession of said illegal items. Another reason this steaming pile of s**t legislation should just be tossed.
4. Really all of the things you want to repeal and ban are poorly thought out and don't actually do what you think they'll do.

ASV, you're making your region look bad.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Wait, you didn't write this bill with a definition of "assault weapons" in mind? What exactly were you planning on banning?

Because I want my colleagues input on how to define it. I want agreement and consensus on what the ban should cover.