Pacific Council: Repeal of the Pacific Protection of Commerce in Arms Act (F)

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: PJ


Because I don't assume anyone of you know the act that should be repealed - here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I oppose this bill. People know the risks with buying a gun, you shouldn't blame somebody else for your own mistake. All this would do is line the pockets of lawyers.

[DemPGH]

The issue is, guns are a legal product in Atlasia. I'm more than fine with regulating them. But kitchen knives are legal too. So are tools like hammers and other blunt objects. If someone kills someone with a chef's knife, does the kitchenware company get sued? I mean, there's a metaphorical can of worms here. Let's hear some viewpoints on this.

[Cranberry]

Sorry for not replying earlier.

Well, the bill explicitly just says firearms, so I don't think a kitchenware company could get sued.
Let me clear something - I'm absolutely opposed to any kind of gun sale, possession, whatever. I despise guns, and "gun rights"; I would never bear a gun. Therefore, I'd be more than happy with excessive regulation of guns (I don't think this council would pass such an act however). This legislation however for me has no purpose. It would just open possibilities for dumbs who are really to dumb to handle a gun, to sue manufactures and salesmen of firearms. Not that I'm particular in favour of them, and I'm also not in favour of gun owners, but this bill wouldn't just be right. So I'm not in favour.

[DemPGH]

If a seller or manufacturer is negligent in any way, they're liable, but not otherwise.

Straight forward regulations of guns would be the way to go, I think. But I realize there are widely differing views on guns, and it doesn't always break down into a right vs. left kind of thing. It can also have to do with whether or not you feel comfortable with them, so I have some reservations about this bill for sure.

People using "muh second amendment" to walk around packing heat or loading up an arsenal is where my hang-up is.

[Cranberry]

You're right.

When people use the second amendment argumentation, it kinda reminds me of the people using Leviticus or whatever as an excuse to hate gays. It has so many similarities - a passage of another time and totally different context transfered to modern times, just because the other parts of this book are "holy". (Well, Leviticus was bigotry then as well, but people didn't think that way)

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You're right.

When people use the second amendment argumentation, it kinda reminds me of the people using Leviticus or whatever as an excuse to hate gays. It has so many similarities - a passage of another time and totally different context transfered to modern times, just because the other parts of this book are "holy". (Well, Leviticus was bigotry then as well, but people didn't think that way)

Why should it matter how long ago the second amendment was written?

[Cranberry]

Because the time when the second amendment was written was a time of war; and when it was signed, there was still a big threat to the newly founded United States. Under such circumstances, the second amendment had a legitimate purpose and made sense. It has not and does not anymore.

[DemPGH]

I've often wondered if the founders would have clarified the 2nd amendment a bit more if they knew that in 200 years the reality would be Uzis and AK-47s? And bombs? And nukes?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I've often wondered if the founders would have clarified the 2nd amendment a bit more if they knew that in 200 years the reality would be Uzis and AK-47s? And bombs? And nukes?

No reasonable person thinks you should be able to own these. Besides, an amendment doesn't change just because technology advances. The fourth Amendment still applies to cars for example.

[Cranberry]

Alright, I'm sorry, but I don't think that should become a discussion whether or not the second amendment is reasonable or not. If noone minds, I'd open a vote.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Yeah go ahead sorry about that.

[Cranberry]

Ok.

(This is a final vote)

Councillors, you have 48 hours to vote Aye / Nay / Abstain.

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Nay.

[DemPGH]

I might have actually been the one who sidetracked us with that little aside. I let RL creep in a bit.

Anyway, looks like we three agree if for slightly different reasons.

[Cranberry]

The bill did not pass with 2 votes in negative / 1 abstain