Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.
Generally when a bill is this bad and no one will give input, that's a clear sign that it should be killed.
Oh no, I've privately had great support and input on these measures from my colleagues.
However I'd have to say that the time difference does make detailed conversation and debate harder. Nonetheless, I shall persevere, and tomorrow once my amendment to put the definition section passes without objections, I'll force a vote on an amendment with my preferred wording of the definition.
I'm doing it this way just to see if anyone else has any definition in mind.
You know you're a terrible legislator when...
Seriously, you already said you've PMed folks and no one wants to debate with you. If you were a smart person, you'd get the hint and just drop it.
No, it isn't that.
All 4 MPs are in favour of gun control (YE is opposed to it). They have spoken in favour of this bill in this thread and in the gun control resolution thread.
However, none of us really care about the details. We just want to vote Aye or Nay and be done with it.
I think you got my views wrong.
While you are most certainly correct in my support of gun control, I do care about the details of this bill. Details are important on every single bill, but especially those that involve controversial issues such as gun control.
This bill clearly needs multiple amendments for me to even consider voting for it. I'm not voting for any legislation, even if it's policy I support on surface level, that I believe has major flaws.
As it stands, I would vote no on this bill which clearly needs multiple amendments as it stands, most obviously an actual definition of "assault weapons."
