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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fhtagn]

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. 

[fhtagn]

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.

[fhtagn]

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.

And all 4 MPs are absolute trash legislators if they don't care about the details. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand.  Would you prefer me to make it clear to you with photos? Maybe do it in big, colorful letters?

You lack any basic knowledge necessary to understand exactly what you are banning and why, the proposed repeals and bans won't actually have the effects you think it will, and you clearly didn't bother thinking a single necessary detail important to this bill prior to introducing it. If you can't see it, then you and any MPs that support this hot, steaming pile of garbage should just do the region a favor and resign, and let people who can actually think run the region.

[fhtagn]

And I recommend MPs not worthy of any respect actually bother to think for once in this session. Nothing about my statements are outrageous, it's simply the truth about what you guys are doing.  Don't like what I'm saying? Don't introduce and support stupid and poorly written pieces of legislation.

[fhtagn]

Honestly ASV, just let this bad bill get killed so the legislature can move onto things that are actually important and actually help people. Next in the queue is legislation that helps those affected by CA wildfires, but that can't be brought to the floor because you're caught up in selfish pet projects like this.