Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2019, 04:24:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government
| | |-+  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | | |-+  FT 9-05: Fremont Assault Weapons Ban Act (Final Vote)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: FT 9-05: Fremont Assault Weapons Ban Act (Final Vote)  (Read 1853 times)
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2018, 12:36:59 am »

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.
1. I didn't write the definition myself because I want to encourage debate on how to define it. If I had written the definition we wouldn't have any debate on the merits of the specific extent of the definition.
2. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
3. That's coming soon via amendment. I want to get the definition of Assault Weapons agreed on first.
4. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2018, 12:40:15 am »

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.
Logged
fhtagn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.26

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2018, 01:44:03 am »

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. 
Logged
Chairman YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,893


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2018, 01:54:19 am »

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. 

It's also a sign that no one gives a f*k and just wants to vote Aye, Nay, and abstain and then every 3 months campaign to zombie voters on why they should be re-elected.

I've always personally defined an assault weapon as an AR-15 but I really am not a crucial vote given I'm basically set on vetoing this.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2018, 01:55:05 am »

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.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2018, 02:00:33 am »

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. 

It's also a sign that no one gives a f*k and just wants to vote Aye, Nay, and abstain and then every 3 months campaign to zombie voters on why they should be re-elected.

I've always personally defined an assault weapon as an AR-15 but I really am not a crucial vote given I'm basically set on vetoing this.

I wholeheartedly agree Mr. First Minister.
It seems that we have all decided how we shall vote on this bill, and therefore aren't putting in the effort to actually debate the nitty gritty, such as how to define the term Assault Weapon.
I'm dragging this out because of hope that, overnight, any of you will state your preferred definition (also, thanks for that Mr FM, although I would have to say that personally I think the definition should be broader), because I would rather like us to actually debate what should and should not count as an assault weapon.
That is a problem. We have all decided how we're going to vote anyway, and have all given up on debating how best to word the legislation.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,746
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2018, 11:14:12 am »

Define Assault weapon as guns that shoot flaming chainsaws wrapped in barbed wire.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2018, 08:10:36 pm »

Define Assault weapon as guns that shoot flaming chainsaws wrapped in barbed wire.
I'll certainly make sure that such weapons will be covered under the definition.
Logged
fhtagn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.26

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2018, 08:33:25 pm »

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.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2018, 08:39:14 pm »

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.
Logged
fhtagn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.26

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2018, 08:52:28 pm »

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.
Logged
Senator ON Progressive
OntarioProgressive
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,498
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -8.70

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2018, 09:02:34 pm »

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."
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2018, 09:07:19 pm »

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. 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."

Indeed Mr. Speaker, quite obviously my bill still needs amendments.
That was always and is still my plan. I would like the houses consensus on the definition of an assault weapon, rather than just deciding upon it myself.
Likewise, obviously this bill is incomplete, because that was always and is still my plan.
I would like the chamber to agree on what penalties are required and whether or not a gun buyback is appropriate.

I shall object to any vote on this bill until we agree by consensus and amend accordingly until this bill is complete.
Logged
Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,366
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2018, 09:50:53 pm »

I find that such tactics from out of state agitators are unsavory, to say the least. I recommend that the respected former member of the House seek to win another election before making outrageous comments about myself and my colleagues.

As it stands, I have developed a draft definition for the term 'Assault Weapon'. Note that the goal of this legislation is not to prohibit hunting, gun crafting, accessorizing, modifying, or experimentation, where hobbyists see fit. To this end, I have created a stricter definition:

Quote
One of the following must be satisfied:

--Any device that uses direct impingement to expel a projectile from a barrel OR
--Any device that uses an open bolt mechanic (whether by integrating the firing pin with a bolt or components produced separately)

All of the following must be satisfied
:

--Any device that, due to integral manufacturing features, cannot be held to a sustained, though not cyclic, rate of fire below 30 rounds/min (.5 rounds per second)


I also motion that sections 2-4 and 3-2 be struck from this bill.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 10:43:40 pm by Devout Centrist »Logged
fhtagn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.26

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2018, 10:42:28 pm »

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.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2018, 10:45:00 pm »

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.

I must say though, fhtagn has performed a vital role. Although she has been irritating, the fact is that we don't have anyone in this parliament (YE sort of, but not really) who is bringing the pro-gun view to the table. That is a concern, and I hope next election at least 1 true conservative is elected to properly represent the views of the right-wing in this chamber.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2018, 10:45:51 pm »

I find that such tactics from out of state agitators are unsavory, to say the least. I recommend that the respected former member of the House seek to win another election before making outrageous comments about myself and my colleagues.

As it stands, I have developed a draft definition for the term 'Assault Weapon'. Note that the goal of this legislation is not to prohibit hunting, gun crafting, accessorizing, modifying, or experimentation, where hobbyists see fit. To this end, I have created a stricter definition:

Quote
One of the following must be satisfied:

--Any device that uses direct impingement to expel a projectile from a barrel OR
--Any device that uses an open bolt mechanic (whether by integrating the firing pin with a bolt or components produced separately)

All of the following must be satisfied
:

--Any device that, due to integral manufacturing features, cannot be held to a sustained, though not cyclic, rate of fire below 30 rounds/min (.5 rounds per second)


I also motion that sections 2-4 and 3-2 be struck from this bill.

Seconded, I'll just draft up the amendment.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2018, 10:46:20 pm »

Quote
AN ACT
To ban Assault Weapons.

Quote
Section 1: Title

1. This act may be cities as the Fremont Assault Weapons Ban Act.

Section 2: Repeal

1. Section 2.2 - 2.4 2.3 of the Gun Reform Act are hereby repealed, namely-
Quote
2. No state is allowed to prohibit the sale and use of assault weapons.
3. No state is allowed to have more than a seven day or less than a 72 hour waiting period before acquiring a gun.
4. No state is allowed to ban less than 15 rounds of ammunition.

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
1. The following test shall be applied to determine whether or not a weapon is defined as an Assault Weapon
Quote
One of the following must be satisfied:

--Any device that uses direct impingement to expel a projectile from a barrel OR
--Any device that uses an open bolt mechanic (whether by integrating the firing pin with a bolt or components produced separately)

All of the following must be satisfied
:

--Any device that, due to integral manufacturing features, cannot be held to a sustained, though not cyclic, rate of fire below 30 rounds/min (.5 rounds per second)

Section 5: Implementation
1. This act shall be implemented immediately.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 10:50:20 pm by AustralianSwingVoter »Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2018, 10:52:36 pm »

Once the 24 hours is up I'll sort out penalties and the gun buyback.
Logged
Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,366
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2018, 10:52:46 pm »

I urge my colleagues to review the proposed definition and suggest alterations.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2018, 11:08:15 pm »

If no one has any problems, then after the 24 hours I'll introduce penalties and the buyback through amendment.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,746
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2018, 12:47:57 am »

Sustained rate of fire is too nebulous a measure, as its just a ballpark estimate of what a typical trained soldier can fire. When I googled it, some AR15 manuals boast 45 RPM but Wiki said 12-15 RPM is more accurate. Are you going to rely on manuals? Because they will deliberately underreport. Are you going to randomly pick a National Guardsman and let him set the sustained RPM pace? How "scientific".

With a semiautomatic rifle the RPM should be relatively uniform. If you can sustain a rate of fire of 30 trigger pulls/reaiming with an AR15, you can def sustain that rate of fire with a.22 that has almost no recoil. Or .22s are guns for babies. This would ban practically any semiautomatic firearm including .22 hunting rifles as well as any semiautomatic handgun.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,122
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2018, 12:55:10 am »

Sustained rate of fire is too nebulous a measure, as its just a ballpark estimate of what a typical trained soldier can fire. When I googled it, some AR15 manuals boast 45 RPM but Wiki said 12-15 RPM is more accurate. Are you going to rely on manuals? Because they will deliberately underreport. Are you going to randomly pick a National Guardsman and let him set the sustained RPM pace? How "scientific".

With a semiautomatic rifle the RPM should be relatively uniform. If you can sustain a rate of fire of 30 trigger pulls/reaiming with an AR15, you can def sustain that rate of fire with a.22 that has almost no recoil. Or .22s are guns for babies. This would ban practically any semiautomatic firearm including .22 hunting rifles as well as any semiautomatic handgun.

Have you got any better ideas?
If not go and heckle someone else.
Logged
Devout Centrist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,366
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2018, 01:19:41 am »

Sustained rate of fire is too nebulous a measure, as its just a ballpark estimate of what a typical trained soldier can fire. When I googled it, some AR15 manuals boast 45 RPM but Wiki said 12-15 RPM is more accurate. Are you going to rely on manuals? Because they will deliberately underreport. Are you going to randomly pick a National Guardsman and let him set the sustained RPM pace? How "scientific".

With a semiautomatic rifle the RPM should be relatively uniform. If you can sustain a rate of fire of 30 trigger pulls/reaiming with an AR15, you can def sustain that rate of fire with a.22 that has almost no recoil. Or .22s are guns for babies. This would ban practically any semiautomatic firearm including .22 hunting rifles as well as any semiautomatic handgun.
Yes, sustained rate of fire is relatively nebulous, but it's the more lenient of the two measures. Cyclic is perhaps too onerous. Of course, this is the initial draft and I will propose more precise language in the revision. I wouldn't be opposed to using terms within the manual.

The second point about banning practically any semiautomatic firearm, however, would not hold because of the other test included in part 1. Gas operated firearms will be perfectly fine; only direct impingement and open bolt firearms would be targeted.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,746
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2018, 07:03:16 am »

Sustained rate of fire is too nebulous a measure, as its just a ballpark estimate of what a typical trained soldier can fire. When I googled it, some AR15 manuals boast 45 RPM but Wiki said 12-15 RPM is more accurate. Are you going to rely on manuals? Because they will deliberately underreport. Are you going to randomly pick a National Guardsman and let him set the sustained RPM pace? How "scientific".

With a semiautomatic rifle the RPM should be relatively uniform. If you can sustain a rate of fire of 30 trigger pulls/reaiming with an AR15, you can def sustain that rate of fire with a.22 that has almost no recoil. Or .22s are guns for babies. This would ban practically any semiautomatic firearm including .22 hunting rifles as well as any semiautomatic handgun.
Yes, sustained rate of fire is relatively nebulous, but it's the more lenient of the two measures. Cyclic is perhaps too onerous. Of course, this is the initial draft and I will propose more precise language in the revision. I wouldn't be opposed to using terms within the manual.

The second point about banning practically any semiautomatic firearm, however, would not hold because of the other test included in part 1. Gas operated firearms will be perfectly fine; only direct impingement and open bolt firearms would be targeted.

So to clarify it is your position that my semiautomatic AK47 clone and my custom AR15 build, both of which contain gas pistons, will still be legal the next time I spend a week target shooting in Fremont?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines