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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[YE]

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.

[YE]

Hold off for now. Is someone going to fix 4.2?

[YE]

Hold off for now. Is someone going to fix 4.2?

Eh, that doesn't matter as long as you guys just vote against this bill.

Which I’m not sure will happen....

[YE]

Amendment is adopted.

[YE]

This fell through the wayside.

[YE]

As it's been far longer than 36 hours since ASV left, I think this is tabled.

That’s not how this works. The standing orders on the wiki are out of date; I don’t play the search for a new sponsor game.

[YE]

As it's been far longer than 36 hours since ASV left, I think this is tabled.

That’s not how this works. The standing orders on the wiki are out of date; I don’t play the search for a new sponsor game.

So is there a new sponsor?

There doesn’t need to be since ASV already advocated and we don’t do sponsor feedback.

[YE]

Nay

[YE]

This fails 0-3.

Good riddance.