NationStates

The Zeonic States wrote:

Jetan wrote:Opposed.

Honestly do you expect that measure to pass regardless?

Were you not here when Britcans proposal flopped?

I'm opposed to the whole bill as long as it contains gun rights, but as long as they are there the more restrictions the better.

Jetan wrote:

The Zeonic States wrote:
Honestly do you expect that measure to pass regardless?

Were you not here when Britcans proposal flopped?

I'm opposed to the whole bill as long as it contains gun rights, but as long as they are there the more restrictions the better.

Uh-huh thankfully your views are in the minority and a good percentage believe in Gun Rights.

Perhaps not instilling them as fundimental inalienable rights but still rights.

To everyone who is saying that the SSA is state atheism: It's not. It's just secularism. It's not even laicite.

is the voting for the terrorism act and the 2 others still going or?

Jetan wrote:

The Zeonic States wrote:
Honestly do you expect that measure to pass regardless?

Were you not here when Britcans proposal flopped?

I'm opposed to the whole bill as long as it contains gun rights, but as long as they are there the more restrictions the better.

Well just vote no when it comes to a vote, like I'm planning to do.

TaQud wrote:is the voting for the terrorism act and the 2 others still going or?

Ended.

TaQud wrote:is the voting for the terrorism act and the 2 others still going or?

No, it ended. Terrorism act failed due to a tie, judicial act and senatorial inquest passed.

PLEASE PUT THE RCPA IN PASSED LEGISLATION!!!!!! IT PASSED BEFORE SOME OF THE STUFF THERE NOW!!!!!

Regnum Dominae wrote:To everyone who is saying that the SSA is state atheism: It's not. It's just secularism. It's not even laicite.

*drafts bill repealing it and introducing pre-03 laïcité*

Ainin wrote:

Jetan wrote:I'm opposed to the whole bill as long as it contains gun rights, but as long as they are there the more restrictions the better.

Well just vote no when it comes to a vote, like I'm planning to do.

I'm planning to.

Bleckonia wrote:PLEASE PUT THE RCPA IN PASSED LEGISLATION!!!!!! IT PASSED BEFORE SOME OF THE STUFF THERE NOW!!!!!

Calm down...

The OP hit the 60k character limit, so we started putting newer passed legislation in another post.

Railways Act
Urgency: Moderate

Author: Britcan [NSP]
Sponsors: Polvia [RG], Phing Phong [RG], Divair [CSP], Priory Academy USSR [TR], Wolfmanne [PC], Shrillland [RG], Ainin [TR], Fulflood [LDP]

Description:.

RECOGNISING that while under British ownership a network of railways was established in this nation by the British government and that this network is still in existence today.

ASSERTING that since we are now an independent nation the railways should now be owned by the people of this nation.

HEREBY forms the Aurentine Railways Board which will operate as a part of the Ministry of Transport and be charged with overseeing the maintaing and running of the national railway system as well as regularly checking up on the rapid transit networks in order to ensure that the local government is running and maintaing them to a reasonable degree.

MANDATES the following;

1) All parts of the existing railway network including overground, underground and other rapid transit systems should be nationalised with immediate effect. All citizens of this nations who owned shares in the railways as of 00:00 UTC on Monday 3rd of June 2013 should be awarded the worth of the shares at 00:00 UTC on Monday 3rd of June 2013 in compensation. Small, single-line railways that are not connected to the national network, do not carry passengers and were built independently from the colonial authorities are exempt from this ruling.

2) The government must hand over the running and maintenance of rapid transit networks to local government as soon as it is reasonably possible for it to do so.

3) The government take up the duty of maintaining and running the national railway system of this nation and that any and all profits from the railways go into the treasury of the nation.

4) All railway and rapid transit networks may run at a loss of no more than ten per cent in any given year.

5) If local government is deemed by the Aurentine Railways Board to be running a rail or rapid transit network inefficiently or in any way in contravention of this Act, the Aurentine Railway Board may assume temporary control of the relevant network in order to restructure their organisation and increase their efficiency to an acceptable level.

6) The Aurentine Railways Board can make a local government lower it's fare prices if they are deemed to be excessive.

7) The national rail and rapid transit network must be operating solely off electricity by 2035 in order to reduce carbon emissions.

GIVES the ministry of transport the ability to use it's funds to improve and expand the national rail network as well as rapid transit networks.

This has gained enough sponsors in the Coffee Shop to be added to the queue.

I am opposed to (7). A right to bear arms is ridiculous and not necessary at all to the sustaining of a democratic state. Look at Japan for example. Japan is among the worlds few Full Democracy (using the Economist Democracy Index) and it bans arms outright. Many of the top most democratic states in the world have strong gun regulation, if not outright bans on most firearms. An armed populace is unnecessary for democracy to prosper in a nation. Furthermore, you have countries like Yemen that allow weapons to an almost unregulated extent, and its one of the least democratic nations on the earth. Guns do not prevent dictatorship or ensure democracy. An armed populace can even be a threat to a democracy if one looks at the October Revolution that put the Bolsheviks in power in the early Soviet Unions.

I could also go on about how less civilian-owned firearms does, on average, reduce gun violence, homicide and robbery to a large extent, but I digress.

Might I ask why a right to bear arms is present?

Please post in the Aurentinian Biological Record thread. We are compiling a list of the country's flora and fauna.

Polvia wrote:I am opposed to (7). A right to bear arms is ridiculous and not necessary at all to the sustaining of a democratic state. Look at Japan for example. Japan is among the worlds few Full Democracy (using the Economist Democracy Index) and it bans arms outright. Many of the top most democratic states in the world have strong gun regulation, if not outright bans on most firearms. An armed populace is unnecessary for democracy to prosper in a nation. Furthermore, you have countries like Yemen that allow weapons to an almost unregulated extent, and its one of the least democratic nations on the earth. Guns do not prevent dictatorship or ensure democracy. An armed populace can even be a threat to a democracy if one looks at the October Revolution that put the Bolsheviks in power in the early Soviet Unions.

I could also go on about how less civilian-owned firearms does, on average, reduce gun violence, homicide and robbery to a large extent, but I digress.

Might I ask why a right to bear arms is present?

That may be so, but my right honourable friend must remember that Japan also gives its Police excessive amounts of power and ability of surveillance, that no reasonable Aurentine would ever support, or that the LLA would ever allow.

As for the rest of the legislation, I can honestly say I am in favour of all of these.

Banning arms is horrible.

Polvia wrote:I am opposed to (7). A right to bear arms is ridiculous and not necessary at all to the sustaining of a democratic state. Look at Japan for example. Japan is among the worlds few Full Democracy (using the Economist Democracy Index) and it bans arms outright. Many of the top most democratic states in the world have strong gun regulation, if not outright bans on most firearms. An armed populace is unnecessary for democracy to prosper in a nation. Furthermore, you have countries like Yemen that allow weapons to an almost unregulated extent, and its one of the least democratic nations on the earth. Guns do not prevent dictatorship or ensure democracy. An armed populace can even be a threat to a democracy if one looks at the October Revolution that put the Bolsheviks in power in the early Soviet Unions.

I could also go on about how less civilian-owned firearms does, on average, reduce gun violence, homicide and robbery to a large extent, but I digress.

Might I ask why a right to bear arms is present?

>implying japan is a great country

The God-Realm wrote:Banning arms is horrible.

Agreed.

---

My motion to remove the gun restrictions from the LLA, to be addressed by later bills, needs three more supporters.

The Zeonic States wrote:

Ainin wrote:Third.

Four.

Regnum Dominae wrote:

The God-Realm wrote:Banning arms is horrible.

Agreed.

---

My motion to remove the gun restrictions from the LLA, to be addressed by later bills, needs three more supporters.

The Zeonic States wrote:
Four.

I support you.

The God-Realm wrote:Banning arms is horrible.

Polvia wrote:I am opposed to (7). A right to bear arms is ridiculous and not necessary at all to the sustaining of a democratic state. Look at Japan for example. Japan is among the worlds few Full Democracy (using the Economist Democracy Index) and it bans arms outright. Many of the top most democratic states in the world have strong gun regulation, if not outright bans on most firearms. An armed populace is unnecessary for democracy to prosper in a nation. Furthermore, you have countries like Yemen that allow weapons to an almost unregulated extent, and its one of the least democratic nations on the earth. Guns do not prevent dictatorship or ensure democracy. An armed populace can even be a threat to a democracy if one looks at the October Revolution that put the Bolsheviks in power in the early Soviet Unions.

I could also go on about how less civilian-owned firearms does, on average, reduce gun violence, homicide and robbery to a large extent, but I digress.

Might I ask why a right to bear arms is present?

>implying japan is a great country

>Juche

Unicario wrote:

The God-Realm wrote:Banning arms is horrible.

>implying japan is a great country

>Juche

>implying you read the works of Kim Il Sung

The God-Realm wrote:

Unicario wrote:>Juche

>implying you read the works of Kim Il Sung

>implying you could call anything that lunatic writes as "works"

The God-Realm wrote:

Unicario wrote:>Juche

>implying you read the works of Kim Il Sung

>tl;dr.

Unicario wrote:

The God-Realm wrote:>implying you read the works of Kim Il Sung

>implying you could call anything that lunatic writes as "works"

>implying everybody the US calls a lunatic is actually a lunatic
>implying you read them

The God-Realm wrote:

Unicario wrote:>implying you could call anything that lunatic writes as "works"

>implying everybody the US calls a lunatic is actually a lunatic
>implying you read them

>implying I actually listen to the US

Unicario wrote:

The God-Realm wrote:>implying everybody the US calls a lunatic is actually a lunatic
>implying you read them

>implying I actually listen to the US

you do