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.
Advertisement
by Jetan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:42 pm
by The Zeonic States » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:43 pm
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:47 pm
by TaQud » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:47 pm
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:48 pm
TaQud wrote:is the voting for the terrorism act and the 2 others still going or?
by Bleckonia » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:49 pm
by Ainin » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:49 pm
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.
by Jetan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:54 pm
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:55 pm
Bleckonia wrote:PLEASE PUT THE RCPA IN PASSED LEGISLATION!!!!!! IT PASSED BEFORE SOME OF THE STUFF THERE NOW!!!!!
by Britcan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:01 pm
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.
by Polvia » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:50 pm
Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
by Geilinor » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:53 pm
by Shrillland » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:33 pm
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?
by The God-Realm » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:35 pm
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?
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:37 pm
The God-Realm wrote:Banning arms is horrible.
by Unicario » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:00 pm
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
by Unicario » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:03 pm
by Kamchastkia » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:04 pm
by The God-Realm » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:05 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Camso Ale Trons
Advertisement