NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[Haelunor]

Eh, accusing a majority of the Senate of treason is really a turn off. While I am not particularly opposed to people having the right to have handguns for self defense, I agree with my fellow senators: gujn ownership shjould be a privelege, not a fjndamental human right.

[Byzantium Imperial]

well i fixed the wording to remove the traitors part, edited out the first section making it less a god given right and more a privlage most people are entitled to.
Im confused on how to word that into the final clause though: I acknoledge that some people just shouldnt have guns (criminally insane, criminals in general), but my first idea of "with reasonable restrictions" sounds too subjective to me

any ideas?

[Ainin]

Opposed. The furthest I can support is

(7) The right to defend oneself, one's property and one's loved ones though necessary and reasonable force.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Opposed. The furthest I can support is

(7) The right to defend oneself, one's property and one's loved ones though necessary and reasonable force.

I dont see the right to bear arms in there

though it is important to note that i did edit my main a bit after seeing yours to expand when you could use guns in self defence (from oneself to just life in general, slightly more open eh?). Probably not what you wanted though

[Costa Alegria]

well i fixed the wording to remove the traitors part, edited out the first section making it less a god given right and more a privlage most people are entitled to.
Im confused on how to word that into the final clause though: I acknoledge that some people just shouldnt have guns (criminally insane, criminals in general), but my first idea of "with reasonable restrictions" sounds too subjective to me

any ideas?

Reasonable restrictions would be licensing for example, a minimum purchase age and a minimum use age with parental supervision amongst others. Maybe a restriction on the kinds of weapons available and the ammunition available also.

Just like with motor vehicles, there are some restrictions on who can operate them, at what age and what you can do to those vehicles (some modifications are illegal for example).

[Ainin]

Changing my opposition to "oh god please no".

The present wording protects the right to own any and every firearm in existence. I'd like to be able to ban military-grade automatic rifles, thank you very much.

[Byzantium Imperial]

well i fixed the wording to remove the traitors part, edited out the first section making it less a god given right and more a privlage most people are entitled to.
Im confused on how to word that into the final clause though: I acknoledge that some people just shouldnt have guns (criminally insane, criminals in general), but my first idea of "with reasonable restrictions" sounds too subjective to me

any ideas?

Reasonable restrictions would be licensing for example, a minimum purchase age and a minimum use age with parental supervision amongst others. Maybe a restriction on the kinds of weapons available and the ammunition available also.

Just like with motor vehicles, there are some restrictions on who can operate them, at what age and what you can do to those vehicles (some modifications are illegal for example).

While i agree 12 year olds shouldnt be able to operate or buy firearms without responsible parental supervision, restrictions on the kind of weapons is too dam far. Im hesitant to put reasonable restrictions into it though because reasonable means different things for different people, and as you said it could be interpreted as a license to ban types of guns.
I could always make the clause long, but that would sort of ruin th epoint of a rewritten version...

[Ainin]

Changing my opposition to "oh god please no".

The present wording protects the right to own any and every firearm in existence. I'd like to be able to ban military-grade automatic rifles, thank you very much.

Bump.

[Costa Alegria]

While i agree 12 year olds shouldnt be able to operate or buy firearms without responsible parental supervision, restrictions on the kind of weapons is too dam far.

No it isn't. Give me one good reason why you need a fully automatic assault rifle that doesn't revolve around "self defence".

Im hesitant to put reasonable restrictions into it though because reasonable means different things for different people, and as you said it could be interpreted as a license to ban types of guns.

Duh, that would be the point. Civilians are permitted to own certain types of weapons and certain types of weapons are to be forbidden. Unless you want strict restrictions on the licencing of fully automatic weapons and restrictions on how many rounds may be carried, where they can be stored and used, etc. And anyway, most of Europe outlaws fully automatic rifles anyway, and if we're going by British laws in place of our own, so does Aurentina.

I could always make the clause long, but that would sort of ruin th epoint of a rewritten version...

Or you could simply just leave the issue alone entirely and focus on a bill that actually defines what is permissible and what isn't with regards to firearms. That would be more productive instead of trying to re-word a constitution to include a clause that a minority support anyway.

[Byzantium Imperial]

While i agree 12 year olds shouldnt be able to operate or buy firearms without responsible parental supervision, restrictions on the kind of weapons is too dam far.

No it isn't. Give me one good reason why you need a fully automatic assault rifle that doesn't revolve around "self defence".

Im hesitant to put reasonable restrictions into it though because reasonable means different things for different people, and as you said it could be interpreted as a license to ban types of guns.

Duh, that would be the point. Civilians are permitted to own certain types of weapons and certain types of weapons are to be forbidden. Unless you want strict restrictions on the licencing of fully automatic weapons and restrictions on how many rounds may be carried, where they can be stored and used, etc. And anyway, most of Europe outlaws fully automatic rifles anyway, and if we're going by British laws in place of our own, so does Aurentina.

I could always make the clause long, but that would sort of ruin th epoint of a rewritten version...

Or you could simply just leave the issue alone entirely and focus on a bill that actually defines what is permissible and what isn't with regards to firearms. That would be more productive instead of trying to re-word a constitution to include a clause that a minority support anyway.

1. Cause its my god dam right. Its propriety, that i can use to defend myself and use against oppressive government. You cant tell me what ounce sodas to buy, you can tell me what guns i can buy.
2.I dont want to model europe gun wise. I prefer the american model.
3. Its important to include this in the bill of rights so later legislation doesnt try to trample it

[Kouralia]

Commonwealth Fire Services

---

Authors: New Zepuha [IND]
Sponsors: Byzantium Imperial [NIFP], Torsiedelle [NIFP],

---

REALIZES the need to formally establish a Fire Service for the Commonwealth of Aurentina, being essential to the protection of the people from Fire/Accident/Explosion etc.

AFFIRMS the necessity of having such an organization as a benefit to public safety.

MANDATES the following points:

• The Fire Service will be controlled by each municipality, as well as a national Special Fire Service for the case of special disaster.
• Chiefs of each Fire Department must be elected by the people.
• Firemen/Women must pass physical evaluations, and be re-evaluated every FIVE [5] years.
• Fire gear such as, air bottles, masks, gloves, jackets, and associated material; should be replaced every FOUR [4] years.
• Fire vehicles must be replaced or retro-fitted every TEN [10] years.
• Firemen/Women will serve a 24 hour shift in their assigned firehouse.
• One firehouse minimum must be in an are per ONE MILLION [1,000,000] people or below.

ESTABLISHES the following Departments/Divisions within the Fire Service:

General Fire Department: Serves as the first line of defense against fire mishaps and general accidents. Fire Engines will be assigned to each general station, alongside a Rescue Truck. These will be the standard block of the Fire Service.

Volunteer Fire Department: For small rural communities, affording a large fire service may not be applicable. Volunteers would be an unpaid force of trained fire fighters that are on call, but not required to be at the station 24 hours. Though TWO [2] Firefighters must be at the station during the night time hours.

Hazardous Material Unit: HMUs would be the specially trained units tasked with detoxing people and areas of hazardous material such as: Radiation, Toxic Gas, Acid, and various explosives. These units will be assigned to areas that are deemed high traffic for hazardous material, or in most danger.

Air Rescue Unit: Trained pilots and paramedics that fly into either express situations or people trapped in areas that regular ambulances cannot get to immediately. The pilots should receive extended training for emergency landings and take offs.

Tactical Support Unit: TSUs also known as Rehab units, are deployed on scene to large fires and operations to do the following: Refill air tanks, hand out bottled water, keep snack foods to keep firefighters from exhausting their bodies, and repair or replace hose lines when needed.

Brush Fire Unit: BFUs would be only assigned to municipalities that are deemed prone to brush fires and the like. These will be special units requiring the certs to be deemed by the future fire code.

This bill should also form an education program and fire experience, to educate the public on how to prevent fires in their own homes. This would create the following:

A. Creates a Fire Education program,
a. Creates the ability for Fire Departments to create an education program in their local area.
b. Allows for Municipalities to also create curriculum for what is to be instructed.
c. Creates the position of Fire Safety Instructor
I. Instructors are to receive 6 weeks of training at the Fire Academy
II. Instructors will take part time duty to instruct school students and members of the public.
B. Mandates that a Fire Code to be drafted amongst selected members from the Fire Services Chief upon passing of this bill.

ESTABLISHES the National Fire Academy

A. The NFA will be established on a sector of land no less than 60 acres of land owned by the government.
B. Training should consist of three phases and curriculum to be determined by the Fire Service's future fire code.
a. First, a Physical training portion should focus on the aspects of physical duties of a firefighter.
b. Second, a class room setting should educate them on first aid, medical, and fire code related materials.
c. Third, fire related training should focus on the fighting of fires, and tactics used to fight certain fires.
C. Establishes the Special Training Course.
a. Allows for Firefighters wishing to receive special training to do certain specialty roles, to come back for additional training in said fields.
b. Requires for separate training dates from the regular academy courses.



HEREBY establishes the Commonwealth Fire Service.

---

Definitions
Volunteer Firefighter: An unpaid on call firefighter.
Fire Department: Municipal level fire units consisting of multiple firehouses and firefighters, usually has a Chief and two Assistant Cheifs.
Special Fire Service: Response units tasked with responding to certain situations that regular Firefighters are not equipped/trained for.
Fire Service: The entirety of each Department/Division/Battalion and Special Units tasked with combating fires and threats by nature or accident to the public.
NFA: The training academy used for Firefighters.

Yanalia feel free to make edits your changes but keep the old text, and this is the rough draft as I am not finished, just a bit pooped from typing.

I hereby sponsor all the thingies.

[Ainin]

1. Cause its my god dam right. Its propriety, that i can use to defend myself and use against oppressive government. You cant tell me what ounce sodas to buy, you can tell me what guns i can buy.
2.I dont want to model europe gun wise. I prefer the american model.
3. Its important to include this in the bill of rights so later legislation doesnt try to trample it

1. No it's not. The right to own property doesn't mean you can own any sort of property.
2. The American model allows for regulations, contrary to your wording.
3. I hope it will trample it to a fine pulp.

[Costa Alegria]

Cause its my god dam right.

No it isn't.

Its propriety, that i can use to defend myself and use against oppressive government.

What part of Give me one good reason why you need a fully automatic assault rifle that doesn't revolve around "self defence" did you not understand? You don't need a fully automatic assault rifle to defend yourself and saying you'll use it against the government is bordering on treason. And treason carries a hefty penalty, assuming of course the Gendarmerie/Police haven't shot you first for firing at them.

You cant tell me what ounce sodas to buy, you can tell me what guns i can buy.

So you're saying I can tell you what guns to purchase? Good. Also, we could restrict the sale of sodas in terms of the amount sold per can if we wished if there was a feasible health risk associated with not regulating it. But seeing as there isn't, there's no need.

And besides, firearms are more lethal than sodas anyway. Therefore, it's important that we need legislation on firearms immediately.

I dont want to model europe gun wise. I prefer the american model.

No one really cares what you think. You're in the minority and in a democracy, you can say what you want but none of us are compelled to act on something that isn't important nor what the majority wants.

Its important to include this in the bill of rights so later legislation doesnt try to trample it

No it isn't. Gun rights are probably the least important "right" in the world. Would you argue that the right to own a motor car is important also?

[Ainin]

No feedback?

I'll add the shiny formatting later when I get on a real computer.

First Amendment to the Ministry Foundation Act
Sponsors: Yanalia, Mishmahig

The Senate of Aurentina,

Lauding the intentions of the Ministry Foundation Act,

However noticing several odd names for the ministries,

Enacting the following clauses:

The Ministry of Interiors shall henceforth be known as the Ministry of the Interior

The Ministry of Defense shall henceforth be known as the Ministry of Defence

The Ministry of Environment shall henceforth be known as the Ministry of the Environment

The Ministry of Work shall henceforth be known as the Ministry of Labour

The Ministry of Treasury and Finance shall henceforth be known as the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury

Hereby passes this amendment to the Ministry Foundation Act.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Cause its my god dam right.

No it isn't.

Its propriety, that i can use to defend myself and use against oppressive government.

What part of Give me one good reason why you need a fully automatic assault rifle that doesn't revolve around "self defence" did you not understand? You don't need a fully automatic assault rifle to defend yourself and saying you'll use it against the government is bordering on treason. And treason carries a hefty penalty, assuming of course the Gendarmerie/Police haven't shot you first for firing at them.

You cant tell me what ounce sodas to buy, you can tell me what guns i can buy.

So you're saying I can tell you what guns to purchase? Good. Also, we could restrict the sale of sodas in terms of the amount sold per can if we wished if there was a feasible health risk associated with not regulating it. But seeing as there isn't, there's no need.

And besides, firearms are more lethal than sodas anyway. Therefore, it's important that we need legislation on firearms immediately.

I dont want to model europe gun wise. I prefer the american model.

No one really cares what you think. You're in the minority and in a democracy, you can say what you want but none of us are compelled to act on something that isn't important nor what the majority wants.

Its important to include this in the bill of rights so later legislation doesnt try to trample it

No it isn't. Gun rights are probably the least important "right" in the world. Would you argue that the right to own a motor car is important also?

I meant to say CANT regulate what guns i can buy. Big typo XD

Gun rights advocates are not in the minority, as shown by the fact the firearms act failed and the recent bil passed with a SINGLE vote. im clearly not in the minority, and i have my rights to free speech. My individual opinion doesnt matter much, but the nations opinion matters, and it seems to be 50/50 between tyranny and freedom! (Amurica fuck yea!)

I think owning a motor car is protected under propriety. If it ever came under threat from environmental activists i would fight to [s]the last bullet[/s] my last breath to keep my right to drive cars. In any case i see less important rights: Namely the right to privacy. Speaking how no country adheres to it and nobody seems to care (many are horrified by nsa scandal, but seriously we put up with alot of shit every day from the government), and its a right that was created out of thin air durring roe v wade, and really only serves as a detriment to law enforcement.

1. Cause its my god dam right. Its propriety, that i can use to defend myself and use against oppressive government. You cant tell me what ounce sodas to buy, you can tell me what guns i can buy.
2.I dont want to model europe gun wise. I prefer the american model.
3. Its important to include this in the bill of rights so later legislation doesnt try to trample it

1. No it's not. The right to own property doesn't mean you can own any sort of property.
2. The American model allows for regulations, contrary to your wording.
3. I hope it will trample it to a fine pulp.

1.Propriety is propriety. That it can protect other rights and liberties and your life is what makes it trully unique
2. A variant of the american model, not an exact copy
3.Why are you bothering to offer feedback on gun rights legislation then>

[Arumdaum]

-snip-

Mandarin is currently labelled twice as both Mandarin and Standard Chinese.

[Mitonesia]

I highly oppose to the "right" to bear arms. I think we should addopt the european model, forbiding the use of war weapons and hunting weapons for other purposes which not hunting. I can barelly let citzens have one handgun at every family cluster so thet they can protect from anyone who threathens the family safety or property. Killing shots are only justified if the other individual also bears a weapons (not necessarily a firearm) capable of killing and has the intetion of provocing phisical damage or shows said intention by threaths. No-one with less than 18 years old should be able to utilize any type of weapon except in any extreme case. Bearing firearms should be a privelige for those who protect the country and for those who pratice hunting (although I don't support it) and have shown capacity and will of bearing a weapon. Anyone with a criminal record should be forbidden of bearing a weapon.

[Kamchastkia]

Im proud to unveil the first version of one of the most important bills we shall vote on

Second Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act
Urgency: Utmost

Drafted By: Byzantium Imperial
Sponsor(s):

BELIEVING that the right to bear arms, and to defend oneself is a human right, and should be protected by law

HORRIFIED that the senate removed the clause protecting gun rights from the LLA, thereby harming the nation

SEEKING to remedy this problem with a refined version of the gun rights protection clause initially passed in the original LLA which caused many senators to vote to remove it

HEARBY proposes to restore an edited gun rights clause to our bill of rights

(7) The right to own, trade, and produce firearms and ammunition, as well as use them in self defense when life is endangered, shall not be infringed apon.

this is merely the first version. I welcome any wording changes to it, as it is better to have the best possible writing for this very important bill

"HEARBY proposes to restore an edited gun rights clause to our bill of rights"

Change HEARBY to HEREBY as it is misspelled.

Just repeal what the First amendment to the LLA instead of writing a new clause.

[Kouralia]

Im proud to unveil the first version of one of the most important bills we shall vote on

Second Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act
Urgency: Utmost

Drafted By: Byzantium Imperial
Sponsor(s):

BELIEVING that the right to bear arms, and to defend oneself is a human right, and should be protected by law

HORRIFIED that the senate removed the clause protecting gun rights from the LLA, thereby harming the nation

SEEKING to remedy this problem with a refined version of the gun rights protection clause initially passed in the original LLA which caused many senators to vote to remove it

HEARBY proposes to restore an edited gun rights clause to our bill of rights

(7) The right to own, trade, and produce firearms and ammunition, as well as use them in self defense when life is endangered, shall not be infringed apon.

this is merely the first version. I welcome any wording changes to it, as it is better to have the best possible writing for this very important bill

"HEARBY proposes to restore an edited gun rights clause to our bill of rights"

Change HEARBY to HEREBY as it is misspelled.

Just repeal what the First amendment to the LLA instead of writing a new clause.

Also spelled 'Upon' incorrectly.

[Kamchastkia]

"HEARBY proposes to restore an edited gun rights clause to our bill of rights"

Change HEARBY to HEREBY as it is misspelled.

Just repeal what the First amendment to the LLA instead of writing a new clause.

Also spelled 'Upon' incorrectly.

And I just spent a good 15 minutes writing a "Affirmation of Rights to Bear Arms" bill which would repeal the First Amendment to the LLA :C.

[Costa Alegria]

Gun rights advocates are not in the minority, as shown by the fact the firearms act failed and the recent bil passed with a SINGLE vote.

They are.

im clearly not in the minority, and i have my rights to free speech.

Indeed. But a democracy doesn't have to act on the opinions of a minority if the majority doesn't wish to do so.

My individual opinion doesnt matter much, but the nations opinion matters, and it seems to be 50/50 between tyranny and freedom! (Amurica fuck yea!)

This isn't America. This is Aurentina. And we do things differently here.

I think owning a motor car is protected under propriety.

There's no clause in any legislation that guarantees the right to own a motor vehicle. That too is a privilege and your right to own one depends entirely on how you use and maintain it. Violation of laws, unpaid fines etc. can see your motor vehicle seized in many countries (including the United States).

Propriety is propriety.

Property is the stuff you already own. Would you defend someone's property rights if they possessed child pornography for example?

Why are you bothering to offer feedback on gun rights legislation then>

Your proposal isn't legislation. It doesn't make anything into law or regulate anything. Just adds a nonsensical clause in when the majority of the people are opposed to it in the first place.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Also spelled 'Upon' incorrectly.

And I just spent a good 15 minutes writing a "Affirmation of Rights to Bear Arms" bill which would repeal the First Amendment to the LLA :C.

Post that and if i like it il scrap mine

[Kamchastkia]

And I just spent a good 15 minutes writing a "Affirmation of Rights to Bear Arms" bill which would repeal the First Amendment to the LLA :C.

Post that and if i like it il scrap mine

Affirmation of the Right to Bear Arms
Urgency: High
Authors: Kamchastkia (USLP)
Sponsors: Byzantium Imperial (NIFP)

---

Noting that the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act opens a gateway to violation of the human right to bear arms,

Appalled that inside the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act it makes foreign influence and internal policies of foreign nations relevant to the specific conditions of our own,

Believing that the owning of firearms is a right of the people that shall not be taken away by the state,

Hereby repeals the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act

[Costa Alegria]

Again, no. The right to bear arms isn't a fundamental right. It's a privilege.

Really people. I thought we were smarter than this.

[Mishmahig]

Post that and if i like it il scrap mine

Affirmation of the Right to Bear Arms
Urgency: High
Authors: Kamchastkia (USLP)
Sponsors:

---

Noting that the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act opens a gateway to human right to bear arms,

Appalled that inside the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act it makes foreign influence and internal policies of foreign nations relevant to the specific conditions of our own,

Believing that the owning of firearms is a right of the people that shall not be taken away by the state,

Hereby repeals the First Amendment to the Limiting Legislation Act

Out of curiosity, would you mind changing the name to something more generic?

I'd be interested in how many people simply vote "AYE" to bills in an omnibus without reading it.