NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[CTALNH]

Because you know they need guns to crack down on the strikers and if the strikers have guns too its gonna be impossible.

This is a silly hypothetical.

If the corporations ever use guns on strikers, then the police and government would land on them like a ton of bricks.

To shoot the incompetent government?

Joking probably

Or to launch barrages upon other civilians in a mass-murder spree?

Joking, probably.

Come on your being dramatic.

[Seelelander]

What do you call it senator? To retain a complete monopolization of force is exactly what dictatorships do. They use that monopolized force to prevent dissent, which is clearly what you fail to see. You fail to see the symptoms for the cause. How quaint, you sir, should be ashamed of yourself for your outright bigotry against honest respectable citizens who have a right to defend themselves.

[Fulflood]

Because you know they need guns to crack down on the strikers and if the strikers have guns too its gonna be impossible.

This is a silly hypothetical.

If the corporations ever use guns on strikers, then the police and government would land on them like a ton of bricks.

Unfortunately, they would already be dead.

[Seelelander]

Also Senator you should read the links you quote

a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated

Such power is attained by monopolization of arms.

[Mishmahig]

Corporations, Senator. Organizations.

This bill gives the average citizen the right to use artillery.

Actually, I have a question, re-reading the bill. Where exactly does it ban anything? I see a listing of consequences, should a crime be committed with a weapon, but I don't really see any restrictions on any weapons people can use.

With due respect senator, We don't immediately presume criminality on our citizen's part, so where do you get off saying that the citizen is immediately to be cast under the bus as a criminal for merely retaining the right to bear arms?

Please point out where I said that citizens were criminals for wanting guns. Otherwise, please stop misrepresenting my argument.

Does the Senator not understand the purpose of an armed citizenry with civilians completely powerless against a government in power, a government can become as oppressive and totalitarian as it wishes with no reprecussions because the citizens can easily be put down by force of arms.

Indeed I do, and that is why I am in favor of the right to bear arms. I draw the line at items that have been exclusively under military control for as long as they've existed: namely, artillery.

This is why we discourage such monopolization by force of arms. When centralized federal government possesses unlimited power over the people with force of arms, we call this a dictatorship.

Which is exactly why we are working to establish a government that has checks on its power so that it cannot do such a thing.

We as citizens need a deliberate counter to those who would threaten our right to dissent. We must retain the right to keep and bear arms. The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government respected. No government would be foolish enough to impose a dictatorship on people who have the ability to resist, on the other hand, without this safeguard there is no ability for the citizen to dissent without the threat of force in the other hand.

Correct! I agree entirely with this. However, I again ask why this right extends to the possession of items of such devastation and destruction that they have always been under the control of military forces from their creation.

I also point out that these weapons are always weapons of war, while others, such as guns, shotguns, etc, may have other uses, if only for collection purposes.

Now with Citizens being able to have all the arms they desire, would they attack a government they consider legitimate? Of course not. Would they attack their fellow citizens if they do not feel threatened? of course not.

Please source your words, as the NIF has repeatedly threatened to forcibly resist the government, should it attempt to outlaw paramilitaries. Otherwise, unfounded assertions and assumptions.

You are presuming that 100% of our citizens are sociopathic. This does not bode well for your constituents.

Please, Senator, refrain from assuming what I believe or not believe. Also, do stop misrepresenting what I say.


Now, you proposed the hypothetical of an oppressive government cracking down on their helpless constituents, etc, etc. This is horrifying, and should, of course, be averted wherever possible.

However, I propose this hypothetical: One or two (or even four or five) unstable/delusional/paranoid/etc, etc, men or women who believe that the government is at that totalitarian stage. Using their personal wealth, they purchase an artillery weapon, and, training themselves on it, open fire on the Senate, seeking to destroy those they view as oppressing the people. The sheer damage of this single attack, conducted on a weapon of war, is immense. Should we not regulate this?

[Irredento]

Why is this a bad thing? Why should a corporation be able to use such weapons if not an individual?

Because it's fucking artillery. There is a reason why ordinary people shouldn't be allowed howitzers, high explosive or chemical weaponry. Because, you know, it will kill someone.

That is the idea, yes. Weapons such as "fucking artillery" are indeed for killing people.

Now, why should a corporate entity be allowed artillery and not an individual? This was my original question after all but you seem to have ignored it in favour of telling me what a howitzer does when it's fired on someone. I already had a vague idea that people die when that happens, but I appreciate your help I guess. Repeating the exact same thing again in the voice of Billy Mays was gold, keep up the good work.

So many people seem to believe that only cops should have guns and only government militias, rather than private ones, should have explosives and so on. This implies a belief in the infallibility of the state which is, in my eyes, contrary to historical fact. All governments are susceptible to tyranny, including this one, and it is always a good thing that the people are ready to combat that.

[Mishmahig]

This is a silly hypothetical.

If the corporations ever use guns on strikers, then the police and government would land on them like a ton of bricks.



Or to launch barrages upon other civilians in a mass-murder spree?

Joking, probably.

Come on your being dramatic.

It's not a situation to joke about, Senator.

[Mishmahig]

This is a silly hypothetical.

If the corporations ever use guns on strikers, then the police and government would land on them like a ton of bricks.

Unfortunately, they would already be dead.

And if the strikers had guns, then people would be dead on both sides! Yay!

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Okay, instead of full on 'fuck it, this bill sucks', how about people give me ideas for edits?

[Seelelander]

Okay, instead of full on 'fuck it, this bill sucks', how about people give me ideas for edits?

I like the bill, mind you. There is an ambiguous section that can be made clearer, by describing what you mean on biological weapons whether they should be banned or otherwise.

[CTALNH]

Come on your being dramatic.

It's not a situation to joke about, Senator.

Yes becuase you don't have guns

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Okay, instead of full on 'fuck it, this bill sucks', how about people give me ideas for edits?

I like the bill, mind you. There is an ambiguous section that can be made clearer, by describing what you mean on biological weapons whether they should be banned or otherwise.

Okay. Edit inbound.

[CTALNH]

Okay, instead of full on 'fuck it, this bill sucks', how about people give me ideas for edits?

I like the bill, mind you. There is an ambiguous section that can be made clearer, by describing what you mean on biological weapons whether they should be banned or otherwise.

And if you changed the 6.35 to 6.5 we would like it even more

[Mishmahig]

Okay, instead of full on 'fuck it, this bill sucks', how about people give me ideas for edits?

My major controversy would be over the artillery section.

I approve entirely of the firearms section.

[Seelelander]

I do not understand why you would want a monopoly of Artillery in government hands. Especially not when we have already agreed that private military corporations would need them, and you cannot justify why a PMC should be able to own them, and a private citizen should not.

[Mishmahig]

I do not understand why you would want a monopoly of Artillery in government hands. Especially not when we have already agreed that private military corporations would need them, and you cannot justify why a PMC should be able to own them, and a private citizen should not.

Indeed I did.

PMCs require artillery to carry out mercenary activities, aka their job, which are entirely justifiable and perfectly fine with me. PMCs are also self-regulating, for the most part (it'd be bad for business otherwise).

Individuals do not need artillery for their day to day activities, nor for any recreational sport I can really think of. Given the destructive tendencies of artillery, as compared to those of guns, the risk posed by these items are far higher than anyone should be willing to accept.

However, presume I accept your argument. Why, then, should individuals not possess weapons of the ultimate destructive standard? Why should they not be allowed nuclear weapons?

[Seelelander]

To be fair senator, I never agreed that the government should retain the use of nuclear weapons either so this is a false dilemma. I am technically against either citizens OR the government's ability to use it. So I am fair in this respect!

[Mishmahig]

To be fair senator, I never agreed that the government should retain the use of nuclear weapons either so this is a false dilemma. I am technically against either citizens OR the government's ability to use it. So I am fair in this respect!

Why? If a citizen wishes to possess this weapon, in the event of a totalitarian government oppressing his or her rights, why should we stop them?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Edits. But I refuse to get rid of artillery.

Urgency: Very High

Drafted by: DuThaal Craftworld

Co-Sponsored by: Hathradic States & the party he is Chairman of.

Recognizing the right of the people to bear weaponry,

Noting that this has become a center of controversy within the senate as of late,

Recommending the Senate to adopt this bill in order to ensure the integrity of the Nation,

Hereby puts the following into effect;
1.0:Statement; The right of the people to possess, use and carry firearms shall not be infringed by any state, federal or other governmental authority. And while the right of the people to bear low-power explosives/artillery may be infringed, it shall not be prohibited in most circumstances*. Also not infringed is the right of the people to affix these weapons upon any frame that they wish, so long as they have the consent of the object’s owner.
2.0:Definitions;
2.1:Firearms; Any weapon with a projectile diameter of less than twelve point 7 (12.7) millimeters, a projectile length of less than four (4) centimeters, and utilizes a short combustion cycle to propel said projectile out of the weapon and towards a target. The exception to this is shotgun shells/rounds/calibres, which may be of any size applicable for their purpose. These defined firearms may take the form of pistols, rifles, shotguns and large ‘sniper’ rifles. If the ammunition carries over 1/4 ounce of explosive or 4 ounces of propellant then it is governed as artillery/low power explosives. No harmful (read; toxic/otherwise dangerous) biological or chemical elements are banned, as seen later within this bill.
2.2:Low-power explosives; are any explosive material with an explosive force of less than ten kilograms (22 pounds) when shaped into a regular cube measuring 1cm³ before detonation. Upon and after detonation it may not leave behind any harmful chemical, biological or radiological residue/effects upon the environment.
2.3:Artillery;, for the purpose of this bill, to be any weapon with a projectile diameter above 6.5 centimeters.
2.4:Circumstances under which a member of the populace’s right to bear low power exposives and artillery; as legal charges. Unless otherwise stated, instant confiscation, a ban from owning such weapons again and selling the confiscated materials back onto the free market is the penalty. The legal charges applicable are as such; conspiracy to commit murder (with the weapon(s)), manslaughter (four month suspension, official training upon proper use), murder (with the weapon(s)), armed robbery (with the weapon(s)), rape (wherein the weapon(s) were used to coerce the raped party) or property destruction (with the weapon(s)).
3.0:Bans Any weapons with an explosive within them containing anything other than low power explosive, any kind of radiological, biological or dangerous chemical element that causes any detriment to living beings are banned from private usage and ownership. This explicitly bans chemical weapons, biological weapons, dirty bombs or any other weapon that may leave radiation behind. Also banned is the use of any firearm/artillery piece/low power explosive by minor's (read- under the age of eighteen).

[Mishmahig]

Edits. But I refuse to get rid of artillery.

Urgency: Very High

Drafted by: DuThaal Craftworld

Co-Sponsored by: Hathradic States & the party he is Chairman of.

Recognizing the right of the people to bear weaponry,

Noting that this has become a center of controversy within the senate as of late,

Recommending the Senate to adopt this bill in order to ensure the integrity of the Nation,

Hereby puts the following into effect;
1.0:Statement; The right of the people to possess, use and carry firearms shall not be infringed by any state, federal or other governmental authority. And while the right of the people to bear low-power explosives/artillery may be infringed, it shall not be prohibited in most circumstances*. Also not infringed is the right of the people to affix these weapons upon any frame that they wish, so long as they have the consent of the object’s owner.
2.0:Definitions;
2.1:Firearms; Any weapon with a projectile diameter of less than twelve point 7 (12.7) millimeters, a projectile length of less than four (4) centimeters, and utilizes a short combustion cycle to propel said projectile out of the weapon and towards a target. The exception to this is shotgun shells/rounds/calibres, which may be of any size applicable for their purpose. These defined firearms may take the form of pistols, rifles, shotguns and large ‘sniper’ rifles. If the ammunition carries over 1/4 ounce of explosive or 4 ounces of propellant then it is governed as artillery/low power explosives. No harmful (read; toxic/otherwise dangerous) biological or chemical elements are banned, as seen later within this bill.
2.2:Low-power explosives; are any explosive material with an explosive force of less than ten kilograms (22 pounds) when shaped into a regular cube measuring 1cm³ before detonation. Upon and after detonation it may not leave behind any harmful chemical, biological or radiological residue/effects upon the environment.
2.3:Artillery;, for the purpose of this bill, to be any weapon with a projectile diameter above 6.5 centimeters.
2.4:Circumstances under which a member of the populace’s right to bear low power exposives and artillery; as legal charges. Unless otherwise stated, instant confiscation, a ban from owning such weapons again and selling the confiscated materials back onto the free market is the penalty. The legal charges applicable are as such; conspiracy to commit murder (with the weapon(s)), manslaughter (four month suspension, official training upon proper use), murder (with the weapon(s)), armed robbery (with the weapon(s)), rape (wherein the weapon(s) were used to coerce the raped party) or property destruction (with the weapon(s)).
3.0:Bans Any weapons with an explosive within them containing anything other than low power explosive, any kind of radiological, biological or dangerous chemical element that causes any detriment to living beings are banned from private usage and ownership. This explicitly bans chemical weapons, biological weapons, dirty bombs or any other weapon that may leave radiation behind. Also banned is the use of any firearm/artillery piece/low power explosive by minor's (read- under the age of eighteen).

Opposed until artillery is removed, etc, etc.

[CTALNH]

Edits. But I refuse to get rid of artillery.

Urgency: Very High

Drafted by: DuThaal Craftworld

Co-Sponsored by: Hathradic States & the party he is Chairman of.

Recognizing the right of the people to bear weaponry,

Noting that this has become a center of controversy within the senate as of late,

Recommending the Senate to adopt this bill in order to ensure the integrity of the Nation,

Hereby puts the following into effect;
1.0:Statement; The right of the people to possess, use and carry firearms shall not be infringed by any state, federal or other governmental authority. And while the right of the people to bear low-power explosives/artillery may be infringed, it shall not be prohibited in most circumstances*. Also not infringed is the right of the people to affix these weapons upon any frame that they wish, so long as they have the consent of the object’s owner.
2.0:Definitions;
2.1:Firearms; Any weapon with a projectile diameter of less than twelve point 7 (12.7) millimeters, a projectile length of less than four (4) centimeters, and utilizes a short combustion cycle to propel said projectile out of the weapon and towards a target. The exception to this is shotgun shells/rounds/calibres, which may be of any size applicable for their purpose. These defined firearms may take the form of pistols, rifles, shotguns and large ‘sniper’ rifles. If the ammunition carries over 1/4 ounce of explosive or 4 ounces of propellant then it is governed as artillery/low power explosives. No harmful (read; toxic/otherwise dangerous) biological or chemical elements are banned, as seen later within this bill.
2.2:Low-power explosives; are any explosive material with an explosive force of less than ten kilograms (22 pounds) when shaped into a regular cube measuring 1cm³ before detonation. Upon and after detonation it may not leave behind any harmful chemical, biological or radiological residue/effects upon the environment.
2.3:Artillery;, for the purpose of this bill, to be any weapon with a projectile diameter above 6.5 centimeters.
2.4:Circumstances under which a member of the populace’s right to bear low power exposives and artillery; as legal charges. Unless otherwise stated, instant confiscation, a ban from owning such weapons again and selling the confiscated materials back onto the free market is the penalty. The legal charges applicable are as such; conspiracy to commit murder (with the weapon(s)), manslaughter (four month suspension, official training upon proper use), murder (with the weapon(s)), armed robbery (with the weapon(s)), rape (wherein the weapon(s) were used to coerce the raped party) or property destruction (with the weapon(s)).
3.0:Bans Any weapons with an explosive within them containing anything other than low power explosive, any kind of radiological, biological or dangerous chemical element that causes any detriment to living beings are banned from private usage and ownership. This explicitly bans chemical weapons, biological weapons, dirty bombs or any other weapon that may leave radiation behind. Also banned is the use of any firearm/artillery piece/low power explosive by minor's (read- under the age of eighteen).

For!

[Seelelander]

Why? If a citizen wishes to possess this weapon, in the event of a totalitarian government oppressing his or her rights, why should we stop them?

The government shouldn't possess it nor should the citizen in this respect?

The same argument could be made with your fear of allowing a citizen to be denied the artillery they should legally be allowed to retain, as the government has it and shall need it in combat, and the PMCs shall also need it in their professions. As for the criticism of paramilitaries. THEY ARE PMCS. PMCS by right of their right to bear arms and organize, they have created a private militia of their own. Those are two fundamental rights that must be protected.

[Mishmahig]

Why? If a citizen wishes to possess this weapon, in the event of a totalitarian government oppressing his or her rights, why should we stop them?

The government shouldn't possess it nor should the citizen in this respect?

Why should the citizen not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

The same argument could be made with your fear of allowing a citizen to be denied the artillery they should legally be allowed to retain, as the government has it and shall need it in combat,

Correct, Senator. I am merely taking your argument one step further. If the citizens are to be allowed artillery, then why not nuclear weapons?

[Seelelander]

In truth the nuclear weapon cannot be compared. It is an exceptional weapon in its ability to create lasting and apocalyptic damage to the entire country. It should not be in the hands of GOVERNMENT or the CITIZEN. For this I am hilariously against. Because neither should, in their right minds support the possession in either hands, BUT! If the government has it, I am in favor of the Citizen having it because Mutually Assured Destruction keeps them from the trigger finger.

[Mishmahig]

In truth the nuclear weapon cannot be compared. It is an exceptional weapon in its ability to create lasting and apocalyptic damage to the entire country. It should not be in the hands of GOVERNMENT or the CITIZEN. For this I am hilariously against. Because neither should, in their right minds support the possession in either hands, BUT! If the government has it, I am in favor of the Citizen having it because Mutually Assured Destruction keeps them from the trigger finger.

Senator, if I may quote you...

When centralized federal government possesses unlimited power over the people with force of arms, we call this a dictatorship. We as citizens need a deliberate counter to those who would threaten our right to dissent. We must retain the right to keep and bear arms. The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government respected. No government would be foolish enough to impose a dictatorship on people who have the ability to resist, on the other hand, without this safeguard there is no ability for the citizen to dissent without the threat of force in the other hand. Now with Citizens being able to have all the arms they desire, would they attack a government they consider legitimate? Of course not. Would they attack their fellow citizens if they do not feel threatened? of course not.

You are clearly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, in this case referring to weaponry. Yet, you balk at the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of our nation's citizenry---why? Because of the sheer destruction capable of being unleashed by the weapon.

You draw the line at nuclear weapons.

I draw the line at artillery.

Why is your line more valid than mine?

Edit: Going offline for a bit, but I look forward to your answer when I return.