NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[The Nihilistic view]

We will at some point ban the carrying of knives in public and knives which are made for the sole purpose of inflicting harm on human beings should be banned. But as you had probably noticed this bill is about guns not knives.

Then this justification can apply to many more things. What happens if you buy a car with the intent to kill? A bat? A tire iron? Take martial arts with the intent to kill?

And as for banning knives, I suppose that means it will be illegal to cook in public, to go camping in nature preserves, and many other problems that show such a act is extremely overreaching. We live in a country where militias and rebels can terrorize town and we want to deprive the citizens the ability to defend themselves?

Watch out you don't set fire to yourself.

[Estva]

Then this justification can apply to many more things. What happens if you buy a car with the intent to kill? A bat? A tire iron? Take martial arts with the intent to kill?

And as for banning knives, I suppose that means it will be illegal to cook in public, to go camping in nature preserves, and many other problems that show such a act is extremely overreaching. We live in a country where militias and rebels can terrorize town and we want to deprive the citizens the ability to defend themselves?

Watch out you don't set fire to yourself.

O....k.

[Malgrave]

Added in the edits, and added you two as sponsors. Anyone else?

I'll sponsor.

[Estva]

Armed Forces Establishment Act

Author: Senator Léon Suero - Liberal Democratic Party (Estva)
Sponsors: Senator Gloria Salinas deGroot - The Free Citizens Party (New Zepuha)

---

Definitions -
1. Armed Forces: An institution or group of institutions designed to use military force.

§ 1 Establishment -
1. The Calaverdean Defense Forces (CDF) shall be the armed forces of Calaverde established with the goal of protecting the nation against external threats, partaking in humanitarian missions, intervening in revolts or revolutions, and counter-terroism operations.
2. The CDF shall consist of the Calaverdean Army, the Calaverdean Navy, and the Calverdean Air-force.

§ 2 Structure -
1. The head commander of the CDF shall be the President of Calaverde. The President shall have full power to override decisions made by subordinates within the extent of his or her legal abilities.
2. The Minister of Defense shall be the next in command, possessing the capability to override the decisions by all subordinates within the extent of his or her legal abilities.
3. Below the Minister of Defense shall be the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which shall consist of the Chief of Staff of each armed branch.
4. The exact military structure shall be determined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
5. Each Chief of Staff shall be appointed by the Minister of Defense and is subject to approval by the Senate.
6. All officers of the CDF are commissioned by the Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are responsible for creating a list of recommended candidates for commission and/or promotion at least once a year for the Senate to approve.

§ 3 Service -
1. To serve in the CDF, one must meet physical qualifications to be determined by the Minister of Defense.
2. Special positions may require technical qualifications.
2. To serve in the CDF one must be at least 18 years of age.
3. During times of war, the CDF may conscript registered citizens of at least 18 years of age and that meet physical qualification so long as such conscription is approved by the Senate and the President.
4. Failure to answer a call for conscription without a valid reason shall result in no more than 2 years of prison.
5. Men and women may serve to the same capacity so long as the physical and technical qualifications for both sexes are uniform.

§ 4 Abilities -
1. The CDF shall have the ability to engage in lethal force on foreign citizens without warrant to fulfill any mission given to it.
2. The CDF shall not engage lethal force on Calverdean citizens, permanent residents, or temporary residents unless -
a. They are in the process of committing a crime such as high treason.
b. They are deliberately obstructing CDF forces with full intent after the CDF has exhausted every opportunity to make them stop.
c. They are aiding an invading force or revolt.
3. The President has the ability to use the CDF to react to threats without permission of the Senate. However, any use must be approved by the Senate within 1 month and unjust commands are grounds for a vote of no confidence.
4. The CDF shall not be used for policing of common crimes, and shall be used only for the previous reasons.
5. The President may declare a period of martial law that may last no longer than 2 weeks. During martial law, the CDF gains all the power of the Calaverdean police.

Please add critiques in case I made a mistake or forgot something crucial.

Added permanent and temporary resident to he abilities clause.

[Arkolon]

I feel like conscription would be fitting for Calaverde, even outside of war. Sponsor the AFEA, Regina Marino (LDP).

As for firearm regulation, the cartels and gangsters laugh at your attempts. I'd prefer legalising pistols for self-defense, but then we must take into account the "scary-looking" guns that are just as powerful as pistols, making the distinction purely arbitrary-- resulting in the legalisation of these, too-- and then full auto guns. The most I can accept is a ban on full auto guns, not that they are useful to criminals anyway (expensive + wasteful + no accuracy), or a full auto gun registry. Even a registry for all guns would make me contemptuous.

[Great Nepal]

I would like to sponser firearms regulation.

[Mollary]

---

Firearm Regulation and Safety Protection Act

Author: Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
Sponsors: Cristobal Araullo (Argentarino | LibDems), Nicolas Thoraval (Kralta | LibDems), Pierre Desjardins (Ainin | LibDems), Boris Johnson (The Nihilistic view | LibDems)
An act to reduce gun violence, and regulate the import, sale, flow, usage and ownership of firearms.

---

Definitions

• firearm-related item - any item associated with the use of firearms such as ammunition
  person of good character - a person who has known the individual for at least 2 years, and who has not been imprisoned for more than 2 years.
  police - the official Calaverdean Police

Purposes

The purposes of this Act are as follows,

• To reduce gun violence.
• To reduce crime.
• To properly control the flow of firearms.
• To regulate the usage of firearms.
• To ensure that firearms are only owned by individuals of good character, who will safely operate the firearm.

§ 1 - Import of Firearms

a) Before importing a firearm, an individual, business, or other entity must obtain written consent from the Calaverdean Police. The firearm, upon import, must be registered with the Calaverdean Police.
b) This registration must include the country of origin, a description of the firearm, reason for important, and a unique ID for the firearm.
c) The Calaverdean Police will have the right to deny import of a firearm.
d) Any individual wishing to import a firearm for personal use must first obtain a Firearms License, for the relevant firearm, from the Calaverdean Police.

§ 2 - Firearms Licenses

a) Any individual wishing to privately own or use a firearm or firearm-related item must obtain a License from the Calaverdean police.
b) First, the individual must pass a Criminal background check as well as a mental health check - organised by the Police. Any other adult individuals living in the household must also pass a mental health and criminal background check. If the other adult individuals in the household refuse to pass a criminal and mental background check, or fail the checks, the individual will not be able to obtain a firearms license.
c) The individual must then attend a public and firearm safety class, operated by the Police. The individual must pass the written exam by successfully answering at least 85% of the questions. In the event of failure of the exam, the individual must wait six weeks to be eligible for another firearm safety class. The individual must re-take the class, and pass the test.
d) The Police's public and firearm safety class must include proper firearm usage techniques, safe storage and transport techniques, and other guidelines for safe firearm usage. The class must be followed by a written exam. The Calaverdean Police must develop a Firearm Safety class that fulfills these conditions. The test shall be provided at a cost to the individual, to be determined by the Calaverdean Police.
e) After passing the test, the individual, and his or her adult household members must be interviewed by the Police. The individual must have a suitable reason for gun ownership. A 'person of good character' must also be interviewed, and must affirm the individual's good character. The police shall prepare a list of questions regarding character, safety protocols, and reason for gun ownership.
f) The individual must have a 'genuine' reason for firearm ownership. This includes hunting or farming, membership of a target shooting or other firearm sporting club for at least 4 months, professional security work, control of animals, or collection. Self-defence or personal protection is not a 'genuine' reason for firearm ownership.

g) After fulfilling all the requirements, the individual will have the right to have a Firearms License. To acquire a license, the individual must pay a flat-rate fee of $50.
h) Every 5 years, a firearms license will expire. The individual will have 6 months to renew his or her license, and to continue to privately own and purchase a firearm, or firearm-related item. The Calaverdean Police will remind the individual once every 30 days during this 'grace period' to renew the license. The individual will be exempt from re-taking the firearm safety class upon renewable, but must pay a $25 renewal fee, and must pass another Criminal Background check, but is not required to pass another mental health check. The Police have the right to deny a firearms license renewal.
i) The Police may remove a firearms license from an individual if they are convicted of a crime that leads them to be imprisoned for more than 2 years. The Police may also remove a firearms license if they believe that the individual is engaging in anti-social behavior, or may commit a crime using the firearm. If the individual loses a firearms license, there is compulsory buy-back of all firearms (and firearm-related items) owned by the individual. The individual will be compensated for the confiscation of the firearm and related items.
j) Every individual firearms license will have a unique ID number, which will be entered in the Firearms Registry.

§ 3 - Regulation of Sporting Clubs and other businesses

a) Firearms sporting clubs may hold 'Restricted Firearms' for usage by the public.
b) All employees who have access to areas where firearms are stored, or who will be giving instruction or using firearms, must hold Firearms Licenses.
c) People may belong to sporting clubs without holding a firearms license, and may use the firearms.
d) Before becoming a member of a sporting club, people must undergo a firearms safety class, and pass 80% of a written exam. The exam will be created by the Calaverdean Police, but may be administered by sporting club employees.
e) All firearms must be securely locked away, as is regulated by § 4, with ammunition separately locked away. All sporting clubs must be equipped with security systems and alarms.
f) Sporting clubs may be randomly inspected by the Calaverdean Police.
g) Every business or other private entity that owns a firearm must be registered with the police and Firearms Registry, and must receive approval from them. The Calaverdean Police will issue a 'Business Firearms Number'.
h) Every importer of firearms must be registered with the police and Firearms Registry, and must receive approval from them. The Calaverdean Police will issue a 'Firearms Importer Number'.
i) An individual who works as a private security officer, that carries a firearm, must be interviewed by the police, have a firearms license, and receive a positive endorsement from the police on their license.

§ 4 - Storage and Transport of Firearms

a) All individuals and private entities must store firearms and firearms-related items in the manner as follows:

i.) Ensure that the firearm/firearms-related item is carried or used in a manner that is secure and is not dangerous.
ii.) Take precautions to ensure the firearms and firearm-related items are not stolen.
iii.) All firearms and firearm-related items must be locked away, unloaded. The firearms must be stored separately from the firearm-related items.
iv.) The police will inform individuals and private entities the proper way to store firearms.
v.) The police will have the right to randomly inspect the storage of a firearm, or firearm-related item.

b) When publicly transporting a firearm or firearm-related item, it must be locked away securely and separately.
c) The individual must go to and from the destination in a reasonable amount of time.
d) The individual must be transporting the firearm or firearm-related item to or from a location for a sale or purchase, a repair shop, a regulated firearms shooting club, a hunting ground, someone else's home who has a firearm's license, somewhere necessary for private security employment, or the individual's home.

§ 5 - Public Carry

a) Public carry of firearms in any way is banned, unless the individual is a security professional who is granted permission by police. Public carry may also be allowed for valid transportation purposes, as is mentioned in § 4-d.
b) Public places exempt from 'public carry' are designated hunting grounds and firearms sporting places.
c) Bringing a firearm into a private business, that is not related to hunting or firearms sporting, or the repair of firearms, is illegal. Private businesses and organisations have the right to introduce stricter regulations than are mentioned here.
d) A firearm must always be unloaded when in public areas.

§ 6 - Restricted Firearms

a) Some firearms are designated as 'restricted'. In order to own a restricted firearm, the individual must have an endorsement from the police on their firearms license.
b) Restricted firearms include the following:

i.) Any handgun or pistol
ii.) A 'military-style semiautomatic weapon', which is defined as the following: any self-loading (semi-automatic) firearm, other than a handgun, that has a folding or telescopic butt, detachable magazine with capacity greater than 10 rounds, bayonet lug, threaded barrel to accept devices such as a flash suppressor, suppressor, and/or barrel shroud.
iii.) a sawed-off shotgun
iv.) short-barrelled rifles
v.) Rifles in a "bullpup" configuration

c) To obtain a restricted firearm, an individual must have a 'valid special reason'. This is to be determined at the discretion of the police. The reason must be conducive to the individual's professional, hunting, collection, or sporting needs. They must not be able to fulfill their reason for having a firearm with a non-restricted firearm.
d) The police are advised to only endorse a firearms license if the individual presents a valid case to why they cannot use a non-restricted firearm.

§ 7 - Banned Firearms and Firearm-Related Items

a) Some firearms are subject to a ban on purchase by any non-governmental individuals and entities. These include the following:

i.) Any fully-automatic weapon is subject to this ban.
ii.) Any form of a grenade launcher, grenade, mortar, or flamethrower is banned.
iii.) any firearm which is disguised as another object
iv.) an electroshock weapon
v.) An anti-materiel rifle, defined as one capable of firing rifle rounds at the calibre of .50 or above
vi.) Hollowpoint, flechette, explosive, incendiary and expanding ammunition
vii.) Pistol rounds designed to pierce body armour

b) The police may recommend changes to this definition to the Government.

§ 7 - Purchase and Sale of Firearms

a) An individual may only purchase one firearm, and five rounds of applicable ammunition, at a time. An entity, such as a sporting club, may receive written permission from the police to purchase more than one firearm.
b) An individual must wait 21 days before purchasing another firearm, or more ammunition.
c) An individual must have a firearms license to buy a firearm.
d) The seller must keep a record of the firearm sold, and the individual or entity who was the buyer, and must submit these records to the police within 30 days.
e) Private, unregistered sales, firearm sales at gun-shows and similar conventions, and sales at firearms stores are all subject to the same rules and regulations. Online sales, both private and by businesses, are subject to the same rules and regulations.

§ 8 - Firearms Registry

a) Every firearm owned must be registered with the Firearms Registry within 30 days, and the firearm must be tied to a Firearms License ID number, or a 'Business Firearms Number'.
b) The Firearms Registry shall be administered by the Calaverdean police.
c) Every individual and entity must submit a registration for a firearm in their possession, tied to the relevant ID number. The registration must contain a description of the firearm.
d) Every sale and import must be registered with the Firearms Registry within 30 days. Sellers, businesses, and importers are required to submit their records or register the sale or import, tied to a relevant 'Business Firearms Number' or 'Firearms Importer Number'.

§ 8 - Penalties

a) Violating any of the regulations of this act may result in penalties. Guidelines are set below for the courts.
b) Owning a firearm without a firearms license, that was illegally acquired, can result in a fine of up to $50,000 and up to 15 years of prison, per offence.
c) Owning a firearm without a license, that was legally acquired by the individual, may result in the confiscation of the firearm, up to a 2-year prison sentence, and up to a $10,000 fine, for the first offence. Any additional offences can result in a fine of up to $25,000, up to a 5-year prison sentence, and uncompensated confiscation of the firearm. There is a grace period of 90 days after purchase and 183 days after the expiry of a firearms license where no charges will be laid. The individual will be expected to be registering or re-registering for a license in this grace period.
d) A business or private entity that illegally owns a firearm, without registering, may face fines up to $500,000 per offence.
e) The illegal sale and/or trafficking of firearms can result in a prison sentence of up to 25 years, per offence.
f) A business, or private seller, that fails to submit records of sale to the Registry within 30 days, may face fines up to $5,000 per offence.
g) Failure to register a firearm, within the 30 day grace period, can result in a fine of up to $10,000 per offence, and uncompensated confiscation of the firearm. It may also result in the confiscation of a license, with up to a 5-year moratorium on acquiring a new license.
h) Any business that sells a firearm to an individual without obtaining a license may receive a fine of up to $250,000 per offence.
i) Purchasing a firearm without a license, from a legal seller of firearms, may result in a jail sentence of up to 10 years, and a fine of up to $50,000.
j) Purchasing a firearm without a license, from an illegal seller of firearms, may result in a jail sentence of up to 15 years, and a fine of up to $100,000.
k) Committing a crime using a firearm, may result in a jail sentence of up to 10 years.
l) Each of the penalties mentioned in § 8.b-k may incur an additional jail sentence of up to 3 years, and/or an additional fine of up to $75,000 if a banned weapon mentioned in § 7 is involved.

Sponsors anyone?

I sponsor

[Great Nepal]

Armed Forces Establishment Act

Author: Senator Léon Suero - Liberal Democratic Party (Estva)
Sponsors: Senator Gloria Salinas deGroot - The Free Citizens Party (New Zepuha)

---

Definitions -
1. Armed Forces: An institution or group of institutions designed to use military force.

§ 1 Establishment -
1. The Calaverdean Defense Forces (CDF) shall be the armed forces of Calaverde established with the goal of protecting the nation against external threats, partaking in humanitarian missions, intervening in revolts or revolutions, and counter-terroism operations.
2. The CDF shall consist of the Calaverdean Army, the Calaverdean Navy, and the Calverdean Air-force.

§ 2 Structure -
1. The head commander of the CDF shall be the President of Calaverde. The President shall have full power to override decisions made by subordinates within the extent of his or her legal abilities.
2. The Minister of Defense shall be the next in command, possessing the capability to override the decisions by all subordinates within the extent of his or her legal abilities.
3. Below the Minister of Defense shall be the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which shall consist of the Chief of Staff of each armed branch.
4. The exact military structure shall be determined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
5. Each Chief of Staff shall be appointed by the Minister of Defense and is subject to approval by the Senate.
6. All officers of the CDF are commissioned by the Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are responsible for creating a list of recommended candidates for commission and/or promotion at least once a year for the Senate to approve.

§ 3 Service -
1. To serve in the CDF, one must meet physical qualifications to be determined by the Minister of Defense.
2. Special positions may require technical qualifications.
2. To serve in the CDF one must be at least 18 years of age.
3. During times of war, the CDF may conscript registered citizens of at least 18 years of age and that meet physical qualification so long as such conscription is approved by the Senate and the President.
4. Failure to answer a call for conscription without a valid reason shall result in no more than 2 years of prison.
5. Men and women may serve to the same capacity so long as the physical and technical qualifications for both sexes are uniform.

§ 4 Abilities -
1. The CDF shall have the ability to engage in lethal force on foreign citizens without warrant to fulfill any mission given to it.
2. The CDF shall not engage lethal force on Calverdean citizens, permanent residents, or temporary residents unless -
a. They are in the process of committing a crime such as high treason.
b. They are deliberately obstructing CDF forces with full intent after the CDF has exhausted every opportunity to make them stop.
c. They are aiding an invading force or revolt.
3. The President has the ability to use the CDF to react to threats without permission of the Senate. However, any use must be approved by the Senate within 1 month and unjust commands are grounds for a vote of no confidence.
4. The CDF shall not be used for policing of common crimes, and shall be used only for the previous reasons.
5. The President may declare a period of martial law that may last no longer than 2 weeks. During martial law, the CDF gains all the power of the Calaverdean police.

Please add critiques in case I made a mistake or forgot something crucial.

Added permanent and temporary resident to he abilities clause.

Theres no vote of no confidence against president, its impeachment proceedings. Nevertheless I can not support any form of conscription - it is violation of most fundamental human right.

[Arkolon]

Added permanent and temporary resident to he abilities clause.

Theres no vote of no confidence against president, its impeachment proceedings.
But i can not support any form of conscription - it is violation of most fundamental human right.

The government forcing you to fight in wartime is no different to the government forcing you to give money to finance wars abroad. People die, human rights are violated, and people are coerced in both cases.

[Great Nepal]

Theres no vote of no confidence against president, its impeachment proceedings.
But i can not support any form of conscription - it is violation of most fundamental human right.

The government forcing you to fight in wartime is no different to the government forcing you to give money to finance wars abroad. People die, human rights are violated, and people are coerced in both cases.

Not all coercion is equally wrong or even wrong by itself, given no one dies from taxation and your tax money is spent in various location which may or may not involve the military it is not as unjustifiable as coercion which involves you having to put your life on hold with possibility of having to kill others or be killed yourself.

[Mollary]

Theres no vote of no confidence against president, its impeachment proceedings.
But i can not support any form of conscription - it is violation of most fundamental human right.

The government forcing you to fight in wartime is no different to the government forcing you to give money to finance wars abroad. People die, human rights are violated, and people are coerced in both cases.

No, it is, because in one case you pay a slice of your earnings to fund a war in which people who voluntarily joined the armed forces die; in the other people die in a war that they were made to fight involuntarily.

[Arkolon]

The government forcing you to fight in wartime is no different to the government forcing you to give money to finance wars abroad. People die, human rights are violated, and people are coerced in both cases.

No, it is, because in one case you pay a slice of your earnings to fund a war in which people who voluntarily joined the armed forces die; in the other people die in a war that they were made to fight involuntarily.

Tell me more about how the Afghani and Pakistani civilians that die in drone strikes signed up for any of that. Your taxes finance these things; the only reason you feel less icky about it this way is that you aren't personally going over there to point guns at brown people, but paying other people to do so, so it's a-OK.

[Mollary]

No, it is, because in one case you pay a slice of your earnings to fund a war in which people who voluntarily joined the armed forces die; in the other people die in a war that they were made to fight involuntarily.

Tell me more about how the Afghani and Pakistani civilians that die in drone strikes signed up for any of that. Your taxes finance these things; the only reason you feel less icky about it this way is that you aren't personally going over there to point guns at brown people, but paying other people to do so, so it's a-OK.

I doubt mine do as I don't pay tax and I'm not an American.

Look, I doubt our country will enter a war any time soon, and I doubt that it would be a war of aggression, so if we do enter we shouldn't conscript as we should be sending over a professional military to achieve the objectives in the most humane way possible, as opposed to conscripting people to be cannon fodder.

[Kouralia]

We will at some point ban the carrying of knives in public and knives which are made for the sole purpose of inflicting harm on human beings should be banned. But as you had probably noticed this bill is about guns not knives.

Then this justification can apply to many more things. What happens if you buy a car with the intent to kill? A bat? A tire iron? Take martial arts with the intent to kill?

And as for banning knives, I suppose that means it will be illegal to cook in public, to go camping in nature preserves, and many other problems that show such a act is extremely overreaching. We live in a country where militias and rebels can terrorize town and we want to deprive the citizens the ability to defend themselves?

Ban the carry of offensive weapons - anything which is designed to, adapted for the purposes of, or intended to be used to unlawfully harm another person.

[Arkolon]

Tell me more about how the Afghani and Pakistani civilians that die in drone strikes signed up for any of that. Your taxes finance these things; the only reason you feel less icky about it this way is that you aren't personally going over there to point guns at brown people, but paying other people to do so, so it's a-OK.

I doubt mine do as I don't pay tax

Your parents, then.

and I'm not an American.

As if no European powers have any troops over there. Hell, Luxembourgish Armed Forces ("d'Arméi") is even over there.

Look, I doubt our country will enter a war any time soon

Great, so what's the problem? Conscription would become a legal option in wartime, not necessary protocol.

[Arkolon]

Then this justification can apply to many more things. What happens if you buy a car with the intent to kill? A bat? A tire iron? Take martial arts with the intent to kill?

And as for banning knives, I suppose that means it will be illegal to cook in public, to go camping in nature preserves, and many other problems that show such a act is extremely overreaching. We live in a country where militias and rebels can terrorize town and we want to deprive the citizens the ability to defend themselves?

Ban the carry of offensive weapons - anything which is designed to, adapted for the purposes of, or intended to be used to unlawfully harm another person.

A fork can be used to unlawfully harm another person. It's like a knife but four times the pointy bits. Clearly eating customs are a danger to society. And don't get me started on earrings, those damn things could poke your eye out! Guess we should also consider banning using butcher's knives to cut meat-- that's OK, because banning pointy objects outweighs all other concerns. Why don't we just bubblewrap everything, just in case, too?

That wording is so appallingly abstract it doesn't even apply to guns anymore.

[Kouralia]

Ban the carry of offensive weapons - anything which is designed to, adapted for the purposes of, or intended to be used to unlawfully harm another person.

A fork can be used to unlawfully harm another person. It's like a knife but four times the pointy bits. Clearly eating customs are a danger to society. And don't get me started on earrings, those damn things could poke your eye out! Guess we should also consider banning using butcher's knives to cut meat-- that's OK, because banning pointy objects outweighs all other concerns. Why don't we just bubblewrap everything, just in case, too?

That wording is so appallingly abstract it doesn't even apply to guns anymore.

Let's apply the check list:
Is a fork designed to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a proscribed weapon like a post-ban firearm)? No.
Is a fork adapted to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a knife fashioned from a toothbrush)? No.
Is a fork intended to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a baseball bat being carried by a gang member to give another gang a 'good going over')? No.

Thus the Officer has no right, responsibility or duty to arrest the individual and/or confiscate the 'offensive weapon', as it is not an 'offensive weapon'.

Go at it again:
Is an illegal revolver designed to unlawfully harm someone? Arguably yes - if it is illegal then any use of it is unlawful. Thus the Officer could arrest the individual and confiscate the weapon.

And again:
Is a legal automatic designed to unlawfully harm someone? No - it's designed to lawfully harm someone if it's being used for self defence.
Is a legal automatic adapted to unlawfully harm someone? No.
Is a legal automatic intended to unlawfully harm someone? Possibly. If an individual was drunken, banging on his ex-'s door with the grip of the weapon and screaming how he's going to kill the cheating slag then one could have reasonable suspicion that he intends to use it for unlawful purposes (though in that instance he's committing a wide range of other offences).

[Mollary]

I doubt mine do as I don't pay tax

Your parents, then.

and I'm not an American.

As if no European powers have any troops over there. Hell, Luxembourgish Armed Forces ("d'Arméi") is even over there.

Look, I doubt our country will enter a war any time soon

Great, so what's the problem? Conscription would become a legal option in wartime, not necessary protocol.

Armed forces, yes, but you were talking about drones.

Conscription should only be an option if our nation is at threat from invasion, I think there is clearly a difference between sending a part of our small, professional military abroad to fight a war and conscripting people to go abroad and fight a war.

[Arkolon]

A fork can be used to unlawfully harm another person. It's like a knife but four times the pointy bits. Clearly eating customs are a danger to society. And don't get me started on earrings, those damn things could poke your eye out! Guess we should also consider banning using butcher's knives to cut meat-- that's OK, because banning pointy objects outweighs all other concerns. Why don't we just bubblewrap everything, just in case, too?

That wording is so appallingly abstract it doesn't even apply to guns anymore.

Let's apply the check list:
Is a fork designed to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a proscribed weapon like a post-ban firearm)? No.

Incorrect: I could stab you with a fork in the heart, neck, or sensitive intestinal areas or liver, in order to kill you. If I do it enough times (2-3), you will die. Stabbed by a table fork. It's pointy. It's sharp. It's possible. It's unlawful. It's illegal. It's a fork.

Is a fork adapted to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a knife fashioned from a toothbrush)? No.

Incorrect: I could gouge your eyes out with a fork, and using the necessary material I could make the fork even pointier in order to make the pain more excruciating. Hell, I could use a fucking fork as a fucking bayonet. I'm just saying that if you word the law to make everything remotely "dangerous" just because it's "scary", such regulation is so arbitrary it opens up so many windows.

Is a fork intended to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a baseball bat being carried by a gang member to give another gang a 'good going over')? No.

A fork could be used by a gang member to slit the throat of, gouge the eyes out of, stick up the nose of, anally abuse, clip off the fingernails of, or simply stab another gang member.

Thus the Officer has no right, responsibility or duty to arrest the individual and/or confiscate the 'offensive weapon', as it is not an 'offensive weapon'.

A man could kill another with their bare hands, or even their teeth. If you want to define "offensive" by "you could kill someone with it", that's paltry and amateurish. Get a better definition.

Go at it again:
Is an illegal revolver designed to unlawfully harm someone? Arguably yes - if it is illegal then any use of it is unlawful. Thus the Officer could arrest the individual and confiscate the weapon.

The fuck is an "illegal revolver"? How is it any physically different to a legal revolver? Legal revolvers can be used to kill and injure offensively.

[Arkolon]

Your parents, then.


As if no European powers have any troops over there. Hell, Luxembourgish Armed Forces ("d'Arméi") is even over there.


Great, so what's the problem? Conscription would become a legal option in wartime, not necessary protocol.

Armed forces, yes, but you were talking about drones.

They still kill brown people. That doesn't make what they're doing any more defensible.

Conscription should only be an option if our nation is at threat from invasion, I think there is clearly a difference between sending a part of our small, professional military abroad to fight a war and conscripting people to go abroad and fight a war.

Conscription would be an option during all wartime. I doubt any Generalissimo would order conscription for wars that aren't of invasion.

[Kouralia]

Let's apply the check list:
Is a fork designed to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a proscribed weapon like a post-ban firearm)? No.

Incorrect: I could stab you with a fork in the heart, neck, or sensitive intestinal areas or liver, in order to kill you. If I do it enough times (2-3), you will die. Stabbed by a table fork. It's pointy. It's sharp. It's possible. It's unlawful. It's illegal. It's a fork.

The fork was not designed to do that upon its original creation - this thus comes under the third check.

Is a fork adapted to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a knife fashioned from a toothbrush)? No.

Incorrect: I could gouge your eyes out with a fork, and using the necessary material I could make the fork even pointier in order to make the pain more excruciating. Hell, I could use a fucking fork as a fucking bayonet. I'm just saying that if you word the law to make everything remotely "dangerous" just because it's "scary", such regulation is so arbitrary it opens up so many windows.

At no point was scariness or dangerousness mentioned in anything I said, why did you bring it up?

Why are you purposefully making up situations whereby an individual uses a fork as a weapon, just to prove that it's somehow bad to define weapons in law?

Is a fork intended to unlawfully harm someone (e.g. a baseball bat being carried by a gang member to give another gang a 'good going over')? No.

A fork could be used by a gang member to slit the throat of, gouge the eyes out of, stick up the nose of, anally abuse, clip off the fingernails of, or simply stab another gang member.

In the event that the fork is being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone as opposed to being 'a fork carried by someone'... it surprisingly enough fulfills the requirement of 'being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone.'

Thus the Officer has no right, responsibility or duty to arrest the individual and/or confiscate the 'offensive weapon', as it is not an 'offensive weapon'.

A man could kill another with their bare hands, or even their teeth. If you want to define "offensive" by "you could kill someone with it", that's paltry and amateurish. Get a better definition.

I choose to define it as 'any article - Made or adapted for use for causing injury to persons; or Intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'

Go at it again:
Is an illegal revolver designed to unlawfully harm someone? Arguably yes - if it is illegal then any use of it is unlawful. Thus the Officer could arrest the individual and confiscate the weapon.

The fuck is an "illegal revolver"? How is it any physically different to a legal revolver? Legal revolvers can be used to kill and injure offensively.

A revolver possessed illegally. Really, are you even trying here? The point being that a legally possessed weapon has legal purposes it can be used for whereas arguably any purpose an unlawfully owned weapon is put to will be unlawful, as they will be accompnished with an illegal tool/instrument/weapon.

[Murkwood]

Why don't we use shotfuns instead?

*Pyotr ducks*

[Ainin]

In peacetime, conscription leads to a large pool of demoralised, badly-trained and badly-organised grunts with no specialisation whatsoever.

In times of war, conscription isn't particularly useful unless your military is incapable of attracting recruits.

In times of invasion, it's a bit too fucking late to start conscripting if the enemy's already in your country.

[Arkolon]

Incorrect: I could stab you with a fork in the heart, neck, or sensitive intestinal areas or liver, in order to kill you. If I do it enough times (2-3), you will die. Stabbed by a table fork. It's pointy. It's sharp. It's possible. It's unlawful. It's illegal. It's a fork.

The fork was not designed to do that upon its original creation - this thus comes under the third check.

So? The fork could have been designed to stab animals under "forkhunting", a traditional practice in forkpeople areas. Forks could be designed for hunting, for sport (forkthrowing), for injuring small insects, and some forks are designed to kill. All forks can kill, and some were designed to.

Incorrect: I could gouge your eyes out with a fork, and using the necessary material I could make the fork even pointier in order to make the pain more excruciating. Hell, I could use a fucking fork as a fucking bayonet. I'm just saying that if you word the law to make everything remotely "dangerous" just because it's "scary", such regulation is so arbitrary it opens up so many windows.

At no point was scariness or dangerousness mentioned in anything I said, why did you bring it up?

You are quite evidently making such an arbitrary distinction: a gun cannot be allowed because it was designed to kill, totally omitting that stupid things like forks could equally kill, but you don't want to regulate forks because ... either because you work for a fork factory, or forks just aren't scary enough for you. If we ate with guns, say, could you then justify not banning guns? Is that the problem?

Why are you purposefully making up situations whereby an individual uses a fork as a weapon, just to prove that it's somehow bad to define weapons in law?

Because such an arbitrary definition opens so many doors in weapon regulation, adding it in will render it so useless we might as well start regulating cutlery, or sticks that fall off trees in winter, or ball-point pens, or footballs so well-pumped they hurt when you kick them at someone. I am trying to show you how you cannot create an arbitrary definition for gun control without regulating too little or regulating too much. Buyback schemes, or simply leaving it all alone, would actually be worth consideration.

A fork could be used by a gang member to slit the throat of, gouge the eyes out of, stick up the nose of, anally abuse, clip off the fingernails of, or simply stab another gang member.

In the event that the fork is being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone as opposed to being 'a fork carried by someone'... it surprisingly enough fulfills the requirement of 'being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone.'

What about an illegal assault rifle that is not being used to unlawfully harm someone? I'm just walking down these streets with my AK, minding my own business, and it is a guarantee that I won't hurt anyone... this is illegal? But carrying a fork outside, or any pointy object for that matter, will be perfectly fine, even if I might hurt someone with it? That's ludicrous.

A man could kill another with their bare hands, or even their teeth. If you want to define "offensive" by "you could kill someone with it", that's paltry and amateurish. Get a better definition.

I choose to define it as 'any article - Made or adapted for use for causing injury to persons; or Intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'

Boxing gloves, knuckledusters, any tools in the martial arts, and knives that are deemed "too sharp" (machetes) would have to be banned as well with this definition.

The fuck is an "illegal revolver"? How is it any physically different to a legal revolver? Legal revolvers can be used to kill and injure offensively.

A revolver possessed illegally. Really, are you even trying here? The point being that a legally possessed weapon has legal purposes it can be used for whereas arguably any purpose an unlawfully owned weapon is put to will be unlawful, as they will be accompnished with an illegal tool/instrument/weapon.

Revolvers possessed illegally could be used for self-defense, the same way revolvers possessed legally could be used for murder. It's not unheard of for citizens with legal permits to own guns to use these very guns in crime.

[Kouralia]

The fork was not designed to do that upon its original creation - this thus comes under the third check.

So? The fork could have been designed to stab animals under "forkhunting", a traditional practice in forkpeople areas. Forks could be designed for hunting, for sport (forkthrowing), for injuring small insects, and some forks are designed to kill. All forks can kill, and some were designed to.

At no point was scariness or dangerousness mentioned in anything I said, why did you bring it up?

You are quite evidently making such an arbitrary distinction: a gun cannot be allowed because it was designed to kill, totally omitting that stupid things like forks could equally kill, but you don't want to regulate forks because ... either because you work for a fork factory, or forks just aren't scary enough for you. If we ate with guns, say, could you then justify not banning guns? Is that the problem?

Why are you purposefully making up situations whereby an individual uses a fork as a weapon, just to prove that it's somehow bad to define weapons in law?

Because such an arbitrary definition opens so many doors in weapon regulation, adding it in will render it so useless we might as well start regulating cutlery, or sticks that fall off trees in winter, or ball-point pens, or footballs so well-pumped they hurt when you kick them at someone. I am trying to show you how you cannot create an arbitrary definition for gun control without regulating too little or regulating too much. Buyback schemes, or simply leaving it all alone, would actually be worth consideration.

In the event that the fork is being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone as opposed to being 'a fork carried by someone'... it surprisingly enough fulfills the requirement of 'being intended to be used to unlawfully harm someone.'

What about an illegal assault rifle that is not being used to unlawfully harm someone? I'm just walking down these streets with my AK, minding my own business, and it is a guarantee that I won't hurt anyone... this is illegal? But carrying a fork outside, or any pointy object for that matter, will be perfectly fine, even if I might hurt someone with it? That's ludicrous.

I choose to define it as 'any article - Made or adapted for use for causing injury to persons; or Intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'

Boxing gloves, knuckledusters, any tools in the martial arts, and knives that are deemed "too sharp" (machetes) would have to be banned as well with this definition.

A revolver possessed illegally. Really, are you even trying here? The point being that a legally possessed weapon has legal purposes it can be used for whereas arguably any purpose an unlawfully owned weapon is put to will be unlawful, as they will be accompnished with an illegal tool/instrument/weapon.

Revolvers possessed illegally could be used for self-defense, the same way revolvers possessed legally could be used for murder. It's not unheard of for citizens with legal permits to own guns to use these very guns in crime.

Fortunately, regardless of whether being an 'offensive weapon' automatically equates with banning, my definition is most likely superior to any that you could come up with. This is because 'any article - Made or adapted for use for causing injury to persons; or Intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person' is a real definition of offensive weapon.