NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Arkolon]

Do you not see how armed robbery with a fork would still make it armed robbery, and the fork in question an offensive weapon? I don't care for your definition of offensive weapon, what I care is what you do with it. You cannot "ban" offensive weapons. You cannot "regulate" offensive weapon. Depending on circumstance, everything physically possible can be an offensive weapon.

[Atlanticatia]

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.

My bill didn't even ban pistols or semi-automatic military-style weapons. It just made them restricted, so you need to have a special reason for having one. Which I think is fair. If you're just going hunting, your license shouldn't allow you to get a pistol. If you're a professional security worker (who has clearance from police), than it makes sense you should be allowed to get a pistol.

[Kouralia]

Do you not see how armed robbery with a fork would still make it armed robbery, and the fork in question an offensive weapon? I don't care for your definition of offensive weapon, what I care is what you do with it. You cannot "ban" offensive weapons. You cannot "regulate" offensive weapon. Depending on circumstance, everything physically possible can be an offensive weapon.

Of course it's a fucking offensive weapon under those circumstances. That's why the UK's Criminal Justice Act renders them Offensive Weapons by that very definition.

If it is an offensive weapon by virtue of BEING one, it's included. If it's not an offensive weapon, (e.g. a chess board) but you intend to use it as one, then it's proxied. It counts as an offensive weapon - and it should be illegal to carry instruments for that.

[Gradea]

I've signed up to join the Lib Dems.

[Lykens]

Why don't we use shotfuns instead?

*Pyotr ducks*

Like I informed Gothmogs, you can't run from a shotfun round.

[The New World Oceania]

*Pyotr ducks*

Like I informed Gothmogs, you can't run from a shotfun round.

Motion to make this the official roleplay cutline.

[Estva]

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

Switzerland disagrees. Besides, it was my understanding that the Senate would not vote for conscription unless there was a war.

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

You mean almost every single country when it is at war?

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

This is what the peacetime volunteer force is for. Delaying until reserves can be called up constriction enacted.

[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?

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 hunting rifle is not designed to do that. Really one can make the claim no gun is designed for that, if they are a collector, hobbyist etc.

In addition, bats can be designed to hurt people, but that's hard to prove. Same with cars.

[Estva]

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.

Then so is imprisonment.

[Arkolon]

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 hunting rifle is not designed to do that. Really one can make the claim no gun is designed for that, if they are a collector, hobbyist etc.

In addition, bats can be designed to hurt people, but that's hard to prove. Same with cars.

Echoing these points; the distinction is arbitrary and hard to justify. Instead of wanting to regulating or banning some weapons you don't personally like, such as guns as opposed to cutlery, but look for buyback schemes, poverty reduction, education programs, crime reduction, etc.

[The New World Oceania]

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 hunting rifle is not designed to do that. Really one can make the claim no gun is designed for that, if they are a collector, hobbyist etc.

In addition, bats can be designed to hurt people, but that's hard to prove. Same with cars.

Agreed. Basically, we can have jurisdiction to ban things like high explosives (for Vestmark's sake, we haven't even banned high explosives yet) and other weapons which are meant for terrorism beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, appease gun control advocates with some restrictions and a paperwork process to owning a weapon. But are we really going to imprison people for oublically carrying a revolver, even in self-defense cases?

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

Then so is imprisonment.

Conscription is the same as imprisonment? You surely jest senator, as the duties thereby imposed on those conscripted are not remediations to anyone or violates a sense of justice.

[Estva]

A hunting rifle is not designed to do that. Really one can make the claim no gun is designed for that, if they are a collector, hobbyist etc.

In addition, bats can be designed to hurt people, but that's hard to prove. Same with cars.

Echoing these points; the distinction is arbitrary and hard to justify. Instead of wanting to regulating or banning some weapons you don't personally like, such as guns as opposed to cutlery, but look for buyback schemes, poverty reduction, education programs, crime reduction, etc.

Precisely. We are fooling ourselves if we think that banning these weapons is going to solve anything and classification is arbitrary. We are helping the black market gangs.

[Skeckoa]

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.

Then so is imprisonment.

Wouldn't argue against that. You just equated imprisonement and conscription. Just throwing that out there.

[Estva]

Then so is imprisonment.

Conscription is the same as imprisonment? You surely jest senator, as the duties thereby imposed on those conscripted are not remediations to anyone or violates a sense of justice.

And who imposes such sense of justice? By living within a nation, one consents to the rule of the government, therefore agreeing they shall not break this sense of justice. Serving when called to war, is a sense of justice.

[Estva]

Then so is imprisonment.

Wouldn't argue against that. You just equated imprisonement and conscription. Just throwing that out there.

I equated them because the arguments against conscription are asinine and naive.

[The Liberated Territories]

Conscription is the same as imprisonment? You surely jest senator, as the duties thereby imposed on those conscripted are not remediations to anyone or violates a sense of justice.

And who imposes such sense of justice? By living within a nation, one consents to the rule of the government, therefore agreeing they shall not break this sense of justice. Serving when called to war, is a sense of justice.

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where death is certain even if their loyalties or capabilities lie elsewhere?

[Arkolon]

"wanting to regulating", "instead but look for".. I apologise for the English in my last post.

[Estva]

And who imposes such sense of justice? By living within a nation, one consents to the rule of the government, therefore agreeing they shall not break this sense of justice. Serving when called to war, is a sense of justice.

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where death is certain even if their loyalties or capabilities lie elsewhere?

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where imprisonment is certain even if their loyalties or beliefs lie elsewhere?

This is an appeal to emotion and is not logical argument.

[The Liberated Territories]

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where death is certain even if their loyalties or capabilities lie elsewhere?

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where imprisonment is certain even if their loyalties or beliefs lie elsewhere?

This is an appeal to emotion and is not logical argument.

Oh please, stop with this false comparison. You can obey the law, and the law will leave you alone, whether you are rich or poor. But even the poor can't refuse something like national service.

[Estva]

So a poor person, with no money to move beyond the border, must be forced into a situation where imprisonment is certain even if their loyalties or beliefs lie elsewhere?

This is an appeal to emotion and is not logical argument.

Oh please, stop with this false comparison. You can obey the law, and the law will leave you alone, whether you are rich or poor. But even the poor can't refuse something like national service.

No you cannot obey the law if you fundamentally disagree with it. If your loyalty lies with another nation, and you act upon it, that is high treason.

I am interested, TLT, in what nation has outlawed conscription? Few have. That is because few nations are capable of winning a war without it.

[Lykens]

Oh please, stop with this false comparison. You can obey the law, and the law will leave you alone, whether you are rich or poor. But even the poor can't refuse something like national service.

No you cannot obey the law if you fundamentally disagree with it. If your loyalty lies with another nation, and you act upon it, that is high treason.

I am interested, TLT, in what nation has outlawed conscription? Few have. That is because few nations are capable of winning a war without it.

So maybe they should figure out how to win a war without conscription, because throwing bodies at an invading enemy won't work.

[Great Nepal]

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.

Then so is imprisonment.

Since when do we imprison people for no action except for being resident of the nation?

[Estva]

Then so is imprisonment.

Since when do we imprison people for no action except for being resident of the nation?

For not paying taxes.

[Estva]

No you cannot obey the law if you fundamentally disagree with it. If your loyalty lies with another nation, and you act upon it, that is high treason.

I am interested, TLT, in what nation has outlawed conscription? Few have. That is because few nations are capable of winning a war without it.

So maybe they should figure out how to win a war without conscription, because throwing bodies at an invading enemy won't work.

Despite the contrary having been proven true, almost every time. Tell me what major conflict did not have conscription? WW2 did, on all sides. As did WW1. As did Vietnam, and Korea. Only Iraq and Afghanistan did not, and that was because it was a superpower fighting a inferior size with massively superior firepower. Even then, Iraq and Afghanistan used conscription.