NSG Senate Chamber: I came, I saw, I cleaned up after myself

[Geilinor]

"I suppose the honourable gentleman supported the military junta that oppressed Calaverde people not too long ago?"

"It's better than this government which has allowed suffering to persist over petty disputes! A government that takes action is better than one that remains idle."

"Which government, Senator? The presidential elections are still in progress."

[The Nihilistic view]

Edited to fit in all police or law enforcement that exists now or could be created in the future. This is what it should be amended to.

I would contest that "designated" should still be in there; some may have clearance and some may not.

If you are in the police or another law enforcement agency you have clearance to act in your duties including use weapons such as firearms, mace and truncheons among others. If those duties include having to stop an attack or be extra security that is needed on a moments notice that should not be prevented by the fact you are not "designated" to carry weapons in parliament or other government building. It's getting towards the kind of stupid jurisdictional BS you get in America.

[Lykens]

I would contest that "designated" should still be in there; some may have clearance and some may not.

If you are in the police or another law enforcement agency you have clearance to act in your duties. If those duties include having to stop an attack or extra security is needed on a moments notice that should not be prevented by the fact you are not "designated" to carry firearms in parliament or other government building. It's getting towards the kind of stupid jurisdictional BS you get in America.

If the speaker is the commander in chief, he should have no issue designating extra units in the event of an emergency.

Or are you insinuating the speaker would be incapable of such action?

[The Nihilistic view]

If you are in the police or another law enforcement agency you have clearance to act in your duties. If those duties include having to stop an attack or extra security is needed on a moments notice that should not be prevented by the fact you are not "designated" to carry firearms in parliament or other government building. It's getting towards the kind of stupid jurisdictional BS you get in America.

If the speaker is the commander in chief, he should have no issue designating extra units in the event of an emergency.

Or are you insinuating the speaker would be incapable of such action?

The Speaker might be dead, what then? Hold a vote on a new speaker?

[Lykens]

If the speaker is the commander in chief, he should have no issue designating extra units in the event of an emergency.

Or are you insinuating the speaker would be incapable of such action?

The Speaker might be dead, what then? Hold a vote on a new speaker?

Is the Vice President not the presiding officer of the Senate?

[The Nihilistic view]

The Speaker might be dead, what then? Hold a vote on a new speaker?

Is the Vice President not the presiding officer of the Senate?

And if the VP is dead also?

[Maklohi Vai]

I would contest that "designated" should still be in there; some may have clearance and some may not.

If you are in the police or another law enforcement agency you have clearance to act in your duties including use weapons such as firearms, mace and truncheons among others. If those duties include having to stop an attack or be extra security that is needed on a moments notice that should not be prevented by the fact you are not "designated" to carry weapons in parliament or other government building. It's getting towards the kind of stupid jurisdictional BS you get in America.

Fair enough; I suppose it is clearer to just leave it out. What I'm concerned about is a rogue officer, and currently there's no protections against that when I think there could be. Then again maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Lykens]

Is the Vice President not the presiding officer of the Senate?

And if the VP is dead also?

Do we always have to prepare for the worst scenario possible?

I really doubt half of the entire government would be taken out that quickly.

Good frigging jesus.

[Maklohi Vai]

And if the VP is dead also?

Do we always have to prepare for the worst scenario possible?

Yes. That's why there's a designated survivor in the US for the SOTU and why there's a long chain of succession through the entire cabinet.

[Lykens]

Do we always have to prepare for the worst scenario possible?

Yes. That's why there's a designated survivor in the US for the SOTU and why there's a long chain of succession through the entire cabinet.

Westminster systems don't have clear lines of succession, to my knowledge.

[The Nihilistic view]

If you are in the police or another law enforcement agency you have clearance to act in your duties including use weapons such as firearms, mace and truncheons among others. If those duties include having to stop an attack or be extra security that is needed on a moments notice that should not be prevented by the fact you are not "designated" to carry weapons in parliament or other government building. It's getting towards the kind of stupid jurisdictional BS you get in America.

Fair enough; I suppose it is clearer to just leave it out. What I'm concerned about is a rogue officer, and currently there's no protections against that when I think there could be. Then again maybe I'm just paranoid.

But what about a rogue officer in the designated police? So should no police have weapons? It's the same situation, so really it's should officers have no weapons or should all of them have them?

If it's suspected an officer might go rogue then they would be struck off from the force. And police that are not supposed to be there would not be allowed in by their superiors anyway without a good reason such as an incident happening they need to respond to.

[New Bierstaat]

Do we always have to prepare for the worst scenario possible?

Yes. That's why there's a designated survivor in the US for the SOTU and why there's a long chain of succession through the entire cabinet.

Agreed; continuity of government must be assured at all times.

[The Nihilistic view]

Yes. That's why there's a designated survivor in the US for the SOTU and why there's a long chain of succession through the entire cabinet.

Westminster systems don't have clear lines of succession, to my knowledge.

They do, have you seen how long the Royal line of secession is? The king/Queen can appoint the PM and in the UK for example they could appoint anybody in the commons or the Lords as PM. So the UK royal succession line is known down into the hundreds and in parliament down towards 1500 with about 650 MPs and 800 lords. And that's not counting all the hereditary lords waiting in line for a seat. So all in all a succession line of over 2000 people.

[Lykens]

Westminster systems don't have clear lines of succession, to my knowledge.

They do, have you seen how long the Royal line of secession is? The king/Queen can appoint the PM and in the UK for example they could appoint anybody in the commons or the Lords as PM. So the UK royal succession line is known down into the hundreds and in parliament down towards 1500 with about 650 MPs and 800 lords. And that's not counting all the hereditary lords waiting in line for a seat. So all in all a succession line of over 2000 people.

Are they going to have the time to appoint people in an emergency.

#Nihilogic.

[The Nihilistic view]

They do, have you seen how long the Royal line of secession is? The king/Queen can appoint the PM and in the UK for example they could appoint anybody in the commons or the Lords as PM. So the UK royal succession line is known down into the hundreds and in parliament down towards 1500 with about 650 MPs and 800 lords. And that's not counting all the hereditary lords waiting in line for a seat. So all in all a succession line of over 2000 people.

Are they going to have the time to appoint people in an emergency.

#Nihilogic.

Exactly, if they don't have time then you need universal jurisdiction and why you should adopt the amendment I presented.

[Maklohi Vai]

Fair enough; I suppose it is clearer to just leave it out. What I'm concerned about is a rogue officer, and currently there's no protections against that when I think there could be. Then again maybe I'm just paranoid.

But what about a rogue officer in the designated police? So should no police have weapons? It's the same situation, so really it's should officers have no weapons or should all of them have them?

If it's suspected an officer might go rogue then they would be struck off from the force. And police that are not supposed to be there would not be allowed in by their superiors anyway without a good reason such as an incident happening they need to respond to.

You could have just said I'm paranoid.

Anyway, I think it's become clear that we do indeed need a line of succession, and this bill probably isn't the one to put it in. Anyone up for a Amendment Three to the GEA?

[Lykens]

Are they going to have the time to appoint people in an emergency.

#Nihilogic.

Exactly, if they don't have time then you need universal jurisdiction and why you should adopt the amendment I presented.

It seems I have lost this argument.

By the way, you're corrupt, radical, and lacking in principles.

[The Nihilistic view]

But what about a rogue officer in the designated police? So should no police have weapons? It's the same situation, so really it's should officers have no weapons or should all of them have them?

If it's suspected an officer might go rogue then they would be struck off from the force. And police that are not supposed to be there would not be allowed in by their superiors anyway without a good reason such as an incident happening they need to respond to.

You could have just said I'm paranoid.

Anyway, I think it's become clear that we do indeed need a line of succession, and this bill probably isn't the one to put it in. Anyone up for a Amendment Three to the GEA?

Suggesting you were paranoid would be unparliamentary of me.

[Lykens]

But what about a rogue officer in the designated police? So should no police have weapons? It's the same situation, so really it's should officers have no weapons or should all of them have them?

If it's suspected an officer might go rogue then they would be struck off from the force. And police that are not supposed to be there would not be allowed in by their superiors anyway without a good reason such as an incident happening they need to respond to.

You could have just said I'm paranoid.

Anyway, I think it's become clear that we do indeed need a line of succession, and this bill probably isn't the one to put it in. Anyone up for a Amendment Three to the GEA?

Sure, why not.

[Lykens]

---

Second Amendment to the Government Establishment Act

Author: Encarnacion Diaz (LDP), David Vera Cruz (CWA)
Sponsors: Salvador O'Hara (LDP), Drago Dragomere (CP), Sebastián Luc Morales (DL), Cristobal Marcelino Aroulla (LDP), Geneviève Duflot (LDP), Eugenia Malgrave (DL), Great Nepal (LDP), Tony Blair, Nicolás Leguizamón (PT), Eduardo Bustamante (LDP)
An act to enhance the safety of members of parliament.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Weapon- Any object that has been designed with the possible aim of causing harm to individuals or that the parliament police have reason to suspect is being carried for the purpose of being used as a weapon.

Section 2: Ban on weapons

a. Weapons are hereby banned within the Parliamentary Building, or any government office, and must be surrendered upon entrance to law enforcement officers present.
b. Only law enforcement officers may bear weapons within the Parliamentary Building.
c. Persons found violating this amendment may be detained, and arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon within parliamentary grounds, without possibility of bail, pending a criminal trial.

I move to vote on this bill with the National Judiciary Act.

[The Nihilistic view]

I second the motion.

[Maklohi Vai]

I second the motion.

I third.

[Ikania]

I fourth this excellent addendum.

[Dragomerian Islands]

I fourth this excellent addendum.

I fifth the motion.

[Geilinor]

They do, have you seen how long the Royal line of secession is? The king/Queen can appoint the PM and in the UK for example they could appoint anybody in the commons or the Lords as PM. So the UK royal succession line is known down into the hundreds and in parliament down towards 1500 with about 650 MPs and 800 lords. And that's not counting all the hereditary lords waiting in line for a seat. So all in all a succession line of over 2000 people.

Are they going to have the time to appoint people in an emergency.

#Nihilogic.

If the US is going to have time to swear in a new president, the UK can appoint a prime minister in the same time.