Page 1 of 55

LOTF Special Events Thread

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:06 am
by Sanabel
Image


Welcome to the thread for debates, baseball games, and other events that are separate to the normal IC flow.



Image

Welcome to the Land of the Free, an American Political and Character RP where players can explore the intricacies of government, from the cloak and dagger politics of the capital, to plainspoken compromise in the heartland, to the gritty in-and-outs of running some of the world’s greatest cities.

The year is 2019, and we are nearing the end of one of the most controversial presidencies of the past century. President Wolf, a polarizing and controversial figure, recently announced his intention to stay out of the 2020 Race due to his public diagnosis with a crippling disease. The struggle for the Presidency has been be blown wide open, and all politics hang in the president’s shadow. It is up to you to decide how you will manage in this climate. Will you oppose his policies from the left? Champion them on the right? Or try and chart a middle path amid one of the most polarized periods in American History?

Play as a Senator, Governor, Congressperson, Mayor or any other figure with a hand in today's politics. Or run for office, from dogcatcher to the Presidency to fight for your own slice of the American Political landscape. Create an original character, make history and steer them through... The Land of the Free.

All characters in this RP are original, and all politicians after Reagan left office in 1988 have been replaced with fictional characters. All events that occurred in real history have occurred in this RP, the economy is in the same shape, the climate, international relations, healthcare and everything you can quantify is the same.

What has changed is the President. President Arnold Wolf was elected as a Republican in a populist groundswell, upsetting the ultimate establishment candidate in unprecedented fashion. Wolf is similar to Trump, with similar accusations regarding racism and sexism, a similar tendency to be bombastic and loud, and an identical emphasis on rhetoric that has thrown fuel into the fire of American politics. In 2018 the Republicans took massive losses across the country resulting in losing the House but maintaining the Senate. In late 2018, a government shutdown paralyzed the capitol, but the shutdown was abruptly ended following President Wolf's unexpected capitulation on December 30th. It is 4 days later, the new Congress has been sworn in, and there is an air of great unease that has settled over DC.

In the midst of a time of great political chaos and confusion, where do you stand?



Note: The Land Of The Free is the sanctioned spiritual successor to the long-running and award winning Washington Political RP.




Administrators: Sanabel (Head OP), Vaquas(Co-Op), Imperial Esplanade (Assistant Admin), Alozia (Assistant Admin), Uttland (Assistant Admin), and Dentali (Assistant Admin)



THE LINKS:


{In Character} {Wiki} {Congress} Current OOC





THE RULES:

1. The OP's words are the words of the Gods, but these Gods are not infallible, you can argue your position in a civil way but in the end their decision is final.

2. No real people or celebrities as characters. There is no Bernie Sanders that you can play. As per the introductory note, politicians post-Reagan do not exist, or have been replaced with generic stand-ins: you can play them, should you wish. Records and history are the same, including statistics, save in the places where player-characters have brought about a change.

3. Regarding absences- If you, for whatever reason, must take a leave from the roleplay-that is of course fine. But please inform us ahead and how long it may take. If you are found to have just up and left the RP, we may have to simulate how you character act in votes per say, especially depending on their importance.

4. When it comes to writing; please do it well. We expect a certain level of quality with your posts. One or two sentences will not be acceptable, but we can be permissive-if your character is engaged in conversation, a sentence is fine

5. Please make characters of quality and substance. We don't want Mary Sue flawless characters who are 30 year olds, models, former sharecroppers with military service earning a medal of honor and then returning from Iraq to attend Harvard. Those characters aren't very fun to play or interact with. But on the other hand-no sabotage characters. Just because you hate Democrats, don't make a hopelessly corrupt and scandal-ridden Democrat with no redeeming qualities.

6. No cheat-edits. Once you've made an IC post, leave it. Edits to formatting are all right along with typos, but don't try to change anything major compared to what you have already written, especially if it has already been responded to. If your character said it in public, it must stay. Gaffes happen, after all.

7. If you are not sure if something is legal or okay, ask OOC first. Always better to check-and there is limited leniency for things that are obviously bad.

8. No events that directly affect another character without permission first. In essence, avoid physical altercations and outrageous "accidents". Assassination is banned, any external action taken against politicians will take place in the form of an event.

9. No meta-gaming. Do not let the OOC influence the realism of your character's actions. If they are in a closed situation in which information is limited, they cannot state specific statistics, for example.

10. PG-13 limit. Per site-wide rules, nothing too saucy or racy. You know it when you see it.




First Republican Primary Debate (June 8th 2019)

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:40 am
by Sanabel
First Republican Primary Debate, St. Paul, Minnesota
(June 8th, 2019)
Image

-Do not RP audience reactions or assume the identity of audience members
-Keep responses to 60-90 seconds in length, bearing in mind that the average person speaks about 150 words per minute and any faster would be unreasonable in a debate setting
-The debate moderators (myself and Meelducan) will ask a general question to the candidates every twelve hours (noon and midnight EST) and will work to ask candidate-specific follow up questions to control the flow of debate in between
-Do not edit posts, even for grammatical, spelling, or formatting mistakes- this is live television


"Welcome, viewers, and candidates, to the first debate for either major party for the 2019 nominating contests. I'm Fox News correspondent Mike Oxlong, and I will be one of the moderators for tonight's debate. I am joined by my colleague, local FOX News affiliate anchor Eric Shun. We are here at the West Side Arena, and our sponsors for this evening's event are the FOX News Network and Macalester College. All candidates should be aware of the rules- as for the audience members, please refrain from applauding or cheering until the debate has concluded. On the stage, we are joined by businessman and former Wolf PAC chairman Arnold Wolf Jr, front and center, West Virginia governor Jonah Prendergast to his right, and North Carolina governor Nathaniel Richardson to his left. On the far left, we are joined by former Secretary of Defense Bernard Porter, and to the far right by Congresswoman Diane Paulson. Senator Arthur Bragg, despite qualifying, has been apparently unable to attend this evening. We are going to skip the formalities, and instead of introductory statements, my colleague is going to delve right into the debate with our first question for the candidates."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:58 am
by Meelducan
First Republican Primary Debate, St. Paul, Minnesota

"Good evening candidates. Just four days ago the country witnessed a deadly shooting in Roanoke, Virginia which tragically claimed the lives of ten individuals. This, coupled with other mass shootings in recent months, has understandably bolstered support for gun control across the nation. So this is my question to you candidates, where do you stand on the second amendment and what actions will you take to make sure another mass shooting, like the one in Roanoke, doesn't happen again?"

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:08 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Former Secretary of Defence Bernard Jack Porter:

"I believe that it is the duty of a nation's government to protect its citizens. In order to protect the American people from such acts of terror and such atrocities, we must pass laws in order to defend our national security. There are many grave threats that pose a danger to the American people, and this is one of them.

It is the duty of our government to defend our population, and as such we must do so with impunity. We must increase FBI, CIA and law enforcement funding and power in order to ensure that our citizenry is defended from mortal threats.

This debate, ultimately, isn't about guns: it's about the defence of the American citizen. Law enforcement must be able to stop these things before they happen, and have the power and funding to respond quickly and strongly in order to prevent loss of life in any case.

Only through the increased strength of our intelligence and our police force can we stop threats like this. No draconian assault on gun rights will stop mass shootings. The malevolent will always have guns, and so we must arm our police and parts of our citizenry to stop them."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:21 am
by Dentali
Nate Richardson

"Firstly I would like to extend my prayers for the victims of Roanoke and their families. Such tragic mass shooting events are all too common. I cannot imagine... the pain and the anguish caused through the loss of a loved one in such a violent and sudden way. Too many in this country are losing loved ones through gun violence."

"To combat mass shootings we must not allow for fear mongering to dominate our thinking. We must support real world solutions that have proven tangible benefits and respect the 2nd amendment. That's why I support concealed carry and security measures such as school resource officers to discourage cowardly and violent acts... But the best thing we can do is address the broken damaged people in our country that are being generated at an alarming rate. If we do not address the mental health crisis in our country, and ensure those with severe mental illness, and those prone to violence cannot access firearms then these violent acts will continue."

"But beyond that we must not just to address mass shootings but the everyday gun violence we see in our streets. Senator Little of Maryland has joined me with a plan to support gun violence intervention groups which have a proven record of reducing violence. If we don't start getting tough on repeat violent offenders, people would should not be on the street we cannot curb that everyday gun violence that is killing generations of Americans."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:22 am
by Gordano and Lysandus
Meelducan wrote:
First Republican Primary Debate, St. Paul, Minnesota

"Good evening candidates. Just four days ago the country witnessed a deadly shooting in Roanoke, Virginia which tragically claimed the lives of ten individuals. This, coupled with other mass shootings in recent months, has understandably bolstered support for gun control across the nation. So this is my question to you candidates, where do you stand on the second amendment and what actions will you take to make sure another mass shooting, like the one in Roanoke, doesn't happen again?"


Governor Jonah Prendergast Jr. of West Virginia

"Thank you for your question, Eric. Or rather, questions, as there are two questions here to address. Firstly regarding the Second Amendment, and secondly regarding our response to gun violence."

He took a somber pause for a moment before continuing.

"We talk a lot about the Heller case when we refer to the Second Amendment, but more important - I think - is United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The Supreme Court then extolled that the right to bear arms is a self-evident, natural legal right, to an extent even more supreme and even more sacred than the Constitution in which it is codified. To that extent, I think even the justices on Heller, even the great (not-Antonin Scalia), were wrong in their determination that limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. Only an original interpretation, rooted in the tradition of constitutional law, is valid, and I will only nominate Justices who share that conviction."

"None of this, of course, comes as any comfort to the people of Roanoke. More does need to be done on gun violence, and a part of that is to improve policing and enforcement, as Secretary Porter has said. Attacks rooted in criminal conspiracy and terror will be more likely to be rooted out, but spontaneous acts of violence based on a disturbed mind requires a more developed mental health infrastructure. To respond to that, I want to provide more funding to federal and state mental health institutions, and to develop a public information campaign to spot and address mental health crises before they endanger other people, without needing to foible and fluster with ultimately ineffectual, illegal and unconstitutional gun control measures."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:31 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
Meelducan wrote:
First Republican Primary Debate, St. Paul, Minnesota

"Good evening candidates. Just four days ago the country witnessed a deadly shooting in Roanoke, Virginia which tragically claimed the lives of ten individuals. This, coupled with other mass shootings in recent months, has understandably bolstered support for gun control across the nation. So this is my question to you candidates, where do you stand on the second amendment and what actions will you take to make sure another mass shooting, like the one in Roanoke, doesn't happen again?"


Governor Jonah Prendergast Jr. of West Virginia

"Thank you for your question, Eric. Or rather, questions, as there are two questions here to address. Firstly regarding the Second Amendment, and secondly regarding our response to gun violence."

He took a somber pause for a moment before continuing.

"We talk a lot about the Heller case when we refer to the Second Amendment, but more important - I think - is United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The Supreme Court then extolled that the right to bear arms is a self-evident, natural legal right, to an extent even more supreme and even more sacred than the Constitution in which it is codified. To that extent, I think even the justices on Heller, even the great (not-Antonin Scalia), were wrong in their determination that limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. Only an original interpretation, rooted in the tradition of constitutional law, is valid, and I will only nominate Justices who share that conviction."

"None of this, of course, comes as any comfort to the people of Roanoke. More does need to be done on gun violence, and a part of that is to improve policing and enforcement, as Secretary Porter has said. Attacks rooted in criminal conspiracy and terror will be more likely to be rooted out, but spontaneous acts of violence based on a disturbed mind requires a more developed mental health infrastructure. To respond to that, I want to provide more funding to federal and state mental health institutions, and to develop a public information campaign to spot and address mental health crises before they endanger other people, without needing to foible and fluster with ultimately ineffectual, illegal and unconstitutional gun control measures."

"Governors, you are indeed right: there is a mental health crisis in our streets, and in our country. We must indeed dedicate more money to mental healthcare, ensuring that people are completely mentally healthy.

But what I truly fear, once again, is the gangs and cartels in our nation that traffic drugs in our country, wielding guns around the country as they do so. These criminal gangs - they're coming for our children, folks. Let me be clear: they are a threat to this country. As the Philippines and Mexico today do, we must wage not just a war on drugs, but a war on gangs too.

The solution to gun violence isn't disarmament, it is law enforcement. We must bulk our police numbers, increase their funding. We need to mobilise as many law enforcement members as possible, along with intelligence resources, to fight against the drug militias on our shores. We must wage a war against these gangs, and the drugs that fund them.

It is gang culture and the glorification of violence, along with drugs, that construct so much violence in our country. We must ramp up the war, and ensure that we eradicate these armies of thugs, raping our women and using our children as their soldiers. Gun violence stems from gangs and from organised crime. We must work, as a nation, to eradicate both."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:35 am
by Dentali
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
Meelducan wrote:
First Republican Primary Debate, St. Paul, Minnesota

"Good evening candidates. Just four days ago the country witnessed a deadly shooting in Roanoke, Virginia which tragically claimed the lives of ten individuals. This, coupled with other mass shootings in recent months, has understandably bolstered support for gun control across the nation. So this is my question to you candidates, where do you stand on the second amendment and what actions will you take to make sure another mass shooting, like the one in Roanoke, doesn't happen again?"


Governor Jonah Prendergast Jr. of West Virginia

"Thank you for your question, Eric. Or rather, questions, as there are two questions here to address. Firstly regarding the Second Amendment, and secondly regarding our response to gun violence."

He took a somber pause for a moment before continuing.

"We talk a lot about the Heller case when we refer to the Second Amendment, but more important - I think - is United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The Supreme Court then extolled that the right to bear arms is a self-evident, natural legal right, to an extent even more supreme and even more sacred than the Constitution in which it is codified. To that extent, I think even the justices on Heller, even the great (not-Antonin Scalia), were wrong in their determination that limitations could be placed on the Second Amendment. Only an original interpretation, rooted in the tradition of constitutional law, is valid, and I will only nominate Justices who share that conviction."

"None of this, of course, comes as any comfort to the people of Roanoke. More does need to be done on gun violence, and a part of that is to improve policing and enforcement, as Secretary Porter has said. Attacks rooted in criminal conspiracy and terror will be more likely to be rooted out, but spontaneous acts of violence based on a disturbed mind requires a more developed mental health infrastructure. To respond to that, I want to provide more funding to federal and state mental health institutions, and to develop a public information campaign to spot and address mental health crises before they endanger other people, without needing to foible and fluster with ultimately ineffectual, illegal and unconstitutional gun control measures."



Nate Richardson: "I would like to voice my agreement in part with Governor Prendergast. The right to self defense is natural law and by extension the right to have a firearm. I do however respectfully disagree with the Governor and agree with Justice Scalia that the natural right to own a firearm does not mean no regulations can be made. We should ensure that terrorists, the severely mentally ill, and violent criminals do not have access to guns, I think that is entirely reasonable and even the most Constitutionally Originalist judges would agree with me that the founders did not intend for violent criminals and terrorist should have access to machine guns."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:37 am
by Agarntrop
.

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:39 am
by Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi
-

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:41 am
by Dentali
Nate Richardson: Organized crime, like that is facilitated by an under-protected border, is doubtlessly a major factor in violent crime on our streets. And as I said previously, and worked to do as governor, repeat violent offenders, who are responsible for the majority of violent crime on our streets, need to be dealt with in a much harsher fashion. The Federal Government needs to partner more closely with state and local entities specifically to target repeat violent offenders.

However on the flip side of that we do have an over-incarceration problem in this country, where individuals with minor drug offenses see long prison sentences that give them a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives which adds to the crime problem. One of President Wolf's greatest accomplishments is the First Step Act, and as the name implies it is just a first step. As President I will continue his work and help the formerly incarcerated reenter society and become productive citizens that strengthen our nation.

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:43 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Dentali wrote:Nate Richardson: Organized crime, like that is facilitated by an under-protected border, is doubtlessly a major factor in violent crime on our streets. And as I said previously, and worked to do as governor, repeat violent offenders, who are responsible for the majority of violent crime on our streets, need to be dealt with in a much harsher fashion. The Federal Government needs to partner more closely with state and local entities specifically to target repeat violent offenders.

However on the flip side of that we do have an over-incarceration problem in this country, where individuals with minor drug offenses see long prison sentences that give them a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives which adds to the crime problem. One of President Wolf's greatest accomplishments is the First Step Act, and as the name implies it is just a first step. As President I will continue his work and help the formerly incarcerated reenter society and become productive citizens that strengthen our nation.

Porter: "So, Governor, do you support the legalisation of drugs? The legalisation of products such as cocaine, and such as heroin, that have put us in this situation in the first place?"

Porter said, rather aggressively, seeing if he could coax Richardson into a corner.

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:46 am
by Sanabel
Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Governor Richardson, Secretary Porter, please stay on topic. Governor Prendergast, we have a follow-up question for you. You said that the Second Amendment is pre-eminent, above the law, in a sense. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe any restriction on who can own guns, what type of guns one can own, et cetera are not only unconstitutional, but wrong?”

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:47 am
by Dentali
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:
Dentali wrote:Nate Richardson: Organized crime, like that is facilitated by an under-protected border, is doubtlessly a major factor in violent crime on our streets. And as I said previously, and worked to do as governor, repeat violent offenders, who are responsible for the majority of violent crime on our streets, need to be dealt with in a much harsher fashion. The Federal Government needs to partner more closely with state and local entities specifically to target repeat violent offenders.

However on the flip side of that we do have an over-incarceration problem in this country, where individuals with minor drug offenses see long prison sentences that give them a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives which adds to the crime problem. One of President Wolf's greatest accomplishments is the First Step Act, and as the name implies it is just a first step. As President I will continue his work and help the formerly incarcerated reenter society and become productive citizens that strengthen our nation.

Porter: "So, Governor, do you support the legalisation of drugs? The legalisation of products such as cocaine, and such as heroin, that have put us in this situation in the first place?"

Porter said, rather aggressively, seeing if he could coax Richardson into a corner.



Richardson: I was directly addressed and would like a chance to respond.

No I do not support the legalization of drugs and have supported tougher sentencing for those who distribute drugs. However I believe we should treat addicts as people who need help and not criminals. Like President Wolf I would rather see them in treatment and working a job to support their family, than behind bars. Secretary Porter, do you support the President's First Step Act?

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:53 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Dentali wrote:
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Porter: "So, Governor, do you support the legalisation of drugs? The legalisation of products such as cocaine, and such as heroin, that have put us in this situation in the first place?"

Porter said, rather aggressively, seeing if he could coax Richardson into a corner.



Richardson: I was directly addressed and would like a chance to respond.

No I do not support the legalization of drugs and have supported tougher sentencing for those who distribute drugs. However I believe we should treat addicts as people who need help and not criminals. Like President Wolf I would rather see them in treatment and working a job to support their family, than behind bars. Secretary Porter, do you support the President's First Step Act?

He attempted to interrupt Richardson after he finished his second sentence.

Porter; "So you condone the use of drugs, then, even if you do not support its legalisation? This is a question of morality, Governor. Drugs like these cause crime, cause murder...They contribute directly to prostitution, to gangs and to organised crime. We must crackdown on drugs as much as possible.

You seem to have taken the libertarian stance on this, acting as though drugs are a victimless crime. They are not: they destroy communities, they destroy families and they destroy marriages.

There are drugs out there that cause hallucinations and cause psychosis, leading people on drugs to commit crimes. There was a case, once, where a father murdered his own child after taking LSD. Do you support infanticide not being punished simply because the murderer took a pill before doing it?"

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:54 am
by Sanabel
Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Governor Richardson, you’ve had your chance to respond. As have you, Secretary Porter. Please stay on topic and allow Governor Prendergast to answer his follow-up question.”

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:55 am
by Gordano and Lysandus
Sanabel wrote:Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Governor Richardson, Secretary Porter, please stay on topic. Governor Prendergast, we have a follow-up question for you. You said that the Second Amendment is pre-eminent, above the law, in a sense. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe any restriction on who can own guns, what type of guns one can own, et cetera are not only unconstitutional, but wrong?”


"Thank you for your follow-up, Mike. Whether I think it's wrong or not is largely immaterial. I'm probably going to reason that this weapon or that weapon theoretically isn't right, but this isn't about minutiae but an overarching principle. Do we impair the armed populace? Do we assume onto the Federal Government the power to water down what is a constitutional right? When we do that, when we cross that Rubicon, we weaken our entire constitutional order. We de-legitimize small-d democratic government, here and overseas. The Constitution is not just law, it is a promise, it is the guiding principle of our civilization. So, what it boils down to is - what is more important? Constitution, or convenience? And I will always, now and forever, stand by the Constitution of the United States of America."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:00 am
by Sanabel
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
Sanabel wrote:Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Governor Richardson, Secretary Porter, please stay on topic. Governor Prendergast, we have a follow-up question for you. You said that the Second Amendment is pre-eminent, above the law, in a sense. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe any restriction on who can own guns, what type of guns one can own, et cetera are not only unconstitutional, but wrong?”


"Thank you for your follow-up, Mike. Whether I think it's wrong or not is largely immaterial. I'm probably going to reason that this weapon or that weapon theoretically isn't right, but this isn't about minutiae but an overarching principle. Do we impair the armed populace? Do we assume onto the Federal Government the power to water down what is a constitutional right? When we do that, when we cross that Rubicon, we weaken our entire constitutional order. We de-legitimize small-d democratic government, here and overseas. The Constitution is not just law, it is a promise, it is the guiding principle of our civilization. So, what it boils down to is - what is more important? Constitution, or convenience? And I will always, now and forever, stand by the Constitution of the United States of America."

“So you do not believe any constitutional liberties should be infringed at all?”

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:02 am
by Gordano and Lysandus
Sanabel wrote:“So you do not believe any constitutional liberties should be infringed at all?”


"Not when it comes to the Second Amendment, no. I've already brought up Cruikshank, but essentially it comes down to this - if democracy fails, if civilization falters, what am I going to want in my hand more? A rifle, or a piece of paper? Conservatives know that if the bell rings and liberty needs defending again, it's going to need more than words."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:03 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
Sanabel wrote:Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Governor Richardson, Secretary Porter, please stay on topic. Governor Prendergast, we have a follow-up question for you. You said that the Second Amendment is pre-eminent, above the law, in a sense. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe any restriction on who can own guns, what type of guns one can own, et cetera are not only unconstitutional, but wrong?”


"Thank you for your follow-up, Mike. Whether I think it's wrong or not is largely immaterial. I'm probably going to reason that this weapon or that weapon theoretically isn't right, but this isn't about minutiae but an overarching principle. Do we impair the armed populace? Do we assume onto the Federal Government the power to water down what is a constitutional right? When we do that, when we cross that Rubicon, we weaken our entire constitutional order. We de-legitimize small-d democratic government, here and overseas. The Constitution is not just law, it is a promise, it is the guiding principle of our civilization. So, what it boils down to is - what is more important? Constitution, or convenience? And I will always, now and forever, stand by the Constitution of the United States of America."

Porter: "So you believe that a known member of the Taliban or some other terrorist organisation should be able to buy tanks, guns and bombs aplenty, here in America? There are dangerous people out there, Governor, and you must realise that. There are terrorists, the mentally ill, extremists...What happens when they get their hands on guns?

There are reasonable regulations that are available that will not restrict the average citizen's gun rights. We must stop felons, terrorists, those sorts of people, from getting guns, at all costs.

This isn't about the Constitution, Governor, this is about the safety of the American citizen. If we do not stop these dangerous people from getting their hands on weapons, what civilisation will there be left to defend?"

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:05 am
by Sanabel
Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Thank you Governor. We have a follow-up question for you, Secretary Porter. You’ve spoken about giving law enforcement the tools to stop violent crime before it occurs. Does this mean you are in favor of so-called ‘red flag laws,’ which would remove guns from owners deemed to pose a threat to themselves and others? And if so, does this put you at odds with the prevailing discourse within the Republican Party?”

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:06 am
by Velahor
Image
Congresswoman Diane Paulson
Republican Presidential Primary Debate
FOX News


“My friends, a gun is simply a tool. It can be used to bring home food, to stop a criminal from attacking your loved ones, or to fight off tyranny like our forefathers did. Or it can be used for the evil like what happened in Virginia.”

“Gun violence is a major issue in America. But our Democratic colleagues only focus on the GUNS, and not the VIOLENCE. I believe that with the epidemic of mass shootings in our country, it is in our best interest to offer federal grants to psychologists and neurologists to find the source of increased violence in our society.”

“Guns have saved people from mass murders too. A gun can’t kill without a shooter; the affect of a weapon is determined by the one who uses it. And to use a gun to take innocent life, one must be a warped, deranged animal.”

“It’s time to focus on the eliminating the VIOLENCE, by repairing America’s mental and spiritual illness. That is the only way to solve this issue, if you just take away guns they’ll do it with bombs.”

“I will not bend to Democrats by handing over your LIBERTY to defend yourself for a false sense of SECURITY. We can solve the gun violence problem by targeting and eliminating the causes of the violence, rather than infringing on your Second Amendment rights.”

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:09 am
by Gordano and Lysandus
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Porter: "So you believe that a known member of the Taliban or some other terrorist organisation should be able to buy tanks, guns and bombs aplenty, here in America? There are dangerous people out there, Governor, and you must realise that. There are terrorists, the mentally ill, extremists...What happens when they get their hands on guns?

There are reasonable regulations that are available that will not restrict the average citizen's gun rights. We must stop felons, terrorists, those sorts of people, from getting guns, at all costs.

This isn't about the Constitution, Governor, this is about the safety of the American citizen. If we do not stop these dangerous people from getting their hands on weapons, what civilisation will there be left to defend?"


Governor Jonah Prendergast Jr. of West Virginia

"Secretary Porter, I know there are dangerous people out there. A terrorist can't buy or use a gun from inside a prison cell, and a mentally ill person can't buy or use a gun from inside a secure institution. That's why we support law enforcement, and we support mental health response. What we don't support are measures that will inevitably and invariably be abused to take guns out of the hands of innocent Americans. These 'reasonable' regulations are already being used to deny the access of ordinary, law-abiding Americans to firearms. All it takes is one bad actor to use those 'reasonable' regulations to disarm the populace and leave them defenseless. Don't think about how you would apply those laws, Secretary, consider how Levi Murphy would. How Tim Westra would. How Malcolm Douglas would. That is the danger that faces Americans."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:12 am
by The World Capitalist Confederation
Sanabel wrote:Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Thank you Governor. We have a follow-up question for you, Secretary Porter. You’ve spoken about giving law enforcement the tools to stop violent crime before it occurs. Does this mean you are in favor of so-called ‘red flag laws,’ which would remove guns from owners deemed to pose a threat to themselves and others? And if so, does this put you at odds with the prevailing discourse within the Republican Party?”

Porter looked at his very large pile of notes, pulled up the gun section and looked at the heading of red flag laws. Too controversial. He would stray away from that.

"I think that government should be able to stop people from getting guns if they are deemed a threat to people, yes. We should stop the mentally ill, felons and people with extremist views from getting guns."

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 10:13 am
by Sanabel
Moderator (Mike Oxlong): “Thank you, Governor Prendergast, and Secretary Porter, that’s enough. We also have a follow-up question for Congresswoman Paulson. Congresswoman, you have been abstract. What policies would you propose to tackle the violence side of gun violence, as you’ve put it?”