Advertisement
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:28 am
by The Sheika » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:03 pm
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:11 pm
The Sheika wrote:I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that even though this may be a revision of a previously attempted proposal it is still one thread per proposal. As you create new drafts, i.e. making revisions as you go, you can place older drafts below the current draft in a spoiler to prevent clutter.
by Gig em Aggies » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:17 pm
by Thermodolia » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:32 pm
Many people who have violent criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or violent mental illness(es) have little to no difficulty when attempting to obtain firearms.
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:36 pm
Thermodolia wrote:Many people who have violent criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or violent mental illness(es) have little to no difficulty when attempting to obtain firearms.
“Exactly where the hell do you live ambassador? Because the above doesn’t happen in Thermodolia. Besides,” Eve says as she lovingly strokes her M-16, “gun control is a national issue and therefore Thermodolia will not support restricting a human right. In other words I’m against.”
by Tinhampton » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:58 pm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Thermodolia wrote:
“Exactly where the hell do you live ambassador? Because the above doesn’t happen in Thermodolia. Besides,” Eve says as she lovingly strokes her M-16, “gun control is a national issue and therefore Thermodolia will not support restricting a human right. In other words I’m against.”
I live in Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Where we have seen time and time again senseless attacks and murders committed by those who should not have had firearms. Including the most recent attack on our capital city, Parkland.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:29 pm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Thermodolia wrote:
“Exactly where the hell do you live ambassador? Because the above doesn’t happen in Thermodolia. Besides,” Eve says as she lovingly strokes her M-16, “gun control is a national issue and therefore Thermodolia will not support restricting a human right. In other words I’m against.”
I live in Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Where we have seen time and time again senseless attacks and murders committed by those who should not have had firearms. Including the most recent attack on our capital city, Parkland.
by Tinfect » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:31 pm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Realizing: Many people who have violent criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or violent mental illness(es) have little to no difficulty when attempting to obtain firearms.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Reaffirming: This DOES NOT take away individuals’ rights to own a firearm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Universal Background Check: A search of an individual through the "Universal Background Check System" to search for any " Red flags" attached to their name/record
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Universal Background Check System: A database run and maintained by the state/nation and regularly updated with information on every individual in said nation such as crimes convicted for/committed, abuse/violence cases, known attempt(s) of terrorism/malicious behavior(s), any mental illness(es), any time(s) the individual has been in prison/jail, and/or any time(s) the individual was admitted to a mental institution
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Red Flag: A notification which appears on a "Universal Background Check" denoting the individual has been incarcerated for/committed for a felony relating to harm, death, or injury, has mental illness(es) which can lead to misuse of the firearm and/or harm to themselves or others, has been reported to have violent behavior to other individual(s) and/or animals, and/or has been know to support/participate in terrorist groups and/or terrorism
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Waiting Period: A time comprising of five (5) business days from when the individual attempts to purchase a firearm in which a "Universal Background Check" is performed
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Creates a "Universal Background Check System" in all nations where one does not already exist
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:If at any point, an individual receives a “Red Flag”, who did not have one previously, they shall have their firearms legally taken from them
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Thermodolia » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:38 pm
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Thermodolia wrote:
“Exactly where the hell do you live ambassador? Because the above doesn’t happen in Thermodolia. Besides,” Eve says as she lovingly strokes her M-16, “gun control is a national issue and therefore Thermodolia will not support restricting a human right. In other words I’m against.”
I live in Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Where we have seen time and time again senseless attacks and murders committed by those who should not have had firearms. Including the most recent attack on our capital city, Parkland.
by Aclion » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:38 pm
by Tinfect » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:43 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by USS Monitor » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:56 pm
by Wrapper » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:43 pm
by Krioval » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:34 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:56 pm
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:06 am
by Albus Olor » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:11 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:56 pm
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:This still seems to contradict GA 399 5(b), on grounds of definition 3 including group of people for whom no evidence of lawless action is available, much less information showing an intent to commit imminent lawless action. We do not know what standard the author may be intending to employ, but sane nations usually require considerably more evidence than being mentally ill or unsubstantiated reports of behaviour before declaring someone is an imminent harm to themselves or others (especially when viewed ex post facto).
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by United Massachusetts » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:31 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:This still seems to contradict GA 399 5(b), on grounds of definition 3 including group of people for whom no evidence of lawless action is available, much less information showing an intent to commit imminent lawless action. We do not know what standard the author may be intending to employ, but sane nations usually require considerably more evidence than being mentally ill or unsubstantiated reports of behaviour before declaring someone is an imminent harm to themselves or others (especially when viewed ex post facto).
I agree. The waiting period is also a violation of the Contradiction Rule.
future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action,
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:41 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I agree. The waiting period is also a violation of the Contradiction Rule.
I disagree, and vehemently at that. For reference, here is the exact text of GA 399 5(b):future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action,
In essence, the clause allows resolutions whose purpose is to prevent the usage of guns in imminent illegal acts, or the sale thereof to individuals that pose a danger of performing said acts. Such is the exact purpose of waiting periods--to prevent the usage of guns in imminent lawless action by making it less likely for said actions to occur via a delay. Furthermore, I will note that anyone could be construed as presenting "danger" of performing illegal acts with guns. Even if not everyone could be construed as such, the resolution seeks to prevent dangerous individuals from performing imminent lawless action (by not allowing that action to be imminent), thereby rendering it legal.
Waiting periods are absolutely legal
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by United Massachusetts » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:50 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:I disagree, and vehemently at that. For reference, here is the exact text of GA 399 5(b):
In essence, the clause allows resolutions whose purpose is to prevent the usage of guns in imminent illegal acts, or the sale thereof to individuals that pose a danger of performing said acts. Such is the exact purpose of waiting periods--to prevent the usage of guns in imminent lawless action by making it less likely for said actions to occur via a delay. Furthermore, I will note that anyone could be construed as presenting "danger" of performing illegal acts with guns. Even if not everyone could be construed as such, the resolution seeks to prevent dangerous individuals from performing imminent lawless action (by not allowing that action to be imminent), thereby rendering it legal.
Waiting periods are absolutely legal
You're reading an extra word into the relevant clause. It does not say "individuals that could pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." It says "individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." Requiring an able-minded, able-bodied, law-abiding adult to wait five days is arbitrary. This proposal, as it is currently written, seeks to delay firearms sales to everybody.
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:07 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:You're reading an extra word into the relevant clause. It does not say "individuals that could pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." It says "individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." Requiring an able-minded, able-bodied, law-abiding adult to wait five days is arbitrary. This proposal, as it is currently written, seeks to delay firearms sales to everybody.
Fair enough. But my last sentence still stands--waiting periods seek to prevent the usage of guns in imminent lawless action. Such is the main intent of the resolution, thereby making it a resolution which seeks to prevent firearms from being used by individuals in imminent lawless acts.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:47 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:35 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:By precedent and explicit policy (which IIRC you agreed with), GenSec does not check RL factual claims made by resolution proposals. The efficacy of waiting periods is moot and I have to consider this legal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Namwenia, New Terrasol
Advertisement