[DRAFT] Don't Point That Thing at me!

[Mierria]

Don’t Point That Thing at me!

Following an increasingly popular trend in @@NAME@@ wherein advocacy groups show up to town halls and other political assemblies and gatherings armed to the teeth with firearms, even the most gun-friendly of politicians are now clambering for the government to take action.

VALIDITY: Guns are legal

Option 1: “We all love the right to own and carry.” Says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the scandal-ridden mayor of @@CAPITAL@@, who was recently threatened during the opening of a new grocery store by a woman carrying a pistol and two grenades over the issue of food stamps, “But surely mob rule was never the intention in that right? Please, @@LEADER@@, put a ban on guns in public places and end this mayhem!’

Citizens have the right to bear arms, unless a politician is nearby.

Option 2: “Keep your hands off my guns!” Says Libertarian activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, cleaning @@HIS@@ AK-73 menacingly in your direction. “When the people were given the right to bear arms, this is exactly what our lawmakers had in mind! The point of our right, besides safety and shooting birds out of the sky for fun, is to keep our politicians in line with the people. The threat of an armed, free populace is much scarier for these politicians than any war ever could be, and exercising that right should NEVER be a crime.”

The people of @@NAME@@ find aiming a gun at their local politicians much more effective than voting.

Option 3: @@RANDOMNAME@@, your unpopular Minister of Finance, walks into your office with holes grazing a bulletproof vest he’s wearing over his coat. “This is ridiculous!” @@HE@@ says, taking the bulletproof vest off and revealing another layer beneath it. “But I know just the way to get back at these loons…” @@HE@@ remarks, pulling a pistol from a holster on his waist. “Just equip us public figures with guns, too, and that way when they start firing at us, we can shoot back.”

Heated town halls often descend into shootouts between politicians and their constituents.

[SherpDaWerp]

The premise is somewhat unique - I don't think NS has an issue on the right to bear arms in public. (although someone will probably correct me on that)
But the options are exactly the same as any other gun-ban issue: Ban guns, Don't ban guns, Crazy Option. Is there a way that you could make the options more unique, be it by characterisation or by unique suggestions?

[Trotterdam]

The premise is somewhat unique - I don't think NS has an issue on the right to bear arms in public. (although someone will probably correct me on that)

I think the right to bear arms is already assumed to mean "in public". Many issues about gun rights specifically promote them as a means of self-defense, which would require actually carrying them. Furthermore, in real life, many countries with relatively strict gun control laws still permit ownership of guns for use in controlled places such as a shooting range or a regulated hunting zone (provided you have an appropiate license, which can be tedious to get), but require you to keep them under lock and key at all times that they're not being used for a legal purpose.

[Chan Island]

So this issue is clearly drawing on the Black Panthers and their tactic of showing up to state legislatures with shotguns and revolvers while they debated race issues. The end result was California instituting their strict gun laws, with support of the NSA, because of the lawmakers were scared of the protesters with firearms.

Instead of looking at this as an issue about guns, focus instead on the fact that it is explicitly a scare tactic. Talk about how it's the type of thing only a small, determined group would do, perhaps in the face of what the majority of people want, about how it might be undermining democracy or the effective running of administration. You could even look into options that many real world countries do, such as putting barriers between the politicians and their constituents unless they go through security.

[Fauxia]

You definitely can’t assume a nation that allows guns allows private citizens to just own grenades.

[Australian rePublic]

Why are they carrying to political meetings?

[Tadreodal]

Why are they carrying to political meetings?

This is a thing that happens in the states

[Australian rePublic]

Why are they carrying to political meetings?

This is a thing that happens in the states

Why?

[Tadreodal]

This is a thing that happens in the states

Why?

Why is this something I would know? You are constantly critical of issues for completely invalid reasons and you ask questions that could be answered by google

[Australian rePublic]

Why?

Why is this something I would know? You are constantly critical of issues for completely invalid reasons and you ask questions that could be answered by google

Fair enough, moving on.

The guy in option 2 sounds like a terrorist. If townhall meetings are full of terrorists, ready to shoot anyone who tries to take away their gun rights, you wouldn't get too many people trying to take away their gun rights

[Mierria]

Why is this something I would know? You are constantly critical of issues for completely invalid reasons and you ask questions that could be answered by google

If townhall meetings are full of terrorists, ready to shoot anyone who tries to take away their gun rights, you wouldn't get too many people trying to take away their gun rights

Well yeah, that's the point.

[Australian rePublic]

If townhall meetings are full of terrorists, ready to shoot anyone who tries to take away their gun rights, you wouldn't get too many people trying to take away their gun rights

Well yeah, that's the point.

No. That's not what I meant. What I meant to ask was, how many politicians would want to vote against what he says and no be scared of him?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Maybe focus the issue on whether its okay to bring guns to political debates and rallies, rather than just having them in public.