ce52fd No.10871[Last 50 Posts]
ACTION
Amended Action
Preface: A weapons law to clearly define the status of weapons.
Summary: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
1. No jurisdiction herein shall infringe on the right to keep an bear arms. Such infringements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a)Background checks**(see amendment 2)
b)Registration
c)Taxation specific to firearms intended to create a barrier to acquisition
d)Licensing
e)Training mandates
f)Waiting periods
g)Safety requirements
h)Bans or regulations on features/furniture/muzzle devices
i)Bans or regulations on actions
j)Bans or regulations on carry
k)Bans or regulations on ammunition
l)Bans or regulations on importation, except in the midst of a total embargo
m)Bans or regulations on mail ordering of weapons
n)Bans or regulations on magazine capacity
o)Confiscation of any sort
p)Size or weight restrictions of any kind
2. No jurisdiction herein shall limit the ability to defend oneself, others, and his property in any location he has the legal right to be in. This includes his car, his workplace, his home, and public spaces. Lethal force shall be permitted once a threat is perceived, and those who are found to have acted in self defense, whether by trial or by investigation, will be immune to civil lawsuit; rather, all perpetrators and accomplices shall bear the burden of responsibility for all injuries, fatalities, and property damage incurred in the process of their crime. Jurisdictions herein shall not:
a)Stipulate a duty to retreat
b)Deny or delay a natural right to self defense via lethal force upon perceiving a threat to one's life, the lives of others, or one's property
c)Deny or delay one who has been deemed to have acted in self defense the ability to seek compensation with all due haste
3. No jurisdiction herein shall destroy or permanently dismantle a weapon unless:
a)It is deemed unsafe to operate
4. All weapons, ammunition, and parts that are no longer in use, surplus, or no longer needed as evidence shall be sold on a surplus market under the following conditions:
a)To prevent hoarding and market supply manipulation, no more than 5 weapons or 1000 rounds of ammunition per month per person
b)The sales price must be at least 25% under market value
d)The weapons and ammunition are put on sale with all deliberate haste
e)Under all circumstances, "buy back" programs with the intent of destroying weapons or disarming people are banned, and shall be punishable as a felony with a penalty of at least $500,000 and at least 15 years in prison
Addendum: To facilitate the distribution, sales, and marketing of surplus firearms, ammunition, and parts, a non-profit 501(c)(3) shall be formed, to be named the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"
Addendum 2: The Civilian Marksmanship Program shall not place on potential customers any unreasonable burden, including those in section 1.
5. Funding for weapons education shall be provided given:
a)Education programs are not politicized
b)Educators are properly informed
6. Funding for space based weapons: A sum sufficient for space based weapons shall be allocated for research and development of and to provide for the common defense of:
a)Space stations
b)Space vehicles
c)Lunar colonies
d)All other extra-terrestrial colonies
e)Earth and earth orbit
7. A small arms cache shall be stored in every jurisdiction herein, and shall be distributed to any persons lacking arms in the event of:
a)Foreign invasion
b)Civil war
c)Happening
d)Any other strife or "shit hits the fan" scenario
8. No manufacturer or dealer of firearms shall be held responsible for any crimes committed with their firearms. No manufacturer or dealer of firearms shall be held responsible for accidents occurring with their firearms under the following conditions:
a)The firearm(s) in question is(are) sold in a condition that is safe to shoot
b)Said accidents/crimes are born from the negligence, malicious intent, or ignorance of the victims or perpetrators.
9. Innawoods firearms activity is protected under the condition that such activity is conducted in a manner where lives and property are not in danger.
10. Firing ranges shall not be subject to noise complaints, suits, or ordinances, except in the following cases:
a) It is an indoor type range emitting a noise level greater than 90 dB outside the premises.
b) It is an outdoor type range within city limits, or delivering more than 90 dB to any space within a city limit.
Amendment I: Nuclear explosive (supercritical fission/fusion chain reaction bomb, or a so called "dirty bomb"), biological, and chemical weapons designed for lethality shall be known as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)s. WMDs are strictly prohibited to all entities.
Amendment II: It shall be illegal under all circumstances to transfer, sell, or otherwise barter away a weapon of any sort if it is reasonably suspected that the transferee intends to use such weapons to commit a crime. For this purpose, a transferer may voluntarily demand a background check, of which no record can be kept
Post last edited at
ce52fd No.10872
>>10871Oh, and I'm taking my friend to the airport so Kommando Party can make compromises on my behalf if they see fit.
c12bf6 No.10873
I won't vote on this until there's a clear definition of what "arms" are, because the way this is written makes it sound like I can keep a nuclear missile in my backyard. I've also got problems with articles 6 and 7.
Abstain, 10 votes
b3f53b No.10875
I've got concerns with 1.a), c), f), 7. c)
I'll go though one-by-one
1. a)
I think that background checks have reason. I wouldn't expect a firearm seller to just hand over a weapon when a crazy chimp walks in going "GIMME MUH GUNS TO SHOOT WHITEY BIX NOOD" I don't think it is a violation of rights to just hold off and let the others decide if people are capable of handling firearms
1. c)
Tough. Everyone has to pay tax, firearms sales included. Either find another way to raise revenue through firearms, or take it out of the action.
1. f)
I object to this for much the same reasons as 1. a). It's also deliberately - I think- vague.
7. c)
And if these persons happen to be participating in the Chimpout, but don't have arms? Should the Sherif be obliged to give Chimpouters arms because they have none? I suggest that you rephrase the main clause better.
As the action currently stands, I can't vote any other way than No, 10 seats.
668e69 No.10876
I'll vote yes under the condition that you remove articles 3a, 4c, and 7c.
Until then, I vote no with 7 seats.
ce52fd No.10887
Mod, please make the following changes.
>>10873No nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
>>10875Amend 1c to say "no firearms specific taxation." As general sales tax, it will be taxed.
>>108763a, 4c, and 7c are out.
ce52fd No.10888
>>10875>>10887Oh, and remove 1f. it's a catchall, but it's too vague.
cc5c0e No.10889
>6. Funding for space based weapons
>mfw
But, this should be expanded to personal use in all non-Earth environments, on a personal scale as well as on a habitat scale.
ce52fd No.10890
>>10889>But, this should be expanded to personal use in all non-Earth environmentsNothing preventing you from buying your space guns so long as you have the money. You and your android maid/waifu/operator should be able to defend yourselves in space.
8e707e No.10892
>>10871As a proud Israelite, I'd like to say that the idea of the genitles arming themselves through legal means scares me and it should scare you too. I refuse to approve of such barbarous and dangerous rights in a free, multicultural society like our own.
No, 8 votes ce52fd No.10902
>>10892I'd have thought you'd want the citizenry to be able to purchase Israeli defense goods like Galils, but I guess it's okay if you want to miss out on an opportunity for Israel to profit.
cc0bd5 No.10906
The RJP abstains, 8 seats.
7761b3 No.10915
Since it seems that I'm the only active member of the PF at the moment, I'll vote nay using the parties votes. Nay, 35 votes. You should consider re-writing this so as to remove parts 11 and 12.
ce52fd No.10917
>>10915>You should consider re-writing this so as to remove parts 11 and 12.Sounds fair enough.
Mods, please amend action to remove 11 and 12.
7761b3 No.10919
>>10917Also number 10 would have to go as well.
ce52fd No.10920
Alright, I've rewritten it, and hope to garner more support. Hopefully, mods can copy this into the OP.
AMENDED ACTIONhttp://pastebin.com/YCenqWrc ce52fd No.10921
>>10919That's like saying airports can be sued for the noise. Not denying you outright, but an explanation would be appreciated.
7761b3 No.10922
>>10921Steps can be taken to easily sound proof firearm ranges. It's impossible for airports.
ce52fd No.10925
>>10922I get what you're saying about indoor ranges, but what about outdoor ranges? I'll amend it to limit the burden on indoor ranges instead of absolutely shielding dickery, but for outdoor ranges, it's about as simple as soundproofing airports.
Again, all the ranges near where I live are outdoor, so the thought of indoor ranges escaped me.
Mods, amend section 10:
Addendum: Section 10 shall apply to indoor type ranges only under the condition that they take all reasonable measures to limit noise to under 85 dB (
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html)
7761b3 No.10930
>>10925Make it so outdoor ranges cannot be close to populated areas where they would drive most people crazy.
ce52fd No.10931
>>10930I'll do you one better:
Most states have a law that says the following:
Within city limits, no more than 90 dB. No matter what. (except self defense, but that's pretty obvious)
Does that sound good to you?
cc5c0e No.10932
>>10890Ah, I misunderstood it to me "funding for research into space-based weaponry", not "funding to purchase space-based weaponry". You do realise that conventional weapons won't be optimal for non-Earth usage, right? Lasers would be best given their low recoil-to-power output ratio.
>>10925Clarify that "nuclear weapons" explicitly means nuclear explosives, and not nuclear powered weaponry (remember, space-based weaponry - what are you gonna shoot incoming asteroids with, peashooters?), please.
>>10930Make it something like a minimum distance of one mile outside of city limits for outdoor ranges (arbitrary value, adjust for relevance and common sense), and I'll back this.
ce52fd No.10933
>>10932>>10930AMENDED ACTION, PT2http://pastebin.com/5hpCi7iZRelevant sections:
Noise:
10. Firing ranges shall not be subject to noise complaints, suits, or ordinances, except in the following cases:
a) It is an indoor type range emitting a noise level greater than 90 dB outside the premises.
b) It is an outdoor type range within city limits, or delivering more than 90 dB to any space within a city limit.
Nuclear clarified:
Amendment I: Nuclear explosive (supercritical fission/fusion chain reaction bomb), biological, and chemical weapons designed for lethality shall be known as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)s. WMDs are strictly prohibited to all entities.
ce52fd No.10934
>>10933Oh shit, forgot to add dirty bombs under "nuclear." It should be amended in:
==AMENDED ACTION, PT2.1
http://pastebin.com/Vj7qf0bX c12bf6 No.10935
>>10917I like section 11…
ce52fd No.10936
>>10932Oh, and pretty relevant:
> 6. Funding for space based weapons: A sum sufficient for space based weapons shall be allocated for research and development of and to provide for the common defense of:sage to avoid bumping too much.
7761b3 No.10937
>>10934Edit has been done. I change my vote to
yea, 35 votes ce52fd No.10938
>>10935We'll put it to a vote in a separate action. Truth be told, excommunications should be its own action, don't you think? I mean, there's so many more who should be excommunicated, but the scope of this action doesn't really call for it.
ce52fd No.10939
>>10937Thank you, we will enjoy many vodka together.
69c8ee No.10941
Yea, 30 votes.
Every man has the right to defend himself and his property.
ce52fd No.10943
>>10941Thank you, cardinal.
a9b6b8 No.10945
>>10871Few things
Firstly CCWs, how can someone actually identify anyone who's CCWing, those who are undercover police and those who don't have any firearms at all. This CCW makes the definition between an armed man, an undercover police officer and a civilian a bit complicated.
that's just my opinion if I were a UN statesmenSecondly, Safety standards/Requirements, and the manufacturing of unsafe firearms for the person who wants to purchase a firearm. (1H and 8A over-covers it significantly) that and safety standards/requirements seems a bit vague to me.
I also want to extend on say what would describe a home made firearm, a 3d printed one or one that comes from a mass manufacturer.
Thirdly, I don't really like all of rule 7. Only because all persons should have diplomatic interests above those of absolute violence.
Again, opinion of a UN Statesmen roleLastly, Consider the Ottawa Treaty Considering Personal Land Mines as they have banned personal land mines since the 1st of March, 1997.
668e69 No.10948
>>10887Alright. I'll vote
yes with 7 seats.
ce52fd No.10949
>>10945Alright, I'll bite:
>how can someone actually identify anyone who's CCWingYou can't. That's the point. Both civilians and undercover officers have the right to defend themselves in a pinch.
>Secondly, Safety standards/RequirementsA manufacturer can't be held responsible for irresponsible use (8A). 1H refers to government regulation. That is, a government cannot arbitrarily decide that a weapon needs a biometric scanner and microstamping, when such technology is further in the future than fusion, at best.
>and the manufacturing of unsafe firearmsNeither protected by 8A, nor by 1H. 1H says the government can't impose safety standards, due to San Fransisco style abuse. 8A says that you can't sue the manufacturer for an accident/crime born from human error/malicious intent. Neither one shields a manufacturer from lawsuit for making a lemon that blows up in someone's face.
>homemade, 3d, etcHome made is home made. You make it, and it's yours. No controls necessary. So long as you don't use it to harm others, nothing more is necessary.
>rule 7when shit hits the fan, diplomacy is long past its expiration date. having a storehouse for weapons is as natural as having a granary or reservoir for emergencies.
>ottawa treatyNot every state is a signitory to that treaty, including the US, Russia, and the /sen/ (as far as I know).
ce52fd No.10950
>>10948Thank you. I don't mean to be rude, but what is NATN's platform?
89eb35 No.10951
NF/KKK votes yes, 12 votes
cc5c0e No.10952
>>10933>>10936Thank you! Vote changed to
yea, 35 seats. ce52fd No.10956
After reviewing the constitution and reformatting up the action, I present the latest version.
AMENDED ACTION, PT 3http://pastebin.com/MakiL6ttChangelog:
>Second amendment (background checks) edited. Reason: it would not be constitutional to call for another action-level vote requiring less than 2/3 majority>sub-sections relabeled>formatting restoredReview it, if you please.
72dfcf No.10960
21 votes nay, background checks on mental health are too useful and the duty to retreat is a pillar of common law.
Some comments:
>Amendment I: Nuclear explosive (supercritical fission/fusion chain reaction bomb, or a so called "dirty bomb"), biological, and chemical weapons designed for lethality shall be known as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)s. WMDs are strictly prohibited to all entities.
Chemical weapon isn't defined. Is a grenade a chemical weapon?
Amendment I should probably ban weapons which cause harm from toxicity, radiation, burns, bacteria and viruses.
>Amendment II: It shall be illegal under all circumstances to transfer, sell, or otherwise barter away a weapon of any sort if it is reasonably suspected that the transferee intends to use such weapons to commit a crime.
The burden of proof should be much higher than a reasonable suspicion!
ce52fd No.10966
>>10960>Background checks on mental health are too usefulThey can be requested via Amendment II. They don't really work thanks to the black market, though. On top of that, the problem of defining which mental health problems would DQ someone is another action of its own.
>Duty to retreatNope, not going to happen. Stand your ground enables one to defend himself or the lives of others in places outside the home. You can't really fulfill the latter with a duty to retreat.
>Chemical weaponThese refer to things like mustard gas or VX, but sure, I'll clarify.
>burden of proof should be higherFor this reason, background checks can be requested.
>not using secure tripaaaand in the trash it goes
72dfcf No.10968
>>10966>Nope, not going to happen. Stand your ground enables one to defend himself or the lives of others in places outside the home. You can't really fulfill the latter with a duty to retreat.You ever wonder why American policemen are murderous barbarians?
ce52fd No.10969
>>10968>You ever wonder why American policemen are murderous barbarians?Does that have anything to do with stand your ground laws?
69c8ee No.10972
>>10968>ever wonder why American policemen are muderous barbarians?Because the American people are crazed and deranged.
7761b3 No.10975
>>10968>You ever wonder why American policemen are murderous barbarians?Lack of oversight, accountability, and ethics.
>>10966Into the trash indeed.
7761b3 No.10976
>>10956Edited it again for you.
1dd542 No.10980
>>10871Address how the mentally ill get protected (self-protection vs help from others) and I will vote yes.
ce52fd No.10982
7761b3 No.10984
>>10980I don't think I understand. This bill doesn't seem to really limit anyone from owning a weapon for self defense.
be2813 No.10987
RMP votes yes, 31 votes
e1b4d7 No.10990
HKLIP yes with all 22 votes (since CTS was in work)
b3f53b No.10995
>>10887Cool, thanks for that
Yes, 10 Votes 16b089 No.11063
>>108713 makes little sense.
6 is silly, UN prohibits space based weapons.
9 needs a LOT of clarification
Abstain, 18 votes for now. If these are changed then I will vote yes.
cc5c0e No.11065
>>11063>3 makes little senseIt makes perfect sense, given it is meant to assure no "book burning" actions are taken to destroy functional firearms for unjustifiable reasons.
>6 is silly, UN prohibits space based weaponsIt's not silly, and we aren't under the jurisdiction of the UN.
>9 needs a LOT of clarificationClarification might not hurt here, although I doubt "a LOT" would be necessary.
f74517 No.11069
>>10937Comrade Kane, I ask you to rescind your yea vote until the action is amended to remove allowing lethal force to be used to protect property.
Also, the definition of threat in the action is vague. The burden of proof is on the perpetrator, who is most likely dead. I could easily see this bill leading to many killings where the threat level can not be determined thereby allowing legal murder.
Until these issues are addressed, I urge you to change your vote.
dd9c3e No.11071
>>11069This goes for everyone in the UCFP, not just the PF or Comrade Kane.
cc0bd5 No.11072
On re-examination, we change our stance to supporting this bill.
Yes, 8 seats
ce52fd No.11074
>>11069Case law indicates that self defense is an affirmative defense. Your fears are not as grounded as they seem.
dd9c3e No.11076
>>11074Fair enough. The definition of threat still needs clarification and property needs to be omitted.
ce52fd No.11077
>>11076Alright, it won't hurt to talk a bit more on threats, but property cannot be removed. A man should have the right to defend his property, by lethal force if necessary. In the case of, say, mass looting, if a store owner shoots looters attempting to steal his goods, should he be arrested for his actions? I say no, because one's property can be his livelyhood. Thus, to infringe upon one's right to defend property is to infringe upon his livelyhood. Sorry, but defending your livelyhood isn't murder, it's self defense.
dd9c3e No.11079
>>11077Unless you are in imminent danger of severe injury or death (ie the looter is using a gun, or swinging at you with a bat) I don't think it should be legal to kill someone. Even if they are taking your stuff. Report it to the authorities, call your insurance company, whatever.
ce52fd No.11081
>>11079>>11079>Report it to the authorities, call your insurance company, whatever.This doesn't always ensure that you get your property back, nor does it ensure you'll be compensated. A looter's life is not worth more than the livelyhood of a law abiding citizen. Property is the very means by which we maintain our lives. I've seen families torn apart because they did as you suggested, calling the police and trying to collect insurance. Turns out, they couldn't get the money and the stolen goods were never returned. They went out of business and the wife divorced the man and took the kids (the whole family has to go on welfare as a result). Meanwhile, the looters get to keep walking the streets.
I'm sorry we can't come to an agreement on this, but this is something that hits very close to home for me and can't be omitted. If someone breaks into my home and tries to steal my belongings, I'm shooting, and I would never fault anyone else for doing so. It's not simply legally killing, it's a defense of my property, my livelyhood, the fruits of my labor. Under no circumstances will I allow another to infringe upon that.
dd9c3e No.11082
>>11081I'm not a stranger to this either. When I was a kid, our house was broken into and had my dad's guns and money stolen. It was traumatic. Thank god no one was home. I wouldn't blame anyone for shooting a stranger in their house either. Not because they are stealing, but because they are in your house.
I won't say any more. I leave it up to the Kane to decide.
ce52fd No.11084
>>11082>I won't say any more. I leave it up to the Kane to decide.Needless to say, Kane has been in the thread for a long time and has already decided. We negotiated which sections should be amended and came to an agreement. As it appears to me, defense of property isn't a party issue, but merely one where certain members of the party disagree with other members. That's how I see it, in any case.
As a parting suggestion, I suggest you look up Koreatown and the LA riots.
some of my cousins were on those rooftops. being robbed anywhere is traumatic, defending yourself means less to worry about as you recover from the trauma 56f875 No.11098
>>11069>>11077>>11079>>11081>>11082>>11084These are moral and ethical questions with no clear answer. Is killing a person more traumatizing then being a victim? Is a thief's life more valuable then a families property and sense of well being? I tend to lean more to reformation then punishment. Still, I do not think making criminals of those who would defend their property is wise, nor just.
68d4c2 No.11133
>>11098Good to see you admit you aren't a revolutionary socialist, bit bizarre to see the RMP admit that as well though.
56f875 No.11139
>>11133What on earth are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with owning and defending your personal property.
68d4c2 No.11150
>>11139The legislation we're voting on doesn't differentiate. It gives every business owner the right to gun down occupiers and protesters.
56f875 No.11154
>>11150Why are you just now bringing this up? Also, The OLA would prevent that when it passes.
34baaa No.11155
Nay, 9 votes, not because I disagree with the general idea of allowing for a militia or the purchase of arms but because I disagree with many parts of section 1 and I feel that some of these go too far.
Specifically, 1a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, l, n, and definitely o in the case of a criminal with a violent history.
Specifically, background checks preventing criminal elements from purchasing firearms as a means to curtail more and especially better firearms from falling into criminal hands makes sense. No, it won't always work. No, it's not a perfect system. Murders still happen despite the laws against them; that doesn't mean murder should be legal. Similarly, if a criminal has shown violent tendencies, allowing him to enact further tendencies with more efficiency is not something I'm going to endorse. I have nothing against upstanding citizens carrying firearms with them and defending themselves against attackers, and I don't think we should start rounding up everyone's guns to prevent some sort of uprising, but this bill has elements that I'm simply not willing to sign off on simply as a matter of public safety.
ce52fd No.11157
>>11150>It gives every business owner the right to gun down occupiers and protesters.Quotes please. No where does it allow for wanton, random murder.
>>11155>magazine capacity limits>bans on furniture>registration>licensingCalifornia pls go. No problem with an assault rifle with a 100 round drum mag, of course, with the spooky scary pistol grips and folding stocks.
>muh background checksThey can be voluntarily requested.
>criminal elementsDon't let them out if they're not ready for society.
34baaa No.11158
>>11157I'll respond to your points in order:
A ban on muzzles makes sense for law enforcement purposes utilizing triangulating microphones around a general area. As for licensing and registration, we register and license cars so that we know that people behind the wheel are going to drive safely and sanely, and if they don't, we stop them and we strip them of those abilities. Guns warrant similar regulations. Background checks can be voluntarily requested, sure, but I see no reason why mandatory background checks are such a tremendous pain in your ass if you're an upstanding citizen with every intention of using your gun properly. It's in your favor to have gun owners seen as sane, reasonable people. As for criminal elements, have you heard of something called probation?
Not Californian, but good guess.
56f875 No.11160
>>11158What if you have a criminal record for something like pot possession? Problem is the state can decide anything is a crime.
34baaa No.11162
>>11160If I had my way, only criminals convicted of a violent act would have to worry about their gun use being restricted. The state can decide that anything is a crime but that's true pretty much no matter what.
ce52fd No.11163
>>11158>A ban on muzzles makes senseYou have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
>have you heard of something called probation?Now there's your problem
56f875 No.11165
>>11162That's why it's important to make sure fire arms restrictions are kept to a minimal. Nothing is more likely to stop tyranny then a heavily armed and educated populace.
34baaa No.11167
>>11163I consider the muzzle ban a rather weak point. I could take it or leave it. You have an issue with probation?
>>11165Okay, so let's say the government bans marijuana use. You feel that's sufficient grounds for an armed uprising, or the threat of one?
34baaa No.11173
>>11172Even as someone who is and will remain a staunch supporter of the right of the people to their own use of psychoactive substances as a means of respecting freedom of consciousness (a very basic human right), that seems excessive. If you want to overthrow the government violently over every decision you disagree with (whether or not you're taking the piss, let's assume you aren't), you're basically saying (or you sure sound like you're saying) that Fallout is a great idea and people should live like that.
ce52fd No.11174
>>11167>I consider the muzzle ban a rather weak point. I could take it or leave itAgain, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
>You have an issue with probation?If these people aren't ready for freedom, keep them in prison.
34baaa No.11175
>>11174Part of probation is easing them back into a civil and free society so that they don't immediately apply their prison mindset, which they need to survive in a prison, to their home lives. If your solution is to keep them in prison until you think they're "ready," you're essentially pulling a release date out of your ass. You could just say "Eh, you seem like you're not ready. Ask me again after another year of prison labor. I don't really feel like letting you go today."
56f875 No.11177
>>11173The government should always be subject to the will of the governed. If enough people rise up so as to be a threat to the government, then said government has failed, and is deserving of it's fate.
ce52fd No.11179
>>11175> so that they don't immediately apply their prison mindset, which they need to survive in a prisoni wonder what could be the problem here?
34baaa No.11181
>>11177No. The government should always be subject to reason and justice and what's right. A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Being overthrown and being wrong are two different things.
>>11179Yeah, the prison system, it's not very pretty, but apparently your solution is to have them simmer in there.
72324f No.11182
yea 10 seats
Many people need to defend themselves with various weapons, not everyone is close enough to legionarii.
34baaa No.11183
>>11182Fair enough, Caesar, fair enough.
ce52fd No.11184
>>11181>implying the only two choices is to let them rot in a shitty system, or let them out of that shitty system earlyever consider sweeping up the shit so they are ready for society upon leaving?
56f875 No.11185
>>11181Who determines what's reasonable, justified and righteous? The common man does not desire power, only to live the way in which he desires to live. I find the idea of "dictatorship of the majority" unfounded.
34baaa No.11187
>>11184Yes, I'm in favor of prison reform, but we we aren't (or weren't) talking about prison reform, we're talking about the system as it is with regards to gun rights and usage. If you want to talk about prison reform, I would welcome it and I'd probably vote yes. By all means, present a better system and I'll support it.
34baaa No.11189
>>11185Kane, I'll forgive you for saying that mostly because I don't think you've ever had to deal with the majority of people thinking that you are an inherently wrong individual or having legal barriers to being equal, but I assure you, "dictatorship of the majority" is a perfectly valid concern.
ce52fd No.11192
>>11187> If you want to talk about prison reform, I would welcome it and I'd probably vote yes. By all means, present a better system and I'll support it.That's really a separate action, though. Not trying to win you over at this point, just letting you know that you should clean up the shit instead of trying to swat all the flies.
34baaa No.11194
>>11192That's a fair point, and yes, it is a separate action, that's partly my point and that's why on
this action I'm voting the way I feel works best for the system as it currently stands. If it's cleaned up, which I'll support, I'll change my tune.
Instead of swatting flies, shit should be cleaned up, but so long as the shit is still there, the flies are still going to be swatted.
72324f No.11195
>>11182Disregard that.
>e)Training mandates>g)Safety requirementsI take back my votes until these are more of a requirement so as to be more like modern day Switzerland, as it is unwise to have people who own weapons and do not fully know how to use them.
I abstain until this is sorted out, also the prevention of a ban on muzzles.
changed to abstain, 10 seats ce52fd No.11197
>>11194Well, there's an idea for an action. Go ahead, senator.
>>11185Comrade, a constitutional question:
When does voting end?
>>11195>also the prevention of a ban on muzzles.Let's clarify this. A muzzle is defined as: the open end of the barrel of a firearm.
If you meant to say muzzle device, see 1 h)Bans or regulations on features/furniture/muzzle devices
A muzzle device, like in pic related, is an ergonomic feature to perform any of the following: redirect flash away from the user's eyes; reduce recoil; reduce noise signature to a level that won't pop your eardrums (This does not mean hollywood action movie-style assassinations).
8ec872 No.11199
This action is far too broad in what is permitted to the point of outright foolishness. I suggest a full rewrite before continuation. I support the overall intention of this bill, but we need to get this very tight syntactically to avoid unintended consequences.
I abstain with 17 votes.'
56f875 No.11200
>>11197Oh shit. I dun goofed. Voting should have ended 8 hours ago. I'll tally up the votes.
cc5c0e No.11205
>>11200Please include Cherenkov's
17 abstains. I voted on behalf of the party earlier, but I don't want to misrepresent his share of the votes. That makes my vote
18 yeas (I agree that there are a lot of grey areas here for many involved, but I've come to expect as much from extensive bills such as this, and they can be sorted out afterward as far as I'm concerned, as long as they
are sorted. I'll make an action regarding that myself, if I have to.
but mostly I just want muh space gun research)
56f875 No.11208
Final Vote
Yea: 173 (PF, RxPx, NATN, NF/KKK, Weil, RMP, HKLIP, ConserveAnon, RJP, Caesar)
Nay: 38 (IFP, 420b, Marcus)
Abstain: 64 (Ju, Strelok, Caesar, Chereknov)
Action has passed with an overwhelming majority of 82%!
Please be sure to point out any mistakes I may have made.
56f875 No.11209
>>11189We live in a society dominated by minority interest groups that manipulate majority opinion. Dictatorship of the Majority is an oxymoron.
ce52fd No.11210
>>11208Thank you, everyone, for voting. Even those who voted nay, I thank you for taking the time to view this action. I promise great things from this.
34baaa No.11211
>>11209>Dictatorship of the Majority is an oxymoron.Bullshit, Kane. This isn't the place to get into it, but that is bullshit, my friend.
ce52fd No.11212
>>11211I agree with Marcus, for the record. If 51 people vote to enslave the other 49, is that not a tyranny of the majority?
56f875 No.11215
>>11211>>11212It's never as clear cut as that, though. It's special interest groups, political groups, the minority that enslaves. We can discuss this more in the IRC if you would like. #/sen/ at rizon.
34baaa No.11217
>>11215>The minority enslavesLet's take a recent and pretty famous example, Proposition 8. Just off the top of my head. You think California voters made the moral decision when they voted as a whole on the legal rights of a minority when it passed? I suppose that, too, was "special interest groups." Sometimes, it's clear-cut: The majority
can be wrong. If everyone and their grandma woke up tomorrow and said that you should go work in the salt mines until you die of exhaustion, they would not be right to do so.
56f875 No.11220
>>11217You're talking about a society run and owned by small minority groups of politicians, business men etc etc. Context is key.
34baaa No.11221
>>11220I'm talking about a decision made by the majority of voters, Kane. No decision made by the majority will
ever be free of context.
56f875 No.11222
>>11221A decision made by the majority under the influence and control of the minority.
69c8ee No.11223
>>11220>>11221Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on hat to have for lunch.
72324f No.11224
>>11197well my other two points still stand.
34baaa No.11225
>>11222So basically what you're saying is that if the majority ever comes to an immoral conclusion, it's because they're pawns of the minority.
69c8ee No.11226
>>11222Isn't that how communist one-party states work?
56f875 No.11228
>>11225I'm saying that you're basing you're basing your disdain for majority rule based on a minority rule system. Also, that wasn't the majority, that was just the majority of people that voted. There's a difference.
>>11226>implyingI'm a Libertarian Socialist. Look it up.
34baaa No.11231
File: 1418962213760.png (908.44 KB, 780x697, 780:697, Captain America vs the maj….png)
>>11228I never said I disdain the concept of the majority ruling on that which it ought to rule on. I'm saying that the majority is not immune to being wrong, that yes, there
can be such a thing as a tyranny of the majority, and that your suggestion that the majority can never produce a society which is tyrannical to minorities is patently untrue, there's no rule which says the majority's word is holy. I'd get on IRC about this but I want to go on record here, I don't feel the need to hide the fact that I think sometimes the majority is wrong.
56f875 No.11232
>>11231You're basing your beliefs on majority rule on the actions of a minority rule society. I'm merely stating that it's faulty to do so.
34baaa No.11235
>>11232Now you're moving the goalposts.
56f875 No.11237
>>11235I have a feeling this conversation has become unproductive. I will continue to be a Libertarian Socialist, and you will continue to believe in enlightened despots.
34baaa No.11238
>>11237You aren't even hearing me. Nevermind, Kane. Just… forget it.
56f875 No.11239
>>11238I understand what you're saying. You believe that majority rule is liable to create a dictatorship of the majority. I'm merely saying that you base those claims on faulty evidence.
34baaa No.11241
>>11239It's logically self-evident. There's nothing stopping a majority from making a decision which is unethical regarding the minority.
56f875 No.11242
>>11241>It's logically self evidentThat's a logical fallacy in itself. The thing stopping them is that the majority of people don't want to repress anyone. Most people want to live and let live. It's political groups that manipulate people into repressing minority groups for their own gain.
34baaa No.11243
>>11242You have yet to show a single proof for this other than stating it to be true.
69c8ee No.11245
>>11242No, the point is the majority believes it, if the majority doesn't believe, they wouldn't tolerate it, let alone make it happen.
56f875 No.11246
>>11243The burden of proof is on you though. You're making the claim that majority rule leads to a dictatorship of the majority.
34baaa No.11247
>>11246No! Goddammit, I've been trying to tell you this the whole time, I'm
not saying it necessarily leads to one, I'm saying it's possible for the majority to be wrong, that's what I've been saying all this time! You aren't even listening!
56f875 No.11248
Well shit negro, it's possible for the minority to be wrong as well.
56f875 No.11249
56f875 No.11250
>>11245What's your point?
34baaa No.11252
>>11248Well
duh. Nobody ever said the minority is always right. I'm saying the majority isn't pure and holy and free from all wrongdoing except by those evil minorities and special interest groups. That's what I've been telling you this whole time, that the majority can be wrong, and if it can be led astray by special interest groups with unethical intentions, well guess what? That still means the majority can be wrong!
69c8ee No.11253
>>11250My point is that the majority believes, it is the popular opinion, therefore the norm.
Even if the minority pushes it unto the majority, the majority is convinced, and they act on it.
They don't know that it,s wrong, because they believe it is right.
69c8ee No.11255
>>11248>>11252This is what happens when you don't admit to losing, you lose and end up looking like an idiot.
56f875 No.11256
>>11252OK. I never said the majority was infallible, just that minority interest groups tend to manipulate the majority into wrongdoing. A society in which such groups would not exist is a better one then what we have currently, imo.
>>11253Everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong, unless you're a sociopath/psychopath. People are taught how do be shit to each other.
56f875 No.11257