Listen, a gun that doesn't shoot when it should will get you killed, a gun that shoots when it shouldn't will kill someone. BOTH should be banned: the ineffectual are a liability to the user and whoever the user tries to protect, the harmful are a liability to everyone.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Yeah, separate department. if we don't have alcohol, we'll get people smuggling it in or making moonshine, or both. Bad scene.
@Raw - wait, what? I think you lost me. I'm asuming you want to keep junk guns out of the country, right? Like the cheap Spanish automatic pistols of the early 20th century? I do too, didn't know how to word it.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Shur Fine Guns should be banned to oblivion. And guns should be at least a little expensive. If they are a symbol of manliness to some Texans over there, then I want to ask Is $30 the worth of your manliness?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?I'm no fan of guns that only go click when they should be going bang, anyway, so:
- The Ministry of Defense will determine a list of banned firearms that are proven to be unreliable, unsafe or otherwise of questionable build quality. These firearms shall not be permitted into the country for commercial sale. Citizens will be strongly encouraged to avoid retaining such weapons, regardless of their class, as they are unsafe for use.
- The local manufacture of firearms will be permitted, provided that the manufactured arm is capable of passing a safety test, to include the firing of proof ammunition without failure, and a determined amount of standard ammunitio without failure. Individuals who wish to construct a firearm must comply with the regulatory requirements that the manufactured arm will fall into.
- The illegal manufacture of hand-made firearms, commonly known as "zip guns", without licensing or testing as specified above, is a federal offense.
- The modification of an existing firearm, such that it changes the class of the weapon (B-class to A-class for example) is a federal offense. Modifications of an existing firearm which retains it within the same class is not expressly prohibited, but it is required that the modifier is a licensed gunsmith and that the weapon will pass a safety and function check, to include firing of proof ammuntion, without fault.
Who knows, we might get some gun-design talent living within our borders, and if they can build a safe reliable arm, then they might start up a local business and that's good for our economy, right?
Proof ammunition is over-charged with extra powder. They stress the gun a LOT. You usually fire it by pulling on a string from behind cover and hope the weapon holds up. Your typical zip gun made in the garage from some lead pipe and pen springs will probably not pass such a test and would be FORBIDDEN. Also, can't take an AR-15 (B-class if semiautomatic) and drop in a hellfire trigger - that makes it A-class, and you can't own that. But, nothing wrong on rechambering that Ar-15 to say, .45 ACP, as long as the conversion was done properly.
I added the blurb about retaining questionable firearms, as the thing could be an heirloom or something that was brought in-country before our constitution was enacted. Shouldn't be a whole lot of them, though, unless someone is really into collecting cheap Spanish automatics.
Arrgh, forgot black powder stuff. Some hunters use those for that extra challenge.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Well, this is fairly vague regulation, I think we can afford to make it constitutional. However, it might need updates if Ray Gun and Rail Gun and Cool Guns are invented that do not fit the classification.
How about we get some ORGANIC LAWS. They are slightly less important than the constitution, and slightly less difficult to change. Laws that are made to last, but not to outlast the Constitution. Kind of like amendments, but much longer and going into much more detail.
edited 28th Oct '10 2:59:03 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Good point on future weapons. All we need is some dolt cooking retinas with his overpowered laser pointer and claiming that there's no rules against grafting a scope to a laser and cranking the wattage up a bunch.
But, looking over our draft constitution, it seems fairly modern-speak, and we do have a Supreme Court to help interpret the laws.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.I realize that I haven't exactly been posting (though I have been following the conversation at a distance), but I hope I'm not out of line in asking for an explanation for advocating for popularly-elected judges? I was under the impression that anywhere judges were subject to popular election, it tended to politicize the position; I'm of the opinion that the judiciary should be as apolitical as possible, owing allegiance to the law and justice rather than any particular ideology.
We need the English to be as simple and ultragramatical and literal as possible. Really, we want future Average Joe to read this easily and univocally.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?While there's no provision for elected lower-court judges in the Constitution, there's also no specific guideline stating that judges shall not be elected. It's left up to the Ministry of Justice...
...the chief Minister of which, and the two associate Ministers of which, also happen to be elected. They also happen to be three of the nine members of the Supreme Court. Given that rulings on Constitutional interpretation often involve the rights of minorities, I find it faintly disturbing to consider how it would be if three of the members of the Supreme Court were elected by basic majority.
For reference see the actual proposal, of course:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=djq0e46i6s3ccbcr5itgd5d6&page=24#579
edited 28th Oct '10 4:41:32 PM by Chalkos
I'd say that rather than including specifications for weapons in the constitution, let the military or police decide on weapons classes. They're more likely to have experience than legislatures. I don't see a point in banning most military grade weapons, the sheer cost of most of them will do that for you since you can buy a car for the cost of three or four assault rifles.
The reason I tried to prevent the [FDA equivalent] from being able to ban things that are harmful is that various Moral Guardians will try to get something they hate banned because it's "harmful to children" and will try to bypass the normal rules. Requiring a "this store has been checked by the health inspectors (also to be included under the rule)" otherwise it gets a big sign saying "This location has been found to distribute toxic or severely debilitating compounds, enter at your own risk." Also, faking the seal of approval should be a severe offense that can result in jail time.
Fight smart, not fair.^ Yes. The whole reason I tired to has out some rules for Raw was to show that we can have a right along with regulations to police that right. (You can get an AK-47 for around six bucks in Africa. But since I've bought a car for ten bucks once, then I say yoru math is a bit off.)
But yes. Forging a federal seal of approval should be met with a really stiff fine adn shuttering the doors, or something.
edited 28th Oct '10 11:15:45 PM by pvtnum11
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.I was actually referring to the prices in America style countries, and I was using this gun
off the top of my head due to the fact that I actually remembered it's price point. There's also weapons like miniguns, and there's no point in restricting those due to the sheer cost of both maintenance and ammunition costs. Besides, we might be able to tempt Mythbusters to come to our country if we promise them their own minigun. I'd prefer it to be really hard to get new regulations in place and easier to remove old stupid ones.
I don't think trying to prevent people from making their own weapons is a good idea to put in the constitution, for both reasons of unenforceability and the fact that I don't want to remove peoples right to do something in the constitution. Remember, the rights are what the people have, not what they can't do.
edited 28th Oct '10 11:34:37 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.Honestly, can't see why a citizen needs selective-fire weapons. Semi-auto versions are cool, though. But yeah, nuts and bolts. We'll let the Minister of Defense or whoever figure that stuff out.
Ah, nice gun. Can get about five or six SKS's for the price of one of those, though. Wanting our soldiers to use that?
edited 28th Oct '10 11:33:33 PM by pvtnum11
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Sure, but like I said, it's the one I could remember off the top of my head, hence the comparison to a cars cost.
I dislike "I don't see why you need it" as a reason to ban something, regardless of what it is. Again, an additional fee and the ability to demonstrate safe use of the weapon should be enough. If you want to hit something, go for the sub machine guns.
Would a subset of rules that are to be passed be a good idea?
Fight smart, not fair.Deboss, I disagree with you on almost every point. This is going to be difficult. For one thing, are you telling me if a citizen is rich enough, they will be allowed to buy military-grade weapons, and, say, equip their private policesecurity personnel with those? That defeats the entire point of not super-taxing weapons, i.e. allwing the poor to have them too.
Then again... should the poor be equally allowed to own weaponry? If we stratify the violent crime depending on income levels, aren't they the class that resorts to violence the most? (I am asking a question here: I do not know, and a study might reveal a surprise).
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?What's wrong with poor people having weapons? Yes, they commit violent crimes more often, but you're better off trying to prevent violent crime overall rather than just trying to keep guns out of their hands. They'll just switch to knives and other weapons that are more available. If somebody has the money for a private army, they've got the money to bypass most laws. A general security firm is actually less likely to carry around rifles than the police since most private security firms do the same sort of work.
Fight smart, not fair.- It's easier to capture them and get them convicted if they use close-range weapons rather than guns. The crimes are also more difficult to commit: if you point your gun at someone unprepared, it's game over, if you point a knife, they will still be able to defend themselves. Also, knives are less accident-prone.
- If they bypass those laws, they become more vulnerable so that when their fortune changes, they will be easier to convict.
- I don't understand the logic of that last sentence.
Rent-a-cops prefer pistols over assault rifles. Less head ache inducing for everyone involved.
And by "bypass the laws" I mean "bribe everyone involved so there isn't a conviction".
And was there clarification about being within spitting distance of the US? If there's a large supply of weapons, making it harder to get a gun legally will result in people buying them illegally to avoid the headache: see DRM.
Which also reminds me, shouldn't we have something on patents and copyrights and shit? I'm personally of the opinion that you can't patent a chemical formula, only the process it's made with. Patents for medical stuff last 6 months for monopoly and then four and one half years afterward a 1% net sale pass along (I forget what the proper term is). I can't think of what to do with copyright beyond "ten years, then it's open to the public".
edited 29th Oct '10 3:27:06 AM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.
Crown Description:
These are the series that help a person get rolling with Animé. Vote up the ones you think are more essential and vote down the ones you think are less essential. Try not to duplicate entries. It will split the voting.

Remember, one province or locality might decide, like you just did, that the federal miminum isn't suitable for their area. They vote on it, they pass stricter laws that suit their needs. All I did was provide the minimum standard - they have the right to enact more stringent laws if they feel the need to - like, no class B weapons within city limits or something, for example.
^ BH: Yeah, ineffectual get's a [Non-FDA] label, harmful gets removed. So, how will we address alcohol and tobacco? Special case?
edited 28th Oct '10 1:58:17 PM by pvtnum11
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.