The PCNation

[Somewhere_]

1. How about no? Arming citizens is a sure fire way to lose a shitload of citizens. It's precisely this that's wrong with America's current stance on gun control and I don't want our nation to be anything like that. I don't want to see anything like the second amendment in our constitution please.

2. Agreed. Very agreed. Sorry BadSheep but it looks like you're outvoted xD

3. This isn't really something we're talking about right now. This is something to bring up once we start working with bills.

1. Why shouldn't legal citizens own firearms? Doesnt that just disarm law-abiding citizens and not criminals? Why have statistics shown areas with more civilian owned guns are safer than those with none? Please explain.

2. Yep! Im outvoted here haha. I would have to agree with Kanzler, unless there is a solution to protecting the poor and ownership corruption, private police firms will not work.

3. I am still not convinced natural monopolies can occur (I still need to look into Rockefeller), but it will be a good fallback just in case one occurs. I agree.

 

[gimmepie]

1. Why shouldn't legal citizens own firearms? Doesnt that just disarm law-abiding citizens and not criminals? Why have statistics shown areas with more civilian owned guns are safer than those with none? Please explain.

2. Yep! Im outvoted here haha. I would have to agree with Kanzler, unless there is a solution to protecting the poor and ownership corruption, private police firms will not work.

3. I am still not convinced natural monopolies can occur (I still need to look into Rockefeller), but it will be a good fallback just in case one occurs. I agree.

I don't disagree with civilians having the ability to own a firearm if they have a legitimate reason for doing so. However I don't like the idea of "armed" civilians in the sense that you seem to want. I don't know what statistics you're looking at, but the fact that countries with better gun control have less massacres than places like the US where there's an overabundance of firearms and a trigger-happy culture speaks enough to me. If we want people to be able to own guns, within reason, I'm okay with that but I don't want a right to bear arms in the constitution like the US because it prevents reasonable restrictions of gun-possession and gives fanatics too much leverage over the government.

 

[Nah]

What exactly do we mean by "armed" citizens? Armed to me simply means they possess a weapon.

Anyway, I typed up a bit of **** for the basic structure of PCNation's government:

Basic Structure of the Government of the PCNation

-Government Type: Representative Democracy
-Economy Type: Capitalist

-Federal government is divided into 3 branches:

1. Executive Branch
   -Purpose: Implement laws and such created by the legislative branch, lead the nation
   -Comprised of President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Hierarch/Big Kahuna/whatever, the Vice-President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Hierarch/Big Kahuna/whatever, and a Board of Advisers
   -President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Hierarch/Big Kahuna/whatever: highest power/position of the Executive Branch, is elected in a vote by the people every 4 years, maximum of 2 terms
   -Vice-President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/Hierarch/Big Kahuna/whatever: can we please make this position be something more than in the US where the VP is basically just the President's understudy
   -Board of Advisers: self-explanatory, meant to act as an advisement council for the above two positions, one adviser per major department
   
2. Legislative Branch
   -Purpose: to create new laws and edit existing ones
   -Unicameral (single house) legislature, 2 representatives per each state/province/region of PCNation
   -Representatives elected by the people every 5 years, maximum of 3 terms per representative
   
3. Judicial Branch
   -Purpose: enforce laws created by legislative branch
   -each level of court can override the one below it
   -the top level federal court has 5 judges on it.....maybe elected by the people?

Most of that's not really set in stone and is meant to be added on to and edited via input from y'all. Sorry if it's a little too American for some of you, I just wanted to get the ball rolling on this part of the thing and this is all I could think of =(

 

[Kanzler]

Judges shouldn't be be elected by the people. The judges represent the constitution and the law, which are above people's opinions (generally speaking). Judges should not be judging based on what the people want.

Also. A presidential or parliamentary system?

 

[Dusty]

In terms of gun laws, I think there are two ways of doing it. The first would be to limit gun ownership, but to allow citizens to have guns for a logical cause, i.e. hunting, personal protection, etc. This is essentially what most countries, America being one of them, has. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw that most countries have in this is that obtaining a permit to own a gun is very easy. To prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, citizens should have to go through background checks in order to actually own a gun. For example, many of the shootings that have taken place have either terrorist roots, or are the result of a psychological issue such as depression, or other causes. Citizens should have to go through intensive background checks in order to own a gun, and those guns should be required to be locked up or have a trigger lock unless a citizen is planning on using them.

The second would be similar to what the government of Switzerland does, where what they essentially do is train a militia where all citizens of a certain age are required to go through certain military and gun safety training, and they are all given a weapon that after service they are allowed to keep (although rifles must be altered to only be semi-auto). I suppose the logic with this is that if everyone has a gun, people are much less inclined to commit crimes. Once again, background checks going through history and psychological state would be required.

As for the judicial system, I think that the court system should be appointed by the government, particularly the legislative branch. I think that it would be a better idea for a group of people to make selections rather than the one decision of the executive branch which may be biased.

 

[Kanzler]

In terms of gun laws, I think there are two ways of doing it. The first would be to limit gun ownership, but to allow citizens to have guns for a logical cause, i.e. hunting, personal protection, etc. This is essentially what most countries, America being one of them, has. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw that most countries have in this is that obtaining a permit to own a gun is very easy. To prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, citizens should have to go through background checks in order to actually own a gun. For example, many of the shootings that have taken place have either terrorist roots, or are the result of a psychological issue such as depression, or other causes. Citizens should have to go through intensive background checks in order to own a gun, and those guns should be required to be locked up or have a trigger lock unless a citizen is planning on using them.

The people should be allowed to have guns, or anything else for that matter, to the extent that their possession do not present a threat to public safety. Gun ownership should be controlled, and guns should be registered. Very much like children, we would not like to have guns that we don't know about.

The second would be similar to what the government of Switzerland does, where what they essentially do is train a militia where all citizens of a certain age are required to go through certain military and gun safety training, and they are all given a weapon that after service they are allowed to keep (although rifles must be altered to only be semi-auto). I suppose the logic with this is that if everyone has a gun, people are much less inclined to commit crimes. Once again, background checks going through history and psychological state would be required.

Swiss men do not form a militia, they are conscripts. I would like to avoid that kind of government coercion if possible. I don't like the idea of forcing people to join the military unless it's an issue of survival. I don't see the value of that logic of gun ownership. It makes sense only if everyone has a gun, that everyone would need a gun. Here in Canada, we're allowed to have guns but they're hard to get. So I feel perfectly safe not having a gun myself, since it is the lowest of likelihoods that I would be accosted by someone carrying a gun. If I lived in a country where everyone can get guns freely already, then I would not be able to afford that kind of peace of mind. Guns are kind of like nuclear weapons - when everybody has one, you'd be damned not to have them. But if nobody has nukes, then you are damned if you do. Since we'll be starting up a new country, let's start it right by not playing with the fire of a society teeming with unregulated firearms.

As for the judicial system, I think that the court system should be appointed by the government, particularly the legislative branch. I think that it would be a better idea for a group of people to make selections rather than the one decision of the executive branch which may be biased.

If we want a fair and separate judiciary, then your proposal will simply give us the opposite. The judiciary should be beholden to neither the whims of the people nor to the whims of those the people elect. It would not be prudent to give the responsibility of selecting judges to any one branch, rather it would be best to have a multi-step process involving a council with members representing all three branches of government. The people who decide who becomes a supreme court judge will not be nominating those candidates.

 

[Kanzler]

Regarding the guns matter, in countries like mine (Argentina) it's really difficult for a civilian to get a gun, however, thugs and thieves doesn't seem to have that problem. Someone who isn't afraid of breaking the laws will have more chances of getting a gun, than an honest citizen who works hard.

I agree with Kanzler, i don't like the idea of forcing people to join the military. But i also get Stardust's point. Regardless of how we implement our laws, bad people will always have the greater chance of getting a gun. I really don't think the US problem is that guns are easy to get, i actually think that helps. Of course, i don't mean we allow convenience stores to sell guns, i'm just saying we shouldn't make them too hard to get.

I don't believe that guns will ever be too hard to get as long as you don't outright ban them. I think it's wise to only allow those who are deserving to have guns. Part of the US problem is that guns are easy to get. What scant regulations there already are are thrown out the window at a gun show. Guns aren't registered. You can sell a gun to anybody, even criminal elements, and nobody would know the difference. How are the police to fight gun crime when guns are everywhere?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

1. How about no? Arming citizens is a sure fire way to lose a shitload of citizens. It's precisely this that's wrong with America's current stance on gun control and I don't want our nation to be anything like that. I don't want to see anything like the second amendment in our constitution please.

How about yes. Cities with more gun control have more crimes than those with less gun control. You would not go rob a bank if, per say, 50% of the populous has a gun and concealed carry license, now would you? It would be a sure fire way to get killed. And besides, banning guns doesn't stop criminals from smuggling them. Just look at Paris; how did those terrorists get those guns? Smuggling them. If Paris had moderate gun control and no outright ban of guns, those terrorists at the Bataclan could've been dead with less casualties.

Another thing; these statistics are true. Go check Chicago's gun crime and another city. I picked San Antonio (which has lax gun laws), and is it a coincidence that Chicago happens to have more than 4 times the amount of murders as well ares more assaults? (Assaults would be using 2012 statistics, but w/e. Rest were 2013.)

How about another; Atlanta, Georgia? Does it happen to also be a coincidence that Atlanta has less gun control than Chicago, but yet less murders? Seems legit.

Citations:
San Antonio
Chicago
Atlanta

 

[Somewhere_]

I don't disagree with civilians having the ability to own a firearm if they have a legitimate reason for doing so. However I don't like the idea of "armed" civilians in the sense that you seem to want. I don't know what statistics you're looking at, but the fact that countries with better gun control have less massacres than places like the US where there's an overabundance of firearms and a trigger-happy culture speaks enough to me. If we want people to be able to own guns, within reason, I'm okay with that but I don't want a right to bear arms in the constitution like the US because it prevents reasonable restrictions of gun-possession and gives fanatics too much leverage over the government.

Debunking some common gun control myths:
https://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

Comparing homicide rates before and after gun bans:
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Number of homocides in 2013: About 16,000. About 11,000 of those were done with firearms. Between years 2000 and 2013, there have been 418 deaths from mass shootings. Mass shootings only seem bad because they are blown up by the media (they makes a lot of money!!!).

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

 

[Kanzler]

You two are missing the point. American society is rife with guns, that's why any change has the potential to backfire. PC Nation is an attempt to start a society anew. So why bother with all these examples of American cities? We can compare PC Nation to the United States after we've armed everybody and made guns easy to get. Not that we'd want to do that, anyways.

Number of homocides in 2013: About 16,000. About 11,000 of those were done with firearms. Between years 2000 and 2013, there have been 418 deaths from mass shootings. Mass shootings only seem bad because they are blown up by the media (they makes a lot of money!!!).

Jesus ****ing christ mate, do you hear yourself here? Mass shootings only seem bad? That's outrageous.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, that's kind of messed up.

We should discuss more important matters first, as the judges election process.

I think 5 judges is fine to start with, but i hope you agree with this: I would like it to be stated in the same article, that as the country grows the number of judges could be expanded.

Regular judges or supreme court judges? We'll have as many regular judges as we need. But for the supreme court, a number like 5, 7, or 9 will do. Can't have too many or too few.

 

[gimmepie]

The highest court should probably have five or seven I'd say, definitely an odd number for the obvious reason.

As for the gun-control issue, I think that Kanzler has pretty much covered it but I would like to remind you that
a)Chicago is also probably a larger city, therefore it has more people and also more criminals.
b)We aren't the US, if there's not guns everywhere to begin with, nothing you've brought up is relevant.

 

[Somewhere_]

You two are missing the point. American society is rife with guns, that's why any change has the potential to backfire. PC Nation is an attempt to start a society anew. So why bother with all these examples of American cities? We can compare PC Nation to the United States after we've armed everybody and made guns easy to get. Not that we'd want to do that, anyways.



Jesus ****ing christ mate, do you hear yourself here? Mass shootings only seem bad? That's outrageous.

Im sorry! I meant the media makes them seem more frequent than they really are. Im really sorry for the confusion! I am not heartless. Mass shootings are horrible.

Ok, so the country starts with no fire-arms within the nation. How will we prevent illegal weapons from entering the country? Again, gun control will not solve this issue, but only make a defenseless population. What if our government becomes a tyranny? How else will the people defend themselves?

 

[gimmepie]

Im sorry! I meant the media makes them seem more frequent than they really are. Im really sorry for the confusion! I am not heartless. Mass shootings are horrible.

Ok, so the country starts with no fire-arms within the nation. How will we prevent illegal weapons from entering the country? Again, gun control will not solve this issue, but only make a defenseless population. What if our government becomes a tyranny? How else will the people defend themselves?

1. We have a police force. It's their job to carry the guns and to make life/death decisions. Untrained civilians shouldn't be expected or encouraged to behave like the law.

2. If our government becomes a tyranny, which is pretty hard to do in a competent democracy, then the people having easy access to a 9mm isn't going to matter because as the government we'll have tanks and drones. That argument only ever made sense in ages passed when the best people could do was a musket or a revolver.

 

[Sword Master]

I live in the UK, and arming citizens is a stupid thing to do. This will not be like America where you are scared of getting shot every time you walk out of the door, also coming after the shooting in California by IS affiliated people and nobody fought back shows how useless arming citizens is, and it kills more people than it saves.

 

[gimmepie]

Ok, that covers it i think.

What else is there to discuss?

Political parties. Are we looking at having a multi-party system or would we rather a partyless system of government? I can see advantages to both sides there.

 

[Somewhere_]

1. We have a police force. It's their job to carry the guns and to make life/death decisions. Untrained civilians shouldn't be expected or encouraged to behave like the law.

2. If our government becomes a tyranny, which is pretty hard to do in a competent democracy, then the people having easy access to a 9mm isn't going to matter because as the government we'll have tanks and drones. That argument only ever made sense in ages passed when the best people could do was a musket or a revolver.

1. Police forces are clean up crews. The crime has already begin committed, or in the case of larger-scale attacks, many people are already dead by the time they show up. You can't rely on police: its like saying you dont need fire extinguishers because you have fire fighters.

2. Having access to assault weapons might help. And of course we would have a disadvantage, but guerrilla warfare is probably our best strategy. Well our representative democracy in America is already stripping us of our freedoms, so I do not see why ours in PC Nation wouldnt as well. Eventually America will be corrupt (it will take a while), and PC Nation can go down that route as well.

3. There are many weapons bans in California, which is why no civilian fought back. "you are scared of getting shot whenever you walk out of the door" That is a stereotype. That is true in many areas, but in most places, it is not. In addition, guns are actually used significantly more to save lives than to hurt them. https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm @Steel Master

4. Chicago is a larger city, which of course brings in more crime. However, you can't deny that the statistics show more crime after the weapons ban. And gun free zones do not work either.

Political parties: Im against them, but they seem fun to partake in haha. The issue is, it would divide our nation and prevent or delay many decisions from being made within our government.

 

[gimmepie]

1. Police forces are clean up crews. The crime has already begin committed, or in the case of larger-scale attacks, many people are already dead by the time they show up. You can't rely on police: its like saying you dont need fire extinguishers because you have fire fighters.

2. Having access to assault weapons might help. And of course we would have a disadvantage, but guerrilla warfare is probably our best strategy. Well our representative democracy in America is already stripping us of our freedoms, so I do not see why ours in PC Nation wouldnt as well. Eventually America will be corrupt (it will take a while), and PC Nation can go down that route as well.

3. There are many weapons bans in California, which is why no civilian fought back. "you are scared of getting shot whenever you walk out of the door" That is a stereotype. That is true in many areas, but in most places, it is not. In addition, guns are actually used significantly more to save lives than to hurt them. https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm @Steel Master

4. Chicago is a larger city, which of course brings in more crime. However, you can't deny that the statistics show more crime after the weapons ban. And gun free zones do not work either.

Political parties: Im against them, but they seem fun to partake in haha. The issue is, it would divide our nation and prevent or delay many decisions from being made within our government.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a...acuated-after-man-enters-rye-bakery-with-gun/

Meanwhile in the country without legions of armed civilians, nobody died. Just imagine how much better this situation would have ended if the 69-year-old woman mentioned had an ak-47.

Edit: Not to mention the website you linked to as a reference is literally a site for gun owners. I'm sure there's no bias there at all.

 

[Nah]

As long as the political parties thing isn't like how it is in America I'm good.

 

[Somewhere_]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a...acuated-after-man-enters-rye-bakery-with-gun/

Meanwhile in the country without legions of armed civilians, nobody died. Just imagine how much better this situation would have ended if the 69-year-old woman mentioned had an ak-47.

Edit: Not to mention the website you linked to as a reference is literally a site for gun owners. I'm sure there's no bias there at all.

Well the link I gave you listed statistics and listed the sources for these statistics. They aren't made up or fudged.

No one died because the man with the gun had no intention to kill them. If he had the intention to kill them, he would have. And how did he get that gun? I thought they were banned. And not every case is going to end up peacefully like this one.