|
Banning the Lightsaber
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009, 0:04 AM | Message # 1 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| I propose that the lightsaber be considered a prohibited weapon. It is a cruel and uncivilized weapon; in the wrong hands, it is clumsy and random. In the right hands—that is, one who is proficient in the so called "art" of lightsaber butchery—it is even worse. Untold hundreds of people have been gruesomely dismembered with lightsabers in the last decade and, of them, almost all died of their wounds. At least 90% of lightsaber wounds are fatal, Senators. It is truly a crude, savage, barbaric, ruthless, sadistic, primitive, wicked weapon of an ancient and bloody past. But Sir Reuke, the Jedi use lightsabers! Yes, but Senators, please think critically; just because the Jedi are our "friends" does not make them above the law (nor, indeed, are any of our friends). I also question the symbolism of the lightsaber—if the Jedi are truly the benevolent guardians of peace and justice as they claim to be, why not use stun blasters, or stun batons, or energy shields? Why use a weapon whose primary application is to grotesquely disembowl or dismember your opponents? The lightsaber also requires the Force to truly wield in a competent fashion, but I ask: is it not a tragic misuse of the Force, a majestic energy field that binds all living things together, to use it as a mere weapon to tear those living things apart limb from bloody limb? Under this bill, the manufacture, posession, and use of a lightsaber will be considered against the law. I vote in favor, and even if this measure fails, Brentaal will pursue similar legislation of its own.
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 11:26 AM | Message # 2 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist, I have long respected many of your views. You are a brilliant statesman, but in this case, I must ask: are you mad? Did you propose this bill simply to create a rift between the Senate and the Jedi? Yes, the lightsaber has caused many dismemberments, but if you look closely, those wielded by Jedi only dismembered sentients who were attempting to assault said Jedi. This would strip the Jedi of their primary tool against those who wield lightsabers to cause destruction. It is the duty of the strong to oppose those who threaten the weak, Senator Cambrist. This duty has fallen to the Jedi in many cases. I believe that peace is often kept by the threat of the sword. As such, I vote against this measure.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 3:56 PM | Message # 3 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| As with the Life Day measure and he Spice Bill, Senator Ryuun, you have left many, if not all, of my points unaddressed and voted based on sentimentality and not rationality. I ask again why stun blasters, stun batons, and energy shields do not suffice? I also question, considering that one Jedi can grotesquely dismember 100 stormtroopers in the span of one hour, exactly who is defending oneself under this scenario, and who is the aggressor? It seems, decidedly, lopsided. But even if the Jedi in question were defending himself, why is it that the Force is not applied in any one of a hundred non-lethal—and humane—methods to dispatch his foes? Your argument, Senator, is filled with logical inconsistencies. If a weapon is as cruel, primitive, and wicked as this one, it should be banned to protect the public from whomever might use it. To invoke the Jedi in the manner that Senator Ryuun has done is to make an exception to the law out of convenience; this is not how justice works, and it is unseemly for a Senator to argue such. I remain in favor of the motion.
Message edited by Reuke_Cambrist - Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 3:57 PM |
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 4:19 PM | Message # 4 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Senator Cambrist, stun batons, stun blasters and energy shields would be inefficient at dispatching stormtroopers in one hour. As far as I am concerned, the lightsaber is a far more humane weapon than a blaster, as well as more efficient. Blasters require recharging. Their shots can be deflected. Indeed, the damage they do is often non-fatal and more horrendous in wounding than a lightsaber. Furthermore, from my understanding, extensive use of the Force can tire a Jedi after a time. Lightsaber dismemberment, while unpleasant to consider, can actually leave someone alive for questioning, or remove a threat without the need for killing. Stun weapons are not always as precise or easy to use. If aything, they strike me as more cumbersome in some cases. A lightsaber can also do things the aforementioned tools cannot, such as open doors, or carve off the leg of an AT-AT. Once again, Senator, if we take these able weapons out of the hands of our defenders, how will we be protected when those who mean us great harm come for us with these now-outlawed weapons?
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 4:59 PM | Message # 5 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| To dispense with your first argument; because something is efficient does not make it okay. Parking wherever I want—on rooftops, sidewalks, parks, etc.—is more efficient for me, but there are good reasons why the law forbids this. To use a more relevant example, a disruptor rifle is a tremendously efficient weapon, but it is banned because it is cruel (even the Empire prohibited it for this reason, and they were not exactly a bastion of morality). To dispense with your second point; over 90% of recorded lightsaber wounds are fatal. The statistics speak for themselves. Stun weapons, while perhaps "inefficient" (although, in fact, I believe they are efficient) are ethical. Also, it is not terribly difficult to bring down an "AT-AT." A strong breeze can do so. But I digress. On to your third point; if the lightsaber is illegal, any instances in which one manufactures, uses, or possesses one can be prosecuted. If anything, this measure will stop lunatics with lightsabers because their weapon of choice will have become more rare, and easy to identify (in addition, lightsaber components can be regulated if need be, to stop their proliferation). Also, since the second half of your point specifically involves "defense," I note that energy shields can be as effective as a lightsaber, if not more so, in defending against another lightsaber. This, combined with stun weapons—against which lightsabers are powerless—is entirely adequate. With respect, I certainly do not accept your argument that the solution to too many dangerous weapons is to have more of them.
Message edited by Reuke_Cambrist - Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 5:10 PM |
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Friday, 18 Dec 2009, 11:49 PM | Message # 6 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| This is simply the latest in Senator Cambrist's long, sad line of measures designed to gratify his prejudice against the Jedi. I vote against, because this adds unnecessary tension to our relationship with the Jedi Academy at a time that it is already suffering from strain (largely from the undeserved, incendiary criticism of certain politicians. Senator Cambrist, the Imperial Remnant no longer persecutes the Jedi, but you do. Admiral Pellaeon "deeply respects" them, but you don't. I mention this to point out that you are even more extreme on this subject than our erstwhile enemies, and thus I see no reason to take seriously any of your discriminatory measures).
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 1:39 AM | Message # 7 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Senator Vanden, there are, impressively, three non sequiturs in your quite brief remarks; an ad hominem fallacy, a fallacy of relevance, and an argumentum ad consequentiam. With regard to the former, your attack is upon me and my motives, not the measure I've proposed (about which you've said nothing). You have, thus, posited reasons to dislike Reuke Cambrist, not reasons to vote against his bill. Your mention of the bill's consequences, also, do not mention the bill's merits. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, ergo a proverbial red herring. Unless you have a substantive criticism of the bill, I say good day to you, Sir—let us adults continue discussing the measure while you, presumably, go write the latest in your long, sad line of priggish prat that you present as bills. Perhaps try not to write your next one in crayon.
Message edited by Reuke_Cambrist - Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 1:49 AM |
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 1:54 AM | Message # 8 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| Mr. President, I believe Mr. Cambrist must be called to order. And despite his apparently encyclopedic knowledge of logical fallacies, let the record show it is he who is acting like a child, and throwing a tantrum. I will not dignify his remarks.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 2:04 AM | Message # 9 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| If I'm to be called to order, I demand Senator Vanden is as well for slandering my motives as a basis for discrediting my proposal. Then let us be done with these childish antics, so that we can return to discussing this measure in a reasoned manner.
|
| |
| |
| Ilanah_Thanatos | Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 4:34 AM | Message # 10 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 891
Status: Offline
| I am in disbelief that yet again you would attempt to pass another senseless bill such as this. The Jedi are not only our friends, but also allies who mean to protect the people from anyone who should do them harm. Taking away their favored weapon, which is not an uncivilized weapon but one of elegance and control, is an unacceptable act. I also vote against this measure.
Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 9:14 AM | Message # 11 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| President Gavrisom, as there is nobody other than Senator Cambrist who actually supports this measure (at least so far), and seeing as how three Senators have voted against, I request that this bill be closed and dismissed. An embarrassment such as this should not even be debated upon in these great halls while actual troubles plague our systems.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 12:55 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| I'm sure Senator Ryuun's mention of "actual troubles" will come as great comfort to the hundreds of beings without limbs, or with horrific injuries, or the families of those slain with lightsabers throughout this galaxy. And speaking of embarassments, Senator, what bills have you proposed lately? I can't seem to recall. Senator Thanatos, alas, if an old friend asks you for credits to buy their "favored" drug, let's say glitterstim spice, it is not unreasonable to say no to them. Glitterstim is dangerous. It is illegal. There comes a point where a friendship is abused, Senator. There comes a point, indeed, for your friend's sake and for society as a whole, that a line must be drawn. For someone whose son is training to become a Jedi, I would think you of all people would prefer he not be at peril of grotesque, painful, terrible wounds which, in over 90% of cases, are fatal and in all cases are monstrous. If, tragically, he should lose an arm, or a hand, or a foot or a leg, I daresay he won't find much comfort that the weapon responsible is "one of elegance and control."
Message edited by Reuke_Cambrist - Sunday, 27 Dec 2009, 12:58 PM |
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 2009, 2:04 PM | Message # 13 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| I would like to support this bill. But with the following new text. "Lightsabers are prohibited for use or ownership without the Relevant Safety Training and Assessment leading to a Lightsaber License. Individuals will be assessed on skill, safety, need (for occupation) and Mental Health". "The course will consist of 30 days classroom study and 3 days of practical and written assessment. This will be implemented by local government and overseen by the Department of Education. A minimum standard to carry the weapon will be 75% in all assessments and 100% in all safety matters." "The Penalty for carrying or purchasing a lightsaber without a License will be 5 years in prison and an unlimited fine." "Individuals with prior convictions for violent or force related offences will not be eligible for the License and may under no circumstances bear a lightsaber."
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
|
| |
| |
| Jamie_the_Hutt | Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 2009, 2:10 PM | Message # 14 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 392
Status: Offline
| I will support Senator Kruus Amendment. Hooo Hooo Hooooo Many men with laser swords threaten me, and I feel that this would allow us to control who carries lightsabers. I propose two further Amendments though. "Lightsaber is defined as "A weapon that uses focused light or energy to produce a cutting edge that is sustained and man-portable" " "A Central Database will be held with the details of each individual holding a lightsaber license." meaning that if a crime happens within an area involving a lightsaber, we would be able to quickly and efficiently track down the criminal. *Jamie the Hutt picked up a delicious but anonymous piece of flesh and scrunched down on it, blood and BBQ sauce running down his rotund belly*
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 2009, 5:19 PM | Message # 15 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| This measure is slightly more acceptable with the additions Senators Kruus and Tiure have proposed. Once again though, what happens once someone figures out something more deadly than a lightsaber and is more efficient with it? We can't register every single item in the galaxy after all.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
|
