|
Title: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: bore on November 29, 2014, 03:37:34 PM Quote Protecting people from explosives Amendment Article VI, Clause 5 of the Third Constitution shall be amended to read: Sponsor: Windjammer Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on November 29, 2014, 03:46:11 PM Thank you Mr Speaker,
I simply can't believe this has managed to be in the constitution for a so long time. The constitution basically allows people to wear explosives bombs. Shall I explain why this is so terrible? :P I would have never believed that introducing the US second amendment right could be considered as a progress... Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Cranberry on November 29, 2014, 03:57:45 PM But #muh freedom, Senator!
I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on November 29, 2014, 04:02:37 PM But #muh freedom, Senator! I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. I have to disagree. If the amendment was just "the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed", it could be interpreted as no possible regulation of weapons. For instance, with only that, prisoners could wear arms I guess, and no one could take their weapon because that would be a violation of the constitution. The part of "well regulated militia", allows some form of gun control like forbidding prisoners from wearing guns. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: TNF on November 29, 2014, 07:05:10 PM Utterly opposed to this. If Regions have a free hand to implement bans on low-grade explosives, the only people that will still have access to them are those with the money to purchase them on the black market.
Plus, this effectively makes it possible for Regional governments (and the Federal government) to ban private ownership of fireworks. I implore the Senate to reject this attack upon our most cherished federal holiday. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on November 29, 2014, 07:16:45 PM For the record,
I would personally vote for a bill banning people from wearing explosive bombs. But this bill must be constitutional, and deleting this part of the constitution would allow that. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 30, 2014, 01:59:44 AM What is a "low potency explosive?"
Was the original justification for the present wording in the constitution based on fireworks bans? Of course be mindful of your definition of fireworks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVGQfcpNqpE&feature=player_detailpage#t=48). >:D Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Cranberry on November 30, 2014, 05:39:04 AM Well, if this applies to fireworks as well, I guess we should keep it that way... I do enjoy them, I have to say.
But #muh freedom, Senator! I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. I have to disagree. If the amendment was just "the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed", it could be interpreted as no possible regulation of weapons. For instance, with only that, prisoners could wear arms I guess, and no one could take their weapon because that would be a violation of the constitution. The part of "well regulated militia", allows some form of gun control like forbidding prisoners from wearing guns. But this could also interpreted in a way that militias may be to created if certain people feel it's for security of free state. Worst example, the KKK could have been justified with this, as they built up a "militia to secure the free state" - in their interpretation, equal rights for every human being was a threat to a free state or whatever, so I guess they could have argued that way. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 01, 2014, 08:47:49 AM Well, if this applies to fireworks as well, I guess we should keep it that way... I do enjoy them, I have to say. But #muh freedom, Senator! I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. I have to disagree. If the amendment was just "the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed", it could be interpreted as no possible regulation of weapons. For instance, with only that, prisoners could wear arms I guess, and no one could take their weapon because that would be a violation of the constitution. The part of "well regulated militia", allows some form of gun control like forbidding prisoners from wearing guns. But this could also interpreted in a way that militias may be to created if certain people feel it's for security of free state. Worst example, the KKK could have been justified with this, as they built up a "militia to secure the free state" - in their interpretation, equal rights for every human being was a threat to a free state or whatever, so I guess they could have argued that way. Cranberry, the right of liberty of association already allows KKK and the other sects like scientology :P. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Cranberry on December 01, 2014, 01:38:30 PM Well, if this applies to fireworks as well, I guess we should keep it that way... I do enjoy them, I have to say. But #muh freedom, Senator! I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. I have to disagree. If the amendment was just "the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed", it could be interpreted as no possible regulation of weapons. For instance, with only that, prisoners could wear arms I guess, and no one could take their weapon because that would be a violation of the constitution. The part of "well regulated militia", allows some form of gun control like forbidding prisoners from wearing guns. But this could also interpreted in a way that militias may be to created if certain people feel it's for security of free state. Worst example, the KKK could have been justified with this, as they built up a "militia to secure the free state" - in their interpretation, equal rights for every human being was a threat to a free state or whatever, so I guess they could have argued that way. Cranberry, the right of liberty of association already allows KKK and the other sects like scientology :P. I know that they are allowed to form, and that's not what I meant with this. My point was that the right to form "a militia" not to be "infringed", such groups could argue they are constitutionally allowed to form this militia to do whatever is necessary for them for a "free state". Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 01, 2014, 01:43:26 PM Well, if this applies to fireworks as well, I guess we should keep it that way... I do enjoy them, I have to say. But #muh freedom, Senator! I cannot possibly argue in opposition of this, so I am of course in favour of this. Why did they even put low explosives in the constiution in the first place? Anyway, I'd also rather see that "well regulated militia" part, that could be interpreted quite too wrong for our taste. After all, who would establish what is necessary for this free state? Better I guess just limiting this to the right to keep and bear arms, without the militia part. I have to disagree. If the amendment was just "the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed", it could be interpreted as no possible regulation of weapons. For instance, with only that, prisoners could wear arms I guess, and no one could take their weapon because that would be a violation of the constitution. The part of "well regulated militia", allows some form of gun control like forbidding prisoners from wearing guns. But this could also interpreted in a way that militias may be to created if certain people feel it's for security of free state. Worst example, the KKK could have been justified with this, as they built up a "militia to secure the free state" - in their interpretation, equal rights for every human being was a threat to a free state or whatever, so I guess they could have argued that way. Cranberry, the right of liberty of association already allows KKK and the other sects like scientology :P. I know that they are allowed to form, and that's not what I meant with this. My point was that the right to form "a militia" not to be "infringed", such groups could argue they are constitutionally allowed to form this militia to do whatever is necessary for them for a "free state". This is the second amendment in the USA for more than 2 centuries, so don't worry about that :P. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 01, 2014, 04:05:34 PM I honestly don't feel like we really need militia's either in this day and age, but whatever.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 01, 2014, 04:06:21 PM I honestly don't feel like we really need militia's either in this day and age, but whatever. But without this part, prisoners could basically claim their right of wearing weapons in jail :P Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Donerail on December 01, 2014, 04:40:55 PM What is a "low potency explosive?" Was the original justification for the present wording in the constitution based on fireworks bans? I'd assume it would be. A low-potency explosive is an explosive where the reaction wave travels through the explosive at subsonic speeds - including most fireworks, as well as gunpowder, but excluding high explosives like TNT and dynamite. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 01, 2014, 04:43:12 PM What is a "low potency explosive?" Was the original justification for the present wording in the constitution based on fireworks bans? I'd assume it would be. A low-potency explosive is an explosive where the reaction wave travels through the explosive at subsonic speeds - including most fireworks, as well as gunpowder, but excluding high explosives like TNT and dynamite. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: bore on December 01, 2014, 04:56:52 PM The major problem with the current passage is it's very plausible that it invalidates every single regulation on guns and low potency explosives,.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 01, 2014, 04:59:30 PM The major problem with the current passage is it's very plausible that it invalidates every single regulation on guns and low potency explosives,. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 02, 2014, 01:06:20 AM Isn't there a legal term like "reasonable limiting factor"?
I love the strict constructionalism on the part of the left these days. :P Perhaps that was the end goal of right wing judicial activism. >:D Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Cranberry on December 02, 2014, 09:26:17 AM Well, since this problem could arise, at least I would have no problem with repealing this clause as a whole :P
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Donerail on December 02, 2014, 10:50:14 AM What is a "low potency explosive?" Was the original justification for the present wording in the constitution based on fireworks bans? I'd assume it would be. A low-potency explosive is an explosive where the reaction wave travels through the explosive at subsonic speeds - including most fireworks, as well as gunpowder, but excluding high explosives like TNT and dynamite. I'm not sure what you mean by "explosive bomb". The major problem with the current passage is it's very plausible that it invalidates every single regulation on guns and low potency explosives,. Clause 3 of Article VI allows the Atlasian government to deprive its citizens of their liberties with due process of law (ex: if they are convicted of a crime and imprisoned). Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 02, 2014, 02:08:34 PM What is a "low potency explosive?" Was the original justification for the present wording in the constitution based on fireworks bans? I'd assume it would be. A low-potency explosive is an explosive where the reaction wave travels through the explosive at subsonic speeds - including most fireworks, as well as gunpowder, but excluding high explosives like TNT and dynamite. I'm not sure what you mean by "explosive bomb". The major problem with the current passage is it's very plausible that it invalidates every single regulation on guns and low potency explosives,. Clause 3 of Article VI allows the Atlasian government to deprive its citizens of their liberties with due process of law (ex: if they are convicted of a crime and imprisoned). http://www.dmdiffusionboutique.fr/mines-grenades/473-grenade-explosive-a-billes-.html For example? Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Bacon King on December 02, 2014, 03:47:54 PM Ok, it took me a while but I managed to track down exactly when the "low potency explosives" part was added to the Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21580.0); it was an amendment proposed by Sam Spade waay back in 2005. Nobody ever really made an argument as to why it was in any way necessary. Various Senators implied their interpretation of "low-potency explosives" to mean "M80s, fireworks, dynamite, etc", "RPGs and artilery grenades", or anything that is only "capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon".
So yeah this should really be abolished ASAP Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Deus Naturae on December 03, 2014, 12:55:52 AM This is necessary to prevent people from being harassed for using recreational fireworks. The KKK would just purchase explosives on the black market if they wanted them.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 03, 2014, 05:48:50 PM Ok, it took me a while but I managed to track down exactly when the "low potency explosives" part was added to the Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21580.0); it was an amendment proposed by Sam Spade waay back in 2005. Nobody ever really made an argument as to why it was in any way necessary. Various Senators implied their interpretation of "low-potency explosives" to mean "M80s, fireworks, dynamite, etc", "RPGs and artilery grenades", or anything that is only "capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon". So yeah this should really be abolished ASAP Hilarious debate. I find it hard to disagree with my mentor Jedi though: That's true, but to me this amendment only makes things worse for them. BTW, I'm thinking more along the lines of a Tim McVeigh style terrorist more than any hidden al-Qaeda cells, as they're a heck of a lot harder to spot as being a terrorist, and a lot more likely to own a personal arsenal without having been asked a lot of questions first. Must I remind you that even without the amendment reading, low-potency explosives, and with regulations against explosives, people like McVeigh can still easily get a hold of bomb making material. You have to remember that the Oklahoma City bomb was made out of fertilizer. Colin makes a good point, if people want to get explosives that will kill tons of people then there's really no stopping them. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: bore on December 03, 2014, 05:51:40 PM Colin makes a good point, if people want to get child porn then there's really no stopping them.
Basically that our prevention won't work 100% of the time is no reason not to at least try. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 03, 2014, 06:02:53 PM Colin makes a good point, if people want to get child porn then there's really no stopping them. Basically that our prevention won't work 100% of the time is no reason not to at least try. Sorry, seemed to be an acceptable justification in other policy areas. :P And now AngryGreatness and company is not a reference to immigration, though it can be if you would like that Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 03, 2014, 06:04:04 PM I would support defining low potency explosives.
On the other hand, the argument I saw in the 2005 debate thread about regions handling the matter sounds appealing provided that the Senate can keep its groper nasties of the fan here. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: bore on December 04, 2014, 07:25:46 AM It's important to remember that most laws aren't aimed at stopping the completely determined- they're aimed at the much larger group of waverers, who might or might not do it.
For instance, in Britain a common method of suicide is taking a paracetamol overdose, and about ten years ago (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910)the british government reduced the maximum size of a paracetamol pack, and related deaths fell by about 40%, equivalent to about 765 lives. If you really wanted to overdose on paracetamol you could still buy enough by going around different shops, stockpiling etc, or you could try a different method, but most people (thankfully) don't. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 04, 2014, 12:05:34 PM So you're going to let people wear "grenades" in order to protect fireworks?
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: Cranberry on December 04, 2014, 12:50:06 PM So you're going to let people wear "grenades" in order to protect fireworks? As I stated, I would be perfectly fine with repealing that whole article :P Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: bore on December 06, 2014, 08:38:16 AM There's been no debate for more than 36 hours and I can't see anywhere else this can go so I'm opening a final vote.
Senators, a final vote is now open on this amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Debating) Post by: windjammer on December 06, 2014, 08:44:43 AM AYE
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Bacon King on December 06, 2014, 12:51:32 PM Aye
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: TNF on December 06, 2014, 02:23:33 PM Nay (pro-July 4th)
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: bore on December 06, 2014, 02:36:21 PM Aye
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 06, 2014, 03:34:25 PM Nay (pro-July 4th) It would make our second amendment verbadem with the U.S. Constituition iirc. How are you constrewing this as an anti-July 4th amendment? Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 06, 2014, 11:14:24 PM NAY
Like I said, I would support a restrictive definition of low-potency explosive or replacement with some other terminology. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Deus Naturae on December 07, 2014, 03:09:59 AM Nay
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 07, 2014, 03:58:53 AM AYE
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: windjammer on December 07, 2014, 05:13:26 AM Nay (pro-July 4th) --------------------- NAY Like I said, I would support a restrictive definition of low-potency explosive or replacement with some other terminology. Yankee, you should know that considering how this is vague, there is nothing that forbides dynamites. I'm saddened to see you're going to let people basically wearing grenades just in order to protect this crazy part of the constitution. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Cranberry on December 07, 2014, 06:47:05 AM Aye
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 07, 2014, 03:18:37 PM Could you give further clarification as to your nay vote? I'm kinda baffled with why the center-right senators being opposed while it specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms(firearms and low potency explosives) is this an issue of interpretation? Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: TNF on December 07, 2014, 11:03:01 PM A firework is a low-potency explosive.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 08, 2014, 02:19:21 AM A firework is a low-potency explosive. Then how does this amendment construe the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms? Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: TNF on December 08, 2014, 09:27:59 AM A firework is a low-potency explosive. Then how does this amendment construe the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms? Are you even on this planet right now? I really wonder that when I read your posts here, given that you seem to have never read anything you're arguing about. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: bore on December 08, 2014, 04:08:19 PM This closes in about 14 hours JCL
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 08, 2014, 06:36:56 PM Aye
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 08, 2014, 11:52:23 PM A firework is a low-potency explosive. Then how does this amendment construe the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms? The Atlasian language is far less constricting, and does not contain a potentially purpose driven limitation, which many on the left have used to justify gun control. It also allows for the banning of fireworks. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: Deus Naturae on December 09, 2014, 12:16:19 AM Could you give further clarification as to your nay vote? I'm kinda baffled with why the center-right senators being opposed while it specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms(firearms and low potency explosives) is this an issue of interpretation? Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Voting) Post by: bore on December 09, 2014, 08:46:07 AM By a vote of 6-3 this amendment has passed and is sent to the regions for ratification:
Aye: Bore, Polnut, JCL, Windjammer, Bacon King, Cranberry Nay: Yankee, TNF, Deus Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Oakvale on December 09, 2014, 11:18:29 AM lmao JCL voting for this
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 10, 2014, 07:31:30 PM Motion to switch my vote to nay.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: bore on December 10, 2014, 07:46:26 PM Quote 1. Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 3 days (i.e. 72 hours). 2. When a piece of legislation has enough votes to pass or fail, the office in control of the legislative slot shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 24 hours and that any Senator who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval. 3. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the president, the bill's sponsor may request an override of the veto within 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, of the veto taking place. The Speaker may extend this period if the bill's sponsor is on a publicly-declared leave of absence. 4. For the purposes of overriding vetoes, any Senator who abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote against overriding the veto. Given a vote can only last 72 hours, and JCL's switching was after 72 hours had passed, the amendment has still passed. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Oakvale on December 10, 2014, 07:56:36 PM fúcking lol
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 14, 2014, 02:52:21 PM My Nay vote stands at least in the place where it really counts. As a citizen of the Mideast Region.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Oakvale on December 14, 2014, 04:07:30 PM Perhaps you should have voted "Nay" where it really counts, as Senator, in which case this proposal that you oppose would not have gone to the regions in the first place.
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 14, 2014, 05:59:16 PM Perhaps you should have voted "Nay" where it really counts, as Senator, in which case this proposal that you oppose would not have gone to the regions in the first place. And that was my mistake for sure. Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: windjammer on July 12, 2017, 07:02:20 PM Dear god good memories hahahahahaha
Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 12, 2017, 07:05:35 PM Damn it Jambles, now when I go digging for this I won't be able to find it. :P
By a vote of 6-3 this amendment has passed and is sent to the regions for ratification: Aye: Bore, Polnut, JCL, Windjammer, Bacon King, Cranberry Nay: Yankee, TNF, Deus Talk about a match made in hell! Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: windjammer on July 12, 2017, 07:08:58 PM Damn it Jambles, now when I go digging for this I won't be able to find it. :P By a vote of 6-3 this amendment has passed and is sent to the regions for ratification: Aye: Bore, Polnut, JCL, Windjammer, Bacon King, Cranberry Nay: Yankee, TNF, Deus Talk about a match made in hell! Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 12, 2017, 08:55:56 PM Damn it Jambles, now when I go digging for this I won't be able to find it. :P By a vote of 6-3 this amendment has passed and is sent to the regions for ratification: Aye: Bore, Polnut, JCL, Windjammer, Bacon King, Cranberry Nay: Yankee, TNF, Deus Talk about a match made in hell! Oh you devil! >:D Title: Re: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed) Post by: Sestak on October 28, 2018, 01:13:26 AM GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LMAO THIS IS GREAT |