The right not to get shot amendment (Failed)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Bore

[windjammer]

For information, Article VI, section of the third Atlasian Constitution is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I strongly oppose this amendment. The right to bear arms should be considered a fundamental right in a free society. I do not trust the state with a monopoly on force.

[windjammer]

By the way, senators Lumine and TNF, you have introduced legislation before "the right not to get shot amendment". But you both face the clogging rules limit. So, no offense I hope .

[bore]

This is basically the gun control argument that we are all familiar with, so I won't go into great detail about it.

Simply put, this amendment isn't about limiting gun control, although it will give the government more leeway in legislation. This amendment is about the fact that it should not be a right to own a gun- it's more of a responsibility. Unlike with freedom of speech or freedom of religion you don't, or at least shouldn't, come out of the womb with an innate right to own a gun. Gun ownership should be treated like drinking alcohol or driving or smoking- a dangerous responsibilty, which the constitution is silent on.

[President Tyrion]

By the way, senators Lumine and TNF, you have introduced legislation before "the right not to get shot amendment". But you both face the clogging rules limit. So, no offense I hope .

Oh man, if TNF got offended every time he got up to his clogging limit, he'd have more offense built up than the German soccer team.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

By the way, senators Lumine and TNF, you have introduced legislation before "the right not to get shot amendment". But you both face the clogging rules limit. So, no offense I hope .

Oh man, if TNF got offended every time he got up to his clogging limit, he'd have more offense built up than the German soccer team.

But it does cut both ways, he has almost assuredly composed more legislation and had more legisaltion considered (even with the clogging rule) than any other Senator in at least the last three years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The right to bear arms, through my research at least, dates back to a natural right being declared as such in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution following James II's attempts to disarm militia units whom he did not trust and wisely so considering a lot of them later defected to William. Considering my hard on for the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange and all of the things that came out of it, not to mention many of the inspirations for our on Revolution are still well intact, I would not dare question "such universal principles". Principles that are in the company of such others as govenment's recognizing certain rights as fundmental, the eventual path towards liberation and equality far more so then the dictates or whims of arbitary power could ever grant, and of course government by the consent of the governed.

I believe in law and order as much as any Conservative but I also believe in checks and balances as any Conservative should, as well as fundamental, inalienable rights that are naturally bestowed upon human kind and that should only be restricted to the minimum point necessary to provide for the general security.

That would include certainly the right to defend oneself. All rights inherently come with responsbility, Senator bore. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to be an informed citizen, the right to trial by jury comes with the responsibility to serve on said juries when called and therefore the right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to follow are restrictions that are reasonable and do not form a conflict in my view this right, as well as to be well trained in the safe use of the weapons in question. We would not dream of removing the other two mentioned above, why should we countenance removing the latter on the account of it possessing an inherent responsibility?

[bore]

I've always found the possibility of armed rebellion as a defence a bit perplexing. If the government really wanted to kill you, they could do so quite easily, whether you had a dodgy rifle in you home or not.

That would include certainly the right to defend oneself. All rights inherently come with responsbility, Senator bore. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to be an informed citizen, the right to trial by jury comes with the responsibility to serve on said juries when called and therefore the right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to follow are restrictions that are reasonable and do not form a conflict in my view this right, as well as to be well trained in the safe use of the weapons in question. We would not dream of removing the other two mentioned above, why should we countenance removing the latter on the account of it possessing an inherent responsibility?

The magnitude of responsibility in those cases is vastly different. If someone uses their right to bear arms wrongly, someone ends up dead, if people don't pay attention to the news they make a bad vote and someone incompetent is elected, if people don't respond to jury summons someone else is summoned.

There is a huge difference there.

[bore]

As someone who agrees with you, Bore, I feel obliged to point out that serving on a jury or voting the wrong way in the aggregate can easily result in deaths. Until we abolished the death penalty, in fact, that connection could be very direct. Which isn't to imply that either scenario is comparable to exacting vigilante justice or defending yourself from the mailman's petty tyrannies or whatever odd scenario gun fetishists can dream up.

Yeah, and I'd bet that's actually true of most rights. For example the right to follow whatever religion you want could lead to someone becoming a member of al qaeda, the right to free speech could lead to suicides, the right to drive a car leads to road accidents and so on.

The difference being that the step from the right to do something is far easier to imagine in the case of the right to bear arms.

[Goldwater]

I oppose gun control, so I obviously oppose this amendment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Speaking as the presumptive SoEA, I must note that the right to bear "low potency explosives" poses a national security risk.

low-potency explosives are basically gunpowder and fireworks, correct?  Is there something else that is included in this?

[Adam Griffin]

I agree with TNF...in real life. In Atlasia, however, I'm not so sure I can be persuaded to oppose the abolition of the right to bear arms.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I strongly oppose this amendment. The right to bear arms should be considered a fundamental right in a free society. I do not trust the state with a monopoly on force.

Funny, you seem to trust the state with a monopoly on everything else. Just saying...

[Adam Griffin]

Here's the thing: why should be just prohibit the citizenry from possessing firearms? The whole notion that "only criminals will have them then" is ludicrous. Hell, even most forms of warfare in which we engage in the modern era are relatively free from guns. With the exception of special forces, there's no reason the state nor the citizenry should have them. After all, a first-world tyrannical government of the modern era would be more likely to drone or bomb its citizens into submission. In other words, the state already has a monopoly on the forms of power that it'd take to suppress an insurrection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I've always found the possibility of armed rebellion as a defence a bit perplexing. If the government really wanted to kill you, they could do so quite easily, whether you had a dodgy rifle in you home or not.

That would include certainly the right to defend oneself. All rights inherently come with responsbility, Senator bore. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to be an informed citizen, the right to trial by jury comes with the responsibility to serve on said juries when called and therefore the right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to follow are restrictions that are reasonable and do not form a conflict in my view this right, as well as to be well trained in the safe use of the weapons in question. We would not dream of removing the other two mentioned above, why should we countenance removing the latter on the account of it possessing an inherent responsibility?

The magnitude of responsibility in those cases is vastly different. If someone uses their right to bear arms wrongly, someone ends up dead, if people don't pay attention to the news they make a bad vote and someone incompetent is elected, if people don't respond to jury summons someone else is summoned.

There is a huge difference there.

As Nix pointed out, voting for someone who can vote to declare war or execute someone is a serious matter. Also failing to show up was not what I had in mind. A prejudicial juror can also send a man to his death or ruin his life at the very least because the man is racist, or sexist or whatever the case may be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As someone who agrees with you, Bore, I feel obliged to point out that serving on a jury or voting the wrong way in the aggregate can easily result in deaths. Until we abolished the death penalty, in fact, that connection could be very direct. Which isn't to imply that either scenario is comparable to exacting vigilante justice or defending yourself from the mailman's petty tyrannies or whatever odd scenario gun fetishists can dream up.

Yeah, and I'd bet that's actually true of most rights. For example the right to follow whatever religion you want could lead to someone becoming a member of al qaeda, the right to free speech could lead to suicides, the right to drive a car leads to road accidents and so on.

The difference being that the step from the right to do something is far easier to imagine in the case of the right to bear arms.

So it no longer becomes a right if it has the potential to directly impact someone? A gun can be used to kill someone, but it is not its only potential use and a guns job is what its owner selects. If he violates a law with it, then he subject to the penalties of those laws. If a man uses his free speech rights to insight a riot, or his freedom of association/religion to wage a war on some minority, then he too is subject to the laws he violates in so doing. I am still not seeing justification for this being regarded as anything different. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here's the thing: why should be just prohibit the citizenry from possessing firearms? The whole notion that "only criminals will have them then" is ludicrous. Hell, even most forms of warfare in which we engage in the modern era are relatively free from guns. With the exception of special forces, there's no reason the state nor the citizenry should have them. After all, a first-world tyrannical government of the modern era would be more likely to drone or bomb its citizens into submission. In other words, the state already has a monopoly on the forms of power that it'd take to suppress an insurrection.

A tank or a drone can be stolen with a combination of tactics and effective planning in particular situation using hand held weapons. Surely ISIS has shown us that for a more recent example. It would be much harder to do that with only knives and hands. All insurrections are at a disadvantage unless some form of the existing military supports it like the Militias in the Revolution. Technology has steepened slope, but governments are still being overthrown in the world and technology can easily cut both ways in the form of hacking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Speaking as the presumptive SoEA, I must note that the right to bear "low potency explosives" poses a national security risk.

low-potency explosives are basically gunpowder and fireworks, correct?  Is there something else that is included in this?

I have no idea what "low potency" means in this context and I've never seen any indication that anyone does.

There are several dimensions along which explosives are often classified, including sensitivity, velocity, composition, and physical form. It's not clear which of these "potency" refers to.

Even if we could identify what this term comprises, we'd still need to establish what it means to "keep and bear" explosives. What limits on this right are acceptable, if any? The language of this clause ("shall not be infringed") implies that the answer is none.

Then remove or define the low potency part.

That standard has not been applied that strictly in real life though. hand gun bans have been thrown out, but most of them are counter productive or don't work anyway. A wide variety of measures remain in place including background checks, no?

[TNF]

I strongly oppose this amendment. The right to bear arms should be considered a fundamental right in a free society. I do not trust the state with a monopoly on force.

Funny, you seem to trust the state with a monopoly on everything else. Just saying...

Not in the traditional sense, given that the state monopolies that I have proposed are internally democratic, which is a far-cry from how "State-run industry" operated in the 20th Century.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The minimum debate time has expired I believe. The sponsor wish to have a final vote at this time?

[TNF]

Let's shoot it down.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suppose that counts as a motion for final vote, Windjammer you may proceed with the vote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, a vote is now open. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[DC Al Fine]

Nay