Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:33:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)  (Read 3483 times)
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:37:34 PM »
« edited: December 09, 2014, 08:46:23 AM by Senator bore »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Windjammer
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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? Tongue

I would have never believed that introducing the US second amendment right could be considered as a progress...
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 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.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 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. Evil
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 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 Tongue.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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 Tongue.

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".
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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 Tongue.

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".
A well-regulated militia Cranberry Tongue.
This is the second amendment in the USA for more than 2 centuries, so don't worry about that Tongue.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 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.
Neither am I,
But without this part, prisoners could basically claim their right of wearing weapons in jail Tongue
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
But it would still allow "explosive bombs"?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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,.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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,.
Indeed, prisoners can wear guns in jail, nothing would prohibit them from doing that, because the constitution would protect this right.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 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. Tongue Perhaps that was the end goal of right wing judicial activism. Evil
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 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 Tongue
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 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.
But it would still allow "explosive bombs"?

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,.
Indeed, prisoners can wear guns in jail, nothing would prohibit them from doing that, because the constitution would protect this right.

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).
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 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.
But it would still allow "explosive bombs"?

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,.
Indeed, prisoners can wear guns in jail, nothing would prohibit them from doing that, because the constitution would protect this right.

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?
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 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; 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
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 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; 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.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.