Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't there a legal term like "reasonable limiting factor"?


I love the strict constructionalism on the part of the left these days. Perhaps that was the end goal of right wing judicial activism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.


And now AngryGreatness and company is not a reference to immigration, though it can be if you would like that

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY


Like I said, I would support a restrictive definition of low-potency explosive or replacement with some other terminology.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn it Jambles, now when I go digging for this I won't be able to find it.

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!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn it Jambles, now when I go digging for this I won't be able to find it.

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!

Well that was honestly the most ideolically senate session and I managed to pass it by telling JCL by PM "but this is so great we will jave the second amendment in the constitution!!!

Oh you devil!