Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)

[windjammer]

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?

I would have never believed that introducing the US second amendment right could be considered as a progress...

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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 .

[windjammer]

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 .

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 .
This is the second amendment in the USA for more than 2 centuries, so don't worry about that .

[windjammer]

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

[windjammer]

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"?

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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?

[windjammer]

So you're going to let people wear "grenades" in order to protect fireworks?

[windjammer]

AYE

[windjammer]

Nay (pro-July 4th)

Please, develop.  I would love to know how forbidding people to wear dynamites and grenades has anything to do with with July 7th.

---------------------

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.

[windjammer]

Dear god good memories hahahahahaha

[windjammer]

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!!!