Constitutional Amendment to Right to Bear Arms

[Peter]

*Bangs Gavel*

This 7th Session of the Senate of the Republic is hereby called to order.

Our opening piece of legislation to the floor is the following, as introduced by Senator Sam Spade:

Constitutional Amendment to the Right to Bear Arms Clause in the Bill Of Rights, Article VI, Clause 4

Article VI, Clause 4 shall be struck from the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia and replaced with the following amendment which shall replace the eliminated clause as Article VI, Clause 4:

The right to bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.  The definition of a low-potency explosive may be determined by the Senate in appropriate legislation.

[MasterJedi]

I'll definitly vote for this with every explosive about dynamite being banned.

[jokerman]

I'll support this.  I don't find any problems with extending the right to low-potency explosives.

[John Dibble]

This has my endorcement.

[A18]

No, it's pointless. It just gives the Senate the power to decide what low potency is, which they could twist into whatever they please.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" would be a better amendment, and one I could stand behind.

BTW, Dibble, you need to help us vote out FDR in the presidential survivor thread.

[MissCatholic]

Wouldn`t this be good for the terrorists?

[PBrunsel]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

[MAS117]

I'm against this as of now. I don't believe its necessary for citizens to own "low-potency explosives" no matter what it is defined as. If you want to own a handgun, thats fine, if you pass all the required things needed to own a gun.

[Jake]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I assume right now, M80s, fireworks, dynamite, etc is banned by this.

[Sam Spade]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I assume right now, M80s, fireworks, dynamite, etc is banned by this.

Jake is quite right.  Though nothing is banned right now, per se, regional governments could ban these types of things as much as they well please.

I will come up with some legislation fairly quick if this passes and knowing my beliefs, I will make it fairly lenient. 

[Joe Republic]

Surely this now goes beyond the concept of protecting your family and property?  How exactly does protecting the right to use fireworks and dynamite make the honest citizens safer?

[King]

Wouldn`t this be good for the terrorists?

No more dangerous than a terrorist picking up a semi-automatic at Wal-Mart.

[Bono]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I've interpreted it like this(and this wording was my idea, just ask Peter Bell):
high potency explosives are atomic bombs.
mid potency explosives are things like conventional warheard and freefall bmbs
low potency explosives are the likes of RPGs and artilery grenades.

[Bono]

Personally, as nothing but a mere citizen, I'd like to propose to the honorable senator from the Southeast the following wording:

"Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution, including individuals operating in a governmental capacity, so that the life, liberty and property of all individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of this constitution and other jurisdictions may be realistically and effectively protected. Items capable of killing more than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of the item must not be designed for use as weaponry."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Personally, as nothing but a mere citizen, I'd like to propose to the honorable senator from the Southeast the following wording:

"Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution, including individuals operating in a governmental capacity, so that the life, liberty and property of all individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of this constitution and other jurisdictions may be realistically and effectively protected. Items capable of killing more than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of the item must not be designed for use as weaponry."

I look forward to the banning of gasoline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire

[MasterJedi]

Surely this now goes beyond the concept of protecting your family and property?  How exactly does protecting the right to use fireworks and dynamite make the honest citizens safer?

What, you've never seen the Tremors series?

[Sam Spade]

Personally, as nothing but a mere citizen, I'd like to propose to the honorable senator from the Southeast the following wording:

"Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution, including individuals operating in a governmental capacity, so that the life, liberty and property of all individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of this constitution and other jurisdictions may be realistically and effectively protected. Items capable of killing more than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of the item must not be designed for use as weaponry."

I have problems with the second half of this wording, considering as it might effect individuals in the military fighting in foreign countries.

[Bono]

Personally, as nothing but a mere citizen, I'd like to propose to the honorable senator from the Southeast the following wording:

"Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution, including individuals operating in a governmental capacity, so that the life, liberty and property of all individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of this constitution and other jurisdictions may be realistically and effectively protected. Items capable of killing more than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of the item must not be designed for use as weaponry."

I have problems with the second half of this wording, considering as it might effect individuals in the military fighting in foreign countries.

Well, change accordingly.

as for jfern, gasoline is not a weapon.

[A18]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I've interpreted it like this(and this wording was my idea, just ask Peter Bell):
high potency explosives are atomic bombs.
mid potency explosives are things like conventional warheard and freefall bmbs
low potency explosives are the likes of RPGs and artilery grenades.

Then why does the amendment say the Senate can define it? Sounds like a pretty useless protection, when the Senate gets to decide what it is.

[Bono]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I've interpreted it like this(and this wording was my idea, just ask Peter Bell):
high potency explosives are atomic bombs.
mid potency explosives are things like conventional warheard and freefall bmbs
low potency explosives are the likes of RPGs and artilery grenades.

Then why does the amendment say the Senate can define it? Sounds like a pretty useless protection, when the Senate gets to decide what it is.

I didn't propose this ammendment, did I?

[A18]

You said the wording was your idea. By the way, I'm going to kill the next person to spell the word amendment wrong with a low-potency explosive.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I will propose this wording replace the entirety of the present wording in my amendment, as per Bono, but with my modifications:

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon.  Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

This I think is sufficient and keeps the military as whole out of this.  I am not quite libertarian enough on this issue to think that the military be included in these provisions, Bono.  If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears, though.

(I obviously think it's important for the military to have bunker-buster bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.)

[Bono]

You said the wording was your idea. By the way, I'm going to kill the next person to spell the word amendment wrong with a low-potency explosive.

the idea of the original, not of sam spade's.
Anyways, it doesnt matter now, I think this new version covers it.

[Joe Republic]

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

That's a pretty unpleasant sentence to put in our federal constitution.

[King]

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

That's a pretty unpleasant sentence to put in our federal constitution.

Yes.  If it kills 99 people at once you can have it, but 100 is out of the question!