Protecting People from explosives Amendment (Passed)

[Cranberry]

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.

[Cranberry]

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]

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".

[Cranberry]

Well, since this problem could arise, at least I would have no problem with repealing this clause as a whole

[Cranberry]

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

As I stated, I would be perfectly fine with repealing that whole article

[Cranberry]

Aye