Constitutional Amendment to Right to Bear Arms

[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."

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Bono]

Once again we have come upon a situation where an amendment to this legislation has been proposed and almost immediately come up to a vote, and whats worse but the time before it went to vote was probably some of the quietest in the day - I certainly didn't see it myself.

I cannot stress how bad I think it is for decision making for amendments to be moved directly to vote without giving Senators at least 24 hours to voice their views on the matter - and to then let debate flow its natural course before calling the vote.

I can't let this by-the-by attitude of the Senate continue, where it starts voting on things as important as this without really considering its consequences.

I have to agree.