HR 21-07: Finalizing Freak Power Amendment (Final Vote)

[fhtagn]

Sorry, forgot to get to this over the weekend. I'll get to this after work tonight.

[fhtagn]

Sorry, RL stuff happened and didnt get to this sooner.


Low potency explosives have been a part of Atlasian tradition for generations. We use them to celebrate holidays such as Independence Day, to celebrate the new year, and even many events at the local levels feature low potency explosives. For something that is so openly an important part of our culture, it is our duty to protect the rights of the people to continue to uphold it. Passing this as a constitutional amendment makes it so that a right given to the people cannot easily be taken away by a slim majority in Congress.

Also there is no problem with the wording of Article 1, Section 7.

[YE]

I'm fine with this and will vote in favor.

[Blair]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I never understood why there should be a constitutional right to own fireworks. I think people should be allowed to own cars and fishing poles, too, but that doesn't mean I support adding those things to the Bill of Rights.

[fhtagn]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

The issue surrounding dogs can be solved with desensitization and training. Something good pet owners should work on with their dogs anyway.

[Pericles]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

Honestly I agree with this, while I don't support a fireworks ban I think there should be some regulations and so a constitutional right could be unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't think relying on everyone to be a good pet owner is a viable solution either.

[Blair]

I still think it's possible to support the values & aims of this amendment through a bill; rather than a constitutional amendment. A lot of other activities & products define our culture and enrich it- but they don't need constitutional amendments- which should be reserved for the biggest, and most important issues.

Do we want to wrap ourselves in a straightjacket with this or instead pass a specific bill that codifies it with necessary protections?

I won't be supporting this amendment as currently written.

[fhtagn]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

Honestly I agree with this, while I don't support a fireworks ban I think there should be some regulations and so a constitutional right could be unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't think relying on everyone to be a good pet owner is a viable solution either.

Irrelevant factors can be used against any rights if that's the argument you want to make.

You wouldn't be arguing for restrictions against someone wearing a turban or a headscarf because some little kids might be scared of it.

[fhtagn]

I still think it's possible to support the values & aims of this amendment through a bill; rather than a constitutional amendment. A lot of other activities & products define our culture and enrich it- but they don't need constitutional amendments- which should be reserved for the biggest, and most important issues.

Do we want to wrap ourselves in a straightjacket with this or instead pass a specific bill that codifies it with necessary protections?

I won't be supporting this amendment as currently written.

How would this is any way be "wrapping ourselves in a straightjacket"?

[Blair]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

Honestly I agree with this, while I don't support a fireworks ban I think there should be some regulations and so a constitutional right could be unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't think relying on everyone to be a good pet owner is a viable solution either.

Irrelevant factors can be used against any rights if that's the argument you want to make.

You wouldn't be arguing for restrictions against someone wearing a turban or a headscarf because some little kids might be scared of it.

I'm not arguing against the amendment for this reason.

I still think it's possible to support the values & aims of this amendment through a bill; rather than a constitutional amendment. A lot of other activities & products define our culture and enrich it- but they don't need constitutional amendments- which should be reserved for the biggest, and most important issues.

Do we want to wrap ourselves in a straightjacket with this or instead pass a specific bill that codifies it with necessary protections?

I won't be supporting this amendment as currently written.

How would this is any way be "wrapping ourselves in a straightjacket"?

Because it's a constitutional amendment that is worded quite stridently; I'm worried that the amendment could stop commonsense safety regulations, or localised laws about fireworks from being enacted locally.

[Blair]

Since this bill has been on the floor for nearly a month I motion for a final vote

[windjammer]

I don't understand why low potency explosives should be a constitutional right? It should be a bill not a constitutional amendment. It creates a ton of problems, it scares pets, some idiots end up losing their hand etc etc. So this is an issue that needs to be regulated. I'm against banning it obviously.

And seriously, "low potency" is extremely vague. People could argue that grenades are "low potency explosives" because (most of them) cannot destroy a building.

[fhtagn]

Since this bill has been on the floor for nearly a month I motion for a final vote

Objecting to the final vote motion. Debate is still going on. It doesn't matter how long it's been on the floor.

That logic has been insanely inconsistent with your behavior in the House this session.

[fhtagn]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

Honestly I agree with this, while I don't support a fireworks ban I think there should be some regulations and so a constitutional right could be unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't think relying on everyone to be a good pet owner is a viable solution either.

Irrelevant factors can be used against any rights if that's the argument you want to make.

You wouldn't be arguing for restrictions against someone wearing a turban or a headscarf because some little kids might be scared of it.

I'm not arguing against the amendment for this reason.

I still think it's possible to support the values & aims of this amendment through a bill; rather than a constitutional amendment. A lot of other activities & products define our culture and enrich it- but they don't need constitutional amendments- which should be reserved for the biggest, and most important issues.

Do we want to wrap ourselves in a straightjacket with this or instead pass a specific bill that codifies it with necessary protections?

I won't be supporting this amendment as currently written.

How would this is any way be "wrapping ourselves in a straightjacket"?

Because it's a constitutional amendment that is worded quite stridently; I'm worried that the amendment could stop commonsense safety regulations, or localised laws about fireworks from being enacted locally.

So are you saying that any restrictions on amendments are unconstitutional?

If that's the logic, I look forward to you arguing about of how the current gun laws in Lincoln are unconstitutional. In fact, I expect you to do so because that's exactly the same as what you are saying right now.

[fhtagn]

I don't understand why low potency explosives should be a constitutional right? It should be a bill not a constitutional amendment. It creates a ton of problems, it scares pets, some idiots end up losing their hand etc etc. So this is an issue that needs to be regulated. I'm against banning it obviously.

And seriously, "low potency" is extremely vague. People could argue that grenades are "low potency explosives" because (most of them) cannot destroy a building.

Are you of the belief that if something is a constitutional right, then any regulations on those rights are unconstitutional?


Using your argument here, are you saying that any regulations on gun ownership is unconstitutional?

[Blair]

Okay- I am worried that an amendment could stifle any attempt to put limits, controls or restrictions on fireworks- here in the UK we're slowly taking steps around fireworks because of the awful impact that they have had small animals- especially dogs.

I wouldn't want to support an amendment which stopped us from doing the above; once again I feel that Trumans comments broadly sum up my thoughts and I'd be resistant to supporting this.

Honestly I agree with this, while I don't support a fireworks ban I think there should be some regulations and so a constitutional right could be unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't think relying on everyone to be a good pet owner is a viable solution either.

Irrelevant factors can be used against any rights if that's the argument you want to make.

You wouldn't be arguing for restrictions against someone wearing a turban or a headscarf because some little kids might be scared of it.

I'm not arguing against the amendment for this reason.

I still think it's possible to support the values & aims of this amendment through a bill; rather than a constitutional amendment. A lot of other activities & products define our culture and enrich it- but they don't need constitutional amendments- which should be reserved for the biggest, and most important issues.

Do we want to wrap ourselves in a straightjacket with this or instead pass a specific bill that codifies it with necessary protections?

I won't be supporting this amendment as currently written.

How would this is any way be "wrapping ourselves in a straightjacket"?

Because it's a constitutional amendment that is worded quite stridently; I'm worried that the amendment could stop commonsense safety regulations, or localised laws about fireworks from being enacted locally.

So are you saying that any restrictions on amendments are unconstitutional?

If that's the logic, I look forward to you arguing about of how the current gun laws in Lincoln are unconstitutional. In fact, I expect you to do so because that's exactly the same as what you are saying right now.

Please see below.

Funnily enough I expected a gun control case to come whilst I was sat on the court and I expected it would be an awfully written bill getting torn apart by Mr R & I expected to rule that the bill was unconstitutional because of section 7 of the Atlasian Constitution. 

A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I might be strongly anti-gun, and would have opposed Heller but as with all cases it depends on what we're ruling on.

[windjammer]

I don't understand why low potency explosives should be a constitutional right? It should be a bill not a constitutional amendment. It creates a ton of problems, it scares pets, some idiots end up losing their hand etc etc. So this is an issue that needs to be regulated. I'm against banning it obviously.

And seriously, "low potency" is extremely vague. People could argue that grenades are "low potency explosives" because (most of them) cannot destroy a building.

Are you of the belief that if something is a constitutional right, then any regulations on those rights are unconstitutional?


Using your argument here, are you saying that any regulations on gun ownership is unconstitutional?

It definitely can be argued that way and it is definitely argued that way by many lawyers.

[Pericles]

Ok Representatives have 72 hours to vote on whether to end debate on this bill.

[Blair]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Nay.

It's clear Blair wants to rush through something when there is still debate going on...

[JGibson]

AYE

[YE]

Nay for final vote

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Nay.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay