HB 27-03: Finalizing Freak Power Amendment (Failed)

[Joseph Cao]

A BILL
To affirm Atlasians' Constitutional rights

SECTION 1.

1. This Act may be cited as the "Finalizing Freak Power Amendment”.

SECTION 2.

1. Article I, Section 7, of the Fourth Constitution, is amended to read as follows:

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

2. Amendment Explanation
Adds the bearing of low-potency explosives as a right.

Sponsor: Jessica
House Designation: HB 27-03

72 hours to debate.

[The Dowager Mod]

Define "low potency" explosives, A 1kt suitcase nuke is "low potency" compared to a Tsar Bomba.

[OBD]

Concur strongly with the gentlewoman from New York.

I'm also skeptical about militia's needs for low-potency explosives. Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

[Dr. MB]

Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Uh, yeah.

[OBD]

Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Uh, yeah.

Explain.

I, for one, don't need the mental images of antifa using fireworks on police officers.

[Dr. MB]

Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Uh, yeah.

Explain.

I, for one, don't need the mental images of antifa using fireworks on police officers.

Imagine this.

You, a law-abiding freedom-loving Atlasian, are sitting at home. Your big collection of hunting rifles is sitting in full view on your living room wall. The soyboy big government freedom-hating police come by and don't like that. They make up some excuse to come and take your guns. They knock on your front door.

"Police, open up!"

"But I haven't done anything wrong."

"I don't give a shit, you ignorant bigot. Hand over your weapons."

Now there are 2 options here. Your guns are unloaded, as a responsible owner of firearms, so you can't point one at them. But you do have an entire stick of dynamite. You can either 1) give in to the cops and hand over your guns (and along with it your manhood) or 2) detonate that dynamite right there in your living room, going out along with the cops and your guns in a blaze of glory. That's a no-brainer right there. It's your choice.

[OBD]

Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Uh, yeah.

Explain.

I, for one, don't need the mental images of antifa using fireworks on police officers.

Imagine this.

You, a law-abiding freedom-loving Atlasian, are sitting at home. Your big collection of hunting rifles is sitting in full view on your living room wall. The soyboy big government freedom-hating police come by and don't like that. They make up some excuse to come and take your guns. They knock on your front door.

"Police, open up!"

"But I haven't done anything wrong."

"I don't give a shit, you ignorant bigot. Hand over your weapons."

Now there are 2 options here. Your guns are unloaded, as a responsible owner of firearms, so you can't point one at them. But you do have an entire stick of dynamite. You can either 1) give in to the cops and hand over your guns (and along with it your manhood) or 2) detonate that dynamite right there in your living room, going out along with the cops and your guns in a blaze of glory. That's a no-brainer right there. It's your choice.

So, uhh, dynamite is a low-grade explosive?

Yeahhhhh I'm not too thrilled about this bill. Sorry mate.

[fhtagn]

Concur strongly with the gentlewoman from New York.

I'm also skeptical about militia's needs for low-potency explosives. Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Imagine seriously thinking "need" is a relevant argument when it comes to discussing people's rights.

[OBD]

Concur strongly with the gentlewoman from New York.

I'm also skeptical about militia's needs for low-potency explosives. Do they need fireworks to defend against an oppressive government?

Imagine seriously thinking "need" is a relevant argument when it comes to discussing people's rights.

Hey, that was what the wording implied!

So, uhh, why should low-potency explosives be a constitutional right? I honestly don't see the need for this amendment (though the change in wording is a good improvement).

[Rep Jessica]

Honestly, I'd like to redefine this amendment to focus on personal ownership of firearms over the concept of militia. That word has been used to justify the lefts attacks of our rights to own guns and that should be fixed.  My wording would be like this, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain freedom and security of a free people. "


This would end all debate about the peoples rights to own firearms. What does FHTAGN and South Carolina Yankee think about such wording?

[Sirius_]

Honestly, I'd like to redefine this amendment to focus on personal ownership of firearms over the concept of militia. That word has been used to justify the lefts attacks of our rights to own guns and that should be fixed.  My wording would be like this, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain freedom and security of a free people. "


This would end all debate about the peoples rights to own firearms. What does FHTAGN and South Carolina Yankee think about such wording?

Are you referring to me?

[Rep Jessica]

Honestly, I'd like to redefine this amendment to focus on personal ownership of firearms over the concept of militia. That word has been used to justify the lefts attacks of our rights to own guns and that should be fixed.  My wording would be like this, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain freedom and security of a free people. "


This would end all debate about the peoples rights to own firearms. What does FHTAGN and South Carolina Yankee think about such wording?

Are you referring to me?

I meant north Carolina Yankee

[OBD]

Are we still discussing this?

Anyway, I'm going to make my position on this clear - unless someone explains to me why low-grade explosives should be a right enshrined in the hallowed document known as our Constitution, I will happily vote against this amendment.

[Rep Jessica]

Are we still discussing this?

Anyway, I'm going to make my position on this clear - unless someone explains to me why low-grade explosives should be a right enshrined in the hallowed document known as our Constitution, I will happily vote against this amendment.

Lets say we take out the low grade explosive wording and go with something like the below. This would clear up the wording and put the right clearly in the hands of the little guy.  

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain the freedom and security of a free people. "

[OBD]

Are we still discussing this?

Anyway, I'm going to make my position on this clear - unless someone explains to me why low-grade explosives should be a right enshrined in the hallowed document known as our Constitution, I will happily vote against this amendment.

Lets say we take out the low grade explosive wording and go with something like the below. This would clear up the wording and put the right clearly in the hands of the little guy. 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain freedom and security of a free people. "

Yeah if you take out the explosives part that gets me a LOT closer to an Aye vote, though I still have to do some thought on this. Militias aren't exactly relevant anymore so this updates this amendment for the modern day. I'd only have a slight grammatical correction for now - there should be a "the" in between "maintain" and "freedom".

[Rep Jessica]

Here is the amendment I am offering. This will clear up the legal meaning of this amendment of the constitution and grant these rights directly to the people.

                                                        A BILL
                      To affirm Atlasians' Constitutional rights

SECTION 1.

1. This Act may be cited as the "Finalizing Freak Power Amendment”.

SECTION 2.

1. Article I, Section 7, of the Fourth Constitution, is amended to read as follows:
The right of the people and that of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain the freedom and security of a free people.

[Mike Thick]

I guess my question is this: why make such a relatively small semantic change? What’s the goal here? How is this going to change ConLaw in the game

[West_Midlander]

Does this proposed amendment essentially remove the right of the states and regions to have their own militias, because some places still do exercise this right (at least some states still do IOTL)?

[Rep Jessica]

Does this proposed amendment essentially remove the right of the states and regions to have their own militias, because some places still do exercise this right (at least some states still do IOTL)?

Would this work? This would clear up the loop hole the left has enjoyed to attack our rights and maintain the power of the militia.


The right of the people and that of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed  upon by their government in order to maintain the freedom and security of a free people.

[West_Midlander]

That addition would alleviate my concerns.

[Joseph Cao]

24 hours to object to Jessica's amendment.

[SevenEleven]

I'll object, this deserves a vote.

[Rep Jessica]

Mr.Speaker,

Can we have our vote?

I yield

[Joseph Cao]

Got it. (Apologies!)

A vote is open on the amendment above. 72 hours to vote; please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Rep Jessica]

Aye