DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
NeoConfederate States fo AMerica
HTML https://ncsa.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Capitol Building
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4871--------------------------------------------------
Proposal
By: david090366 Date: July 22, 2015, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We seem to have a split concerning military role play. It has
always been intended that the various states would be able to
engage in military role play with each other. When we were first
writing the constitution I considered changing " A
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." to " A well-regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the states to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." But, quite frankly
thought the issue of whether or not the states should have
military forces would actually never come up" So, to make things
clear would changing Article II Section 14 to
[quote]A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of a state to maintain such military
forces as it deems sufficient and expedient shall not be
infringed, except in the case that a weapon shall be found to be
exceedingly destructive or unusually cruel, and in all such
cases the weapon shall be specified by type and class. Any
actions taken by the Congress in such cases shall require a two
thirds majority of members voting.[/quote]
It clearly sets out that the states have the right to a
military. It does allow Congress to regulate certain types of
weapons, but not with a "blanket" law. It also requires a super
majority for Congress to actually do it. Lastly is actually
removes the right, on the Confederal Level, of individual
citizens to weapons. Something not even all western nations
actually agree is a human right. Thus it would be up to
individual states to decide what they want to do concerning
that.
#Post#: 4888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proposal
By: Heavenly Paradise Date: July 22, 2015, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would not be in favor of this amendment if it forces states to
give up any kind of weapon, even if it is a nuke. To me, that
eviscerates the principle of state sovereignty. I am, however,
in favor of regulation concerning such weapons. If defining them
by class and type is one way of regulating them, then I would go
for that. But no forceful banning of anything.
#Post#: 4889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proposal
By: Caos Date: July 22, 2015, 7:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think to change the amendment to CLARIFY what it's meant by
our state's owning weapons is good. Unfortunately, this is
actually taking a side on an argument, which is just unbiased
and rude, in my opinion.
#Post#: 4890--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proposal
By: Confederacy of Turkducken Date: July 22, 2015, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a problem with Nukes because they are unfair, War
is unfair and I accept that. I want to ban them for humanitarian
purposes as part of RP. I'm in favor of a more flexible
Constitution, not only for the availability of the RP, but for
the survival of the NCSA.
#Post#: 4891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proposal
By: Highland Appalachia Date: July 22, 2015, 10:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's better that states have the right to determine gun
laws, and the constitution just says that the states are allowed
to have a military.
#Post#: 4935--------------------------------------------------
Re: Proposal
By: Amerikanisches Reich Date: July 24, 2015, 1:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
((OOC:
While in my heart I would say it would be better for the
individual people of the NCSA to retain that right, in
representation of the AR, I would support the amendment.))
*****************************************************