the /k/onstitution

hey i'm working on righting out the /k/onstitution. any ideas what we should add to it?

the first article should be the following;

The purchase, possession, carry, safe use, transfer, transport, or modification of a part, accessory, ammunition, or attachment of a conventional weapon or the weapons themselves shall not be regulated or infringed. Nor shall any special tax be imposed or special considerations be given to the police or military. However this is not to be construed as regulation against guidelines for safe storage and use when on public property or an individuals right to disallow the aforementioned on their property.

Specifically mention that full auto and select fire weapons, explosives, SBR's/SBS's, are perfectly legal. I would say that the /k/onstitution is a matter of common sense. Each man is left to his own devices, mandatory military service because obvious reasons, and any and all weapons are not only allowed but encouraged.

Each person's body is their own, and the right to modify it, in the physical, or mental shall not be infringed or regulated (outside of safety concerns and hygiene). As such, no recreational drug, chemical, or otherwise substance shall be regulated by this government.

Kolt.1911 wrote:Specifically mention that full auto and select fire weapons, explosives, SBR's/SBS's, are perfectly legal. I would say that the /k/onstitution is a matter of common sense. Each man is left to his own devices, mandatory military service because obvious reasons, and any and all weapons are not only allowed but encouraged.

well the ways its written is to include everything except for NBC weapons. If this was law we could have a m777 on our front lawn with 20 pounds of c-4 next to it and the most the police could do is be jealous. Also the part about the military and police means that they can have some thing but we cannot.

imonaboat wrote:

Kolt.1911 wrote:Specifically mention that full auto and select fire weapons, explosives, SBR's/SBS's, are perfectly legal. I would say that the /k/onstitution is a matter of common sense. Each man is left to his own devices, mandatory military service because obvious reasons, and any and all weapons are not only allowed but encouraged.

well the ways its written is to include everything except for NBC weapons. If this was law we could have a m777 on our front lawn with 20 pounds of c-4 next to it and the most the police could do is be jealous. Also the part about the military and police means that they can have some thing but we cannot.

I would like to own an artillery piece. The military shouldn't have something we cannot.

Kolt.1911 wrote:

imonaboat wrote:

Kolt.1911 wrote:Specifically mention that full auto and select fire weapons, explosives, SBR's/SBS's, are perfectly legal. I would say that the /k/onstitution is a matter of common sense. Each man is left to his own devices, mandatory military service because obvious reasons, and any and all weapons are not only allowed but encouraged.

well the ways its written is to include everything except for NBC weapons. If this was law we could have a m777 on our front lawn with 20 pounds of c-4 next to it and the most the police could do is be jealous. Also the part about the military and police means that they can have some thing but we cannot.

I would like to own an artillery piece. The military shouldn't have something we cannot.

my bad i meant to say is they CANT have something that we cannot. hard to believe one little t can fuck up an entire paragraph. but rereading that i need to work it out because then that means the gubmint cant have NBC weapons.

So essentially this is basically the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with more lenient weapons laws?

DarkTranquility wrote:So essentially this is basically the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with more lenient weapons laws?

The US Constitution is pretty good. We're just clarifying some things.

Well sounds good.

How would we go about ratifying this do/k/ument? Who would be the majority signers?

DarkTranquility wrote:Well sounds good.

How would we go about ratifying this do/k/ument? Who would be the majority signers?

well that's a good question. i'm seeing something like how the Romans did it. the roman senate (us) wrote, ratified and enforced the laws. and when the roman army conquered a new bit of land those people inherited a new constitution.

Not trying to be a hardass but exactly who would write it and how? It's going to be difficult to write the damn thing not to mention all the /k/ommandos trying to agree on it.

DarkTranquility wrote:Not trying to be a hardass but exactly who would write it and how? It's going to be difficult to write the damn thing not to mention all the /k/ommandos trying to agree on it.

well i'm working on the first draft. when its finished ill post it than we can go over it. its basically affirming john Locke's life, liberty, and property but with clarifications and protections that modern politicians don't seem to be able to pick up. like prohibition of a central bank and dis-prohibition of substances.

Why not take the bill of rights from the murrican constitution and just expand on the "ambiguous" parts, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Can add in stuff like the castle doctrine, specifically how the shooter is free from legal repercussions from the killed person's family, as either part of the weapons amendment or as it's own.

You can also put in shit like no suspension of habeas corpus.

ZeeX10 wrote:Why not take the bill of rights from the murrican constitution and just expand on the "ambiguous" parts, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Can add in stuff like the castle doctrine, specifically how the shooter is free from legal repercussions from the killed person's family, as either part of the weapons amendment or as it's own.

You can also put in shit like no suspension of habeas corpus.

well for the most part i am. im wording it very specificly so there can be no ambiguity. oh and thank for the idea about legal repercussions. any other ideas.


oh and on another note i had the idea of having civil suits (like the bitch who sued micky'ds over hot coffee) settled by dueling. what do yall think?

imonaboat wrote:

ZeeX10 wrote:Why not take the bill of rights from the murrican constitution and just expand on the "ambiguous" parts, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Can add in stuff like the castle doctrine, specifically how the shooter is free from legal repercussions from the killed person's family, as either part of the weapons amendment or as it's own.

You can also put in shit like no suspension of habeas corpus.

well for the most part i am. im wording it very specificly so there can be no ambiguity. oh and thank for the idea about legal repercussions. any other ideas.


oh and on another note i had the idea of having civil suits (like the bitch who sued micky'ds over hot coffee) settled by dueling. what do yall think?

I could see the person or company being sued hiring some modern day Wild Bill Hickok to be their stand in as "insurance".

ZeeX10 wrote:

imonaboat wrote:

ZeeX10 wrote:Why not take the bill of rights from the murrican constitution and just expand on the "ambiguous" parts, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Can add in stuff like the castle doctrine, specifically how the shooter is free from legal repercussions from the killed person's family, as either part of the weapons amendment or as it's own.

You can also put in shit like no suspension of habeas corpus.

well for the most part i am. im wording it very specificly so there can be no ambiguity. oh and thank for the idea about legal repercussions. any other ideas.


oh and on another note i had the idea of having civil suits (like the bitch who sued micky'ds over hot coffee) settled by dueling. what do yall think?

I could see the person or company being sued hiring some modern day Wild Bill Hickok to be their stand in as "insurance".

no it would be in the rules they would have to use the CEO and a private person would have to do it himself. no stand ins, and no champions.