IDS: Protecting people from explosives Amendment

[windjammer]

I love the reasoning of the IDS legislators.
Of course, the US 2nd amendment is terrible, but that was the only way to change the current constitution bullsh*t with low explosives.

[windjammer]

I love the reasoning of the IDS legislators.
Of course, the US 2nd amendment is terrible, but that was the only way to change the current constitution bullsh*t with low explosives.

You could change it to less ambiguous language that also allows stronger gun control laws or even just by removing the explosives part and not changing the rest.  If anything, I voted against this from the left.  If you want, I can show you a couple of different versions of this that would've been much better.

The problem is that this simulation is so pro gun. It would have failed otherwise.

[windjammer]

I love the reasoning of the IDS legislators.
Of course, the US 2nd amendment is terrible, but that was the only way to change the current constitution bullsh*t with low explosives.

You could've just deleted the section about low potency explosions...

Nah, the right of the people to wear an arm would have still struck down every pro gun legislation.

[windjammer]

I love the reasoning of the IDS legislators.
Of course, the US 2nd amendment is terrible, but that was the only way to change the current constitution bullsh*t with low explosives.

You could've just deleted the section about low potency explosions...

Nah, the right of the people to wear an arm would have still struck down every pro gun legislation.

See - but the explosions are the main thing the Senate wanted to get rid of, correct?

Of course,
But when you can have both, still better than only having one goal .