IDS: Protecting people from explosives Amendment

[Yelnoc]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discuss.

[Dereich]

I see no reason to add an ambiguous phrase from several hundred years ago to the constitution. The low-potency explosives thing is pretty dumb, but the replacement is even worse. At this point I will be voting nay.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I see no reason to add an ambiguous phrase from several hundred years ago to the constitution. The low-potency explosives thing is pretty dumb, but the replacement is even worse. At this point I will be voting nay.

I'd support either just removing the part about low-potency explosives or ideally adding some sort of new language allowing for stronger gun control laws that is less ambiguous than that proposed.  However, the proposed new language simply creates a bunch of unnecessary ambiguity.  I'd strongly support a modified version of this amendment, but unfortunately I don't think I can vote for this amendment in its current form.

[Maxwell]

I see no reason to add an ambiguous phrase from several hundred years ago to the constitution. The low-potency explosives thing is pretty dumb, but the replacement is even worse. At this point I will be voting nay.

This is basically my thought process.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Not necessary, unless we just want to complicate things.

[Yelnoc]

Let's vote on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

***

Abstain

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Dereich]

Nay

[Pingvin]

Nay

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[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.

[Maxwell]

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...

[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.

[Maxwell]

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?

[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 .

[Yelnoc]

The amendment fails with 3 nays, 1 abstain, and 1 not voting.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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 .

Getting rid of the low potency explosive part would be better than nothing, no?