Constitutional Amendment to Right to Bear Arms

[MAS117]

I'm against this as of now. I don't believe its necessary for citizens to own "low-potency explosives" no matter what it is defined as. If you want to own a handgun, thats fine, if you pass all the required things needed to own a gun.

[MAS117]

Nay

[MAS117]

Can someone tell me what the point of owning a "low-potency explosives" besides for blowing sh**t up, and hurting other people? Adding this is useless. I'm all for not infringing on the right to bear arms, but low potency explosives is crossing the line. Why make it easier for terriosts to own explosives no matter how "low-potency" they are. Sure I not for banning fireworks and that crap, but just because it doesnt say "low-potency explosives" in the consitution doesnt mean thats illegal. I URGE ALL SENATORS TO VOTE NAY OR CHANGE THERE VOTE TO NAY.

[MAS117]

 Can someone tell me what the point of owning a "low-potency explosives" besides for blowing sh**t up, and hurting other people? Adding this is useless. I'm all for not infringing on the right to bear arms, but low potency explosives is crossing the line. Why make it easier for terriosts to own explosives no matter how "low-potency" they are. Sure I not for banning fireworks and that crap, but just because it doesnt say "low-potency explosives" in the consitution doesnt mean thats illegal. I URGE ALL SENATORS TO VOTE NAY OR CHANGE THERE VOTE TO NAY.

[MAS117]

NAY for the record, sorry I didnt see the amendment was on a vote.