Let's not forget what Ed Good really thinks about our right to keep and bear arms:
recognize that there are too many guns in too many hands...reduce those numbers and gun related violence will also be reduced...it is as simple as that...too much of anything is not good.
more and more guns means more and more guns will be mis used...it aint rocket science to understand that simple logic...
question is, what are we as responsible gun owners gonna do about the problem of too many guns in the hands of too many people?
or are we gonna keep our heads in the sand and let the pandering politicans impose some draconian new gun control legislation on us like they did in 1968 and again in 1993?
no, guns do not kill people...people kill people.
cept, too many guns in the hands of too many people do kill too many people...have we the people exceeded our carrying capacity for firepower?
guess no body here has the balls to answer my question:
disarm...seems to work for the rest of the civilized world...
why not us?
as for the gun control issue...we are the only country in the world that seems to tolerate mass murder, in the name of an individual right...its about time that we as a society realize that we are over gunned with too many super dangerous weapons in the hands of too many super dangerous people... it is long past time to do as the rest of the civilized world has done and simply, disarm...
In my opinion, the only person who has been more reliably against our 2nd Amendment Rights than Ed Good is his friend and fellow anti-gunner, King Brown. Birds of a feather!
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
