doublegunshop.com - home Forums Anti-gun posts by ed good

Here is Ed Good once again proposing that we talk about giving up part of our RKBA:



This was my reply to him:

Here is anti-gun Ed Good advocating for restricting our RKBA to single shot shotguns since they take longer to reload and are not easily concealable.



Of course, the first time some insane maniac managed to kill several people with a single shot shotgun, the anti-gunners would naturally go after them as well. Anti-gunners really hate all guns, and they won't be happy until all are outlawed. That is why it is foolish to give them even a fraction of an inch.

Ed Good is an anti-gun troll who is too stupid to understand this.

i view the second amendment as the founding fathers attempt to prohibit the central government from prohibiting the people and the states the right to keep and bear arms. they knew that if only the central governments troops were armed, then the people and the states would be ultimately defenseless against the power of the central government...and the desire to preserve the power of the states is why the second amendment is framed in the context of a well regulated militia...

however, my view also, is that although the second amendment protects the people from any government prohibition of arms possession, it does not prohibit government from regulating the possession of certain classes of arms...the regulation of fully automatic firearms at the federal level is an example. and the fact that many states regulate the possession of handguns, is a more common example.

So where does it say that idiot? Or where in the writings of the Framers do they leave the impression that their intent was to permit the central government to prohibit certain classes of arms?

We don't care what your opinion is Ed because you have no brains.

keet: do you see a difference between government regulation and prohibition of arms ownership?

does government regulation of arms violate the constitution? and if so, specifically how?

and does the long standing federal firearms act of 1934 violate the constitution?

do state laws regulating arms violate the constitution?

and finally, does licensing of semi auto handgun owners violate their constitutional rights?

Keith,

Why do you even bother? You can't argue with a sociopath, they always rationalize their opinions. They lack the intellectual objectivity to even comprehend the arguments.

I can understand why you do it, I do the same thing with Comrade Sralin, if only for the benefit of others.

It can be fun, but it does get tedious responding to the same sociopathic claptrap and mumbo-jumbo over and over.

so, anybody else care to answer the questions above? plus this one:

is there a need to reduce the firepower in the hands of the people?

Ken, it is fun although I don't think you're saying your opinion is always better, more rational and reasonable than others.

It was especially humorous to read Keet and your posts of voting holding your noses and then vilifying others for doing the same thing. Talk about statists!

Keet believes the only true American is a Republican in love with his guns. You don't believe that but are corrupted by going along with him.

You're always calling for compromise and get'in along. When literally the only example of it shows up, you poke fun at it. All they want to do is help break the ungovernable barriers.

Is this a strategy or a mean streak? I hope your tactics aren't intended to intimidate those that have a different opinion than yours. Hey, good news, dal didn't really adios.

More good news. In that Iranian deal, the iranians can appeal a request to start the twenty-four day count down to an inspection. All inspectors, non US because it's the US' deal, are vetted by the iranians. And, any samples that inspectors may want to test, are provided by the iranians. The prez sez that helps ensure they won't get the bomb, ever or on his watch, weird huh?

It's compromise on Iran. The big powers and Germany got what they could get. The difference now and before is that the debate is about a process to hold back the bomb, not its production this year.

Compromise and "get'in along" is about tolerance. I'm not sure what you mean by poking fun. If it's holding their noses when Keet and Ken vote Republican, it is humorous that when others do it they are condemned as idiots and filfthy scum!

No party can draft a platform that supports everyone's beliefs and needs. Americans who voted for Obama had more on their minds than guns as a priority. To insult fellow citizens for different opinions is unintelligent.

I'm reminded of Cuomo's San Francisco speech to the Democratic convention many years ago on the abortion issue. He said I'm a Roman Catholic and governor of all the people of New York. Who am I to tell others what to do when our church members aren't following the rules themselves?

That's intelligent.