As noted elsewhere, I agree with this statement, fundamentally. The problem does not lie in the gun itself. Guns are not inherently bad, as words are not inherently bad.

However, in recent decades we have seen created in this country an atmosphere of paranoia, of fear, that overwhelms common sense, and drives some people to not only arm themselves, but arm themselves beyond any reasonable consideration of personal safety.

While we can argue that guns give power to the powerless, the problem has become who it is who is considered "powerless". And here we come to these social ciphers who are full of fear and race hatred, who feel their homes and persons are at risk not only from criminal elements, but from the government itself. Thus, they wrap themselves in the Second Amendment, and in so doing completely misinterpret it. As I have noted before, there is a very clear time limit built into the Amendment: the right to bear arms depends upon the necessity of a militia to preserve the security of the state. This has not been the case for a long, long time, and the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that as the Nation evolved, such militias would become subordinate to standing armies, navies, and police forces.

It all turns on those two important words in the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…" Militias are no longer necessary, and neither is the "right" to bear arms.

Majority rule?