Replies

Okay, nate- you have gone nuts. Come back to the Bill of Rights, nor subscribe others to socialist fascist filth. Gun grabbing? Why would you advocate such lunacy?

Please read the reply, perhaps it was inarticulately worded, but it's intent was precisely the opposite.

The phrase in parentheses: "assuming that's a desirable goal and assuming its constitutional" was meant to say that there are other reasons besides protecting oneself from gun violence to keep the right to bear arms such as a check on government tyranny. To eliminate that check on government tyranny might not be, and I don't think is, a desirable goal.

But the article is cast in terms of reducing gun violence so I wanted to refute it on its own terms.which also includes guns smuggled in from foreign sources, alluded to in the reply, as well as arbitrary inspections and cronyism.

In his defense, he said they “the germans” might be right if, not that they are right. I think it was the use of a literary phrase to show one reason their policy will never work.

Another difference between the United States and these other countries is the close proximity of very different culures. We are not really a melting pot, a more apt metaphor is a bowl of gumbo. And some cultures are “spicier” than others. In such a society crimes are going to happen. With or without guns. To see the opposite situation, look at switzerland. The Swiss have access to a large number of not just guns but assault rifles (and these really are assault rifles), but in a monolithic, well disciplined society like the Swiss have, their is almost no gun crime. It will be interesting (as in watching a train wreck interesting) to see what happens as Europe becomes more diverse.