Obviously this whole argument is a bit of a straw man. It was meant to illustrate a point by being absurd. I just think it is interesting when people who think more guns are always the answer make the argument (sensibly) that North Korea should not be armed with nukes because they can’t be trusted with them. Saying that there are in fact people we should not trust with weapons is the whole point of gun control, and who is to say the North Korean constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to own nukes? I love guns. Really. I’m rarely happier than with a .38 snubnose or a shotgun in my hands. Nothing feels better to operate than a bolt. I’ve also studied a lot of weaponry, including knife and sword fighting (really, I have the belts to prove it) and understand the danger even the simplest weapons can pose. The thing is that a firearm, even in the hands of an idiot, can be tremendously dangerous, and that is rather the point behind their invention in the first place. The problem I have is with the circular logic of the more guns crowd. The Supreme Court and indeed America at large didn’t even consider the second amendment as the right to armed insurrection until the NRA started down that path in the 1970s. Even the idea that the Nazis enacted gun control measures to reduce access to weapons in Germany is a myth, and I’m tired of the argument that guns should be legal being lead by foamy mouthed assholes. Yes, obviously Americans should have the right to own weapons, subject to reasonable restrictions. No, AR-15s should not be the kind of long guns people should have access to. The NRA likes to say that an armed society is a polite society, but there has never been a fully armed-and-polite society: Japan has always restricted access to weapons, going back centuries, as did every country in Europe, and even ancient Rome. The NRA fantasy of everyone being Han Solo in the Cantina Bar is a ridiculous pipe dream and it gets in the way of any real progress.