[Billthedrill]

Krauthammer is a psychiatrist and so it may be a little more forgivable for him to adopt the therapeutic model than it might be for most, but in fact treating a society is not the same thing as treating a human patient. The difference is in kind, not in scale. And so his dichotomy between a weaning model and a cold-turkey model begs the question of whether the end state - a disarmed society - is, in truth, any healthier than the present one.

The issue is certainly not helped by wild media sensationalism. The Assault Weapons ban he cites is a case in point. Statistically these are among the least abused and safest guns out there, whose portion of the total crime scenario has decreased with popularity, not increased. Surely this must suggest something other than a "plague" to any objective thinker.

And yet even in his original point it was clear that social engineering, i.e. "domestic tranquility", was the driving motivation, yet the examples he gave do not serve to support that goal. Is it a net gain for a society if gun-related crime is down yet other violent crime skyrockets? There is no sign that he has considered this. Curing a patient's depression with a drug that causes heart attacks is not a net gain. I wish I could be confident that he has weighed this but I'm not.

[MtnClimber]

Yes, there should be no means for the citizens to oppose a tyrannical government. There have never been tyrannical governments so why are these yahoos clinging to their guns anyway?

[rockrr]

I wish I could be confident that he has weighed this but I'm not.

Quite to the contrary, I believe that Krauthammer is still comfortable with his conclusion. Let's face it, Krauthammer is a smart guy but only rarely a conservative.

Fortunately I will never live to see the day when America is disarmed.