From the article: <i>In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions</i><p>Which is utter nonsense.<p>British gun restrictions mostly got tight after the 1987 Hungerford massacre ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre</a> ); prior to that point, ownership of handguns and semi-auto rifles like Ryan's AK-56 (semi-auto Chinese AK-47 clone) was legal, with a license. Go back further: guns weren't licensed <i>at all</i> prior to the Pistols Act of 1903 ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King...</a> ). Many rifle clubs historically existed, able to trace their origins origins to the early 19th century as semi-organized volunteer militias ready to defy a Napoleonic invasion. In other words, see also the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, British-style, in the shape of organized militias.<p>TL:DR; Author of article is mistaking the current-day UK political consensus for a long-term historical status quo. It just ain't so.<p>What else are they getting wrong?
The last thing america needs is an excuse for the government to tamper with the 2nd amendment - the right to bare arms in order to defend against the government. and yes this is how it's actually written in the constitution and for a good reason - the founding fathers knew that the government will try to take control.