The proverbial expression, or
retort, that the U.S. is not a France with a large back yard (i.e.,
simply more territory), or the equivalent—to say that the E.U. is not Texas
with a large front yard—is oriented to the important difference between (early)
modern empire-scale unions and states (i.e., polities) thereof. An empire is
constituted by many (i.e., not just a few) polities that are culturally
heterogenous (i.e., different from one another). Even though since at least
1871, Canada’s provinces have stretched across a continent, the number of
provinces (10) does not meet the number qualification to be considered an empire
even though Quebec and British Columbia are obviously very different culturally
(including linguistically). In contrast, at 27 and 50 members, the E.U. and
U.S. respectively qualify on both counts—interstate cultural/political diversity
and the number of states. Even though the E.U.’s linguistic interstate
diversity has greatly exceeded that which existed even in 2026 among the U.S.
members, U.S. has its own dimensions of cultural difference that are palpable
and salient between member-states, and particular pairs of states can even be
said to be divergent on specific dimensions. It may even be that the E.U.
states are more homogenous than are the U.S. states on such dimensions. For
example, attitudes towards people having guns—including semi-automatic machine
guns, so not just guns for hunting—differ between American states substantially
and more so than between E.U. states.
In October 2026, the citizens
of Massachusetts were preparing to vote on a ballot question that concerns
“whether to uphold a 2024 law requiring all firearms to be serialized and
registered with [the government of Massachusetts] and broadening a ban on
‘assault-style’ guns.”[1]
If approved, the question would “continue an array of gun restrictions passed
overwhelmingly by the Democratic-led Legislature . . .”[2]
At the time, Massachusetts had one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the
Union. Massachusetts was the second state, behind Hawaii, “to enact a
comprehensive gun registry.”[3]
In such a political culture, wherein gun restrictions had been passed overwhelmingly,
it can be assumed that most people (or at least most voters) likely thought
that people keeping assault-style guns at home would be absurd (and absurdly
dangerous).
Meanwhile, in Idaho, “the
Republican-led Legislature placed a nonbinding question on the ballot seeking voters’
advise on designating ‘the state gun of Idaho.’”[4]
At the time, “(a)bout 3 and 5 Idaho adults live(d) in households with guns,
which ranks among the highest rates” among the member-states.[5]
Jason Monks, the Majority Leader in the Idaho House of Representatives, said, “There’s
no much more patriotic in Idaho than guns—and the importance of guns in helping
to found our country and settle the West.”[6]
It can thus be said that a gun—even a semi-automatic machine gun—is itself a
political symbol, and perhaps the most important one, in Idaho, whereas in
Massachusetts guns were typically viewed at least as of 2026 as dangerous and
thus to be legitimately subject to restrictions—the only question being how
many and how restraining.
Clearly, “Massachusetts and
Idaho are about 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) apart—literally and figuratively—in
America’s gun debate.”[7]
That debate—and more specifically the extent to which the political “centers of
gravity” in the two members of the U.S. differ—is but one of a myriad of ways by
which the American countries differ in the U.S., such that that union of states
is indeed comparable to the E.U. in that respect, rather than being a homogenous
whole whereas the E.U. states are so very different. This is a common
misconception in Europe, which can be redressed at least to some degree by
contrasting Massachusetts and Idaho on guns.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
