Quote:
|
You were much better fixed for this ninety years ago -- before the option of arms was gradually, slice by slice, taken from you.
|
Guns were never a big part of this country. Farmers had (and still have) guns. Some ex-servicemen had (and still have) guns. You can still get a gun licence and keep guns in this country. Truth is, very few people do, or ever did, own guns in England. We've historically favoured blades.
Before the ban on handguns, there was a spate of handgun ownership, but that was primarily amongst the criminally minded and given that they're criminally minded, that hasn't really changed much. All that's changed is the extent to which they can be prosecuted for mere possession.
In terms of marching on parliament: the numbers of people owning guns has always been so low as to make that idea preposterous. Frankly, even if 250,000 people marched on Parliament waving guns, that would not allow them to overthrow an elected government, because said government controls the armed forces and in a straight fight, they'd win hands down. If we were to march waving guns, they'd bring out bigger guns and tanks, and the result would be a fucking bloodbath.
However, this doesn't mean we cannot force out an unpopular government. The thing with the democratic process, is that politicians always look to the next election. If, as was the case in 1990, a Prime Minister has become so unpopular as to put the party at risk of losing power atthe next general election, the party will get rid. 250,000 people marched against Thatcher's Poll Tax. The result was her own side stuck the knife in.
If, in some hypothetical future time, a government decided to hold onto power in a despotic fashion (removing right of election, putting us into a State of Emergency, declaring themselves untouchable etc) then, maybe, we'd need guns. But don't wrry about the fact guns are illegal without a licence. Drugs are illegal, and we manage to find plenty of them. If we ever need guns, believe me we'd get them.
The problem is, UG, that overall, firearms and their usage are simply not a large part of our culture. It's not a case of having our ability to oppose by force, removed. In order to make Britain a gun carrying nation like the states you would have to profoundly alter our culture and mentalite. Now I can see why someone might want to try arming the nation in the 18th or 19th century. But I see no need to be taking backward steps now. We've got to where we are without the need for massive amounts of gun ownership. I personally am quite proud of that.
I wouldn't want my society to always be ready for civil war. I wouldn't want to always have that thought in mind, that we may someday need to force out a despotic regime. We have ballot boxes and checks and balances, and a long, long history of them too. Guns should play no part in politics.
You said that
Quote:
|
You are no longer capable of marching on Parliament and telling them their services will no longer be required, pending their replacement by MPs more attuned to the populace's rights and liberties.
|
Who decides UG? Looking at this board and the difference of opinions on it, which of your countrymen would make that decision? If you and your ilk decide that the politicians are not in tune with the populace, what about the many thousands who would disagree? What you are talking about is the ability for a dissatisfied mob to overrule the democratic process through armed insurrection. What gives that armed mob the right to overrule the wishes of the rest of the electorate?
If our MPs are out of tune with the populace, and new MPs are required, there are democratic processes which can be entered into. Democratic processes in which every citizen has a right to engage.