[quote]Sifu wrote:
Your efforts to play spin doctor will not work here. It wasn’t just sportmen who were affeted by the 1997 gun control act. Surely you have heard of the case of a farmer named Martin who was the victim of several home invasions until he shot two home invaders who attacked him in the kitchen of his home.
Because he used an “illegal” shotgun to defend himself the government gave him life in prison. I would say he was very much affected by that law along with the thousands of defenseless people who have been injured or murdered since 1997.
You are woefully ignorant of British and American history. The right to keep and bear arms is an ancient right that Britains have enjoyed in various forms for over a thousand years. The American second amendment is derived from British common law and is based upon the 1688 bill of rights. It’s a good thing for you that good cap’n cut and paste is here to relieve you of your ignorance. For the sake of brevity I will start with William the Conqueror’s liberation of Britain.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:U5PlXQy-JhkJ:www.bcrevolution.ca/common_law_right.htm+keep+and+bear+arms+"anglo+saxon"&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Norman conquest brought with it the feudal system in a complete form, which reached its zenith in England during the 16th Century. During this period the kings began to formulate plans called assizes to determine the amount and tenure of their subjects in the military service of the king. Standing armies were unknown and little desired by the majority of free-men.
The Assize of Arms of Henry II (1181) required every free-man to keep arms suited to his station in life, and to be prepared to fight for the common defense and the king.
Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force until the King should begin to follow the articles of the charter.[13]
Thus the right of lawful revolution was born into the constitutional law of England. This is of major import because without the right to revolt there is less reason to preserve the right to bear arms. This particular portion of the carta has been reaffirmed as were the regulations concerning the bearing of arms and tenure by serjeanty.
It was also recognized at an early date that the society had certain rights against being terrorized by those going armed. The Statute of Northampton (1328) made it illegal to ride in the darkness armed with a dangerous weapon and terrorizing the people.[15] Thus the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and revolution were not impeded, but the “police power” to limit the use of weapons was recognized.
With the ascent of the Stuarts to the throne, England underwent sudden change. James I and Charles I made fine use of the scutage and raised small standing armies. After the Commonwealth, James II and Charles II raised even larger armies until the time of William and Mary (1688). Charles II forbade the owning of arms by anyone not owning land with rents of one hundred pounds or higher.[16]
The year 1688 brought the bill of rights which provided that standing armies were a menace, and that the people should all have the right to bear arms equally:
That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of the parliament, be against the law
That the subjects known as protestants may have arms suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by lawâ?¦[18]
These two provisions would seem to reaffirm the theory and right to revolution, for they were born in revolution. Blackstone, speaking of the evils of the standing army, said:
Our notions, indeed, of the dangers of standing armies, in time of peace are derived in a great measure from the principles and examples of our English ancestors. In England, the king possessed the power of raising standing armies in time of peace according to his own pleasure. And this perogative was justly esteemed dangerous to the public liberties. Upon the revolution of 1688 Parliament wisely insisted upon a bill of rights, which should furnish an adequate security for the future
In addition to the right of revolution is the right of personal self-defense. Without this basic right there would be no reason for man to bear arms. The right to bear arms must therefore draw its strength from the rights of man to resort to force when law fails or an adequate remedy is not immediately available to prevent the loss of human life.
The thin line between self-defense with regard to actual bodily fear and that of stopping a progressing felony is in itself a delicate modern problem. A more ancient problem is that of self-defense when faced with an aggressive deadly force.
It was only in the nineteen twenties that Britain started restricting gun ownership in response to the Russian revolution. Then as now the powers at the top of British society feared rebellion and wanted to limit the peoples ability to rebel.
During world war two and for a time after guns were widely available in Britain. Soldiers would bring them home as trophies. The entire country was awash in guns.
Gun ownership levels prior to 1997 may not have been at American levels but there must have been enough to deter criminals because there was an explosive growth in gun crime and other acts of violence after 1997. [/quote]
Sifu you dumb arse, Martin would have had exactly the same charges levelled at him prior to 1997. As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, you have not had the right in the UK to use a gun for self defence since the 1930s.
There was no explosion in gun crime after 1997, there was a linear increase running up to 97 which continued at a pretty stable state after 1997. The biggest causes of an increase in available guns were the various conflicts around Ex-Yugoslavia.
In living memory Britain (like most of the rest of the world) has not had anything approaching a gun culture. You can argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing but that is a fact, deal with it.