"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights
existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.


Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

This is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that
it imposes rather more discipline on the legislature than is
present in the US -- less grandstanding over laws that are
clearly unconstitutional (although popular) and likely to be
tossed out later (Homeland security comes to mind). The
curse is obvious, although the monarch occasionally steps
in to provide the 'brakes' that the SC does in the US.

Whether the right to bear arms exists in 50 years time I
rather doubt. The SC could interpret the clause any way
it cares to. If that happens, remember that the UK only
needs an act of parliament to reverse it. In the US, it needs
a new act + 80% of the states too.

As I say. A blessing and a curse, that bill of rights thing.