OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"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.

"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.


Sorry George, that's just not true. While some of the Bill of Rights were specifically
to make sure that some issues that the ex-colonials had with the British were not repeated
in the new government, some of it was just codification of principles long established
in British law. Even the notion and term "Bill of Rights" is right out of British Law.

The British 1689 Bill of Rights included freedom to bear arms for self-defense (US 2nd Amd.),
freedom to petition the government (US 1st Amd.), freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
(US 8th Amd.), freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial (US 5th and 7th amds.)
Much of the fifth and sixth amendment are specifically a US declaration of principles of British
common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

-Ron

"Tony Cox" wrote:

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

From what I have seen of New York, it has a large number of high rise
apartment buildings. They would be a big deterrent to burglars in
themselves - anything without a ground floor exit directly to the
outside would make many burglars think twice. My impression is that
London has less of these.

I could be wrong - I haven't lived in either city - but my point is
that you can't draw conclusions like this from the figures, without
knowing whether they have been corrected for this sort of factor. This
is why statistics have a reputation of being deceiving - you can prove
almost anything if you ignore the right factors.

Assuming that the figures and reasons are correct, I don't think that
I like the tradeoff anyway. You may be less likely to be burgled
overall, but it is still much more likely that you will be burgled by
someone with a gun - which makes it much more likely that you will be
killed by a burglar.