</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda:
"the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate"
I would seriously question this statement, in view of the latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns. In addition to this, the UK firearms is an ideological piece of legislation which has demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns were not at issue in the firearms restrictions enacted in response to the Dunblane massacre. Headlines make for good excuses to infringe rights.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority"
I don't see what a written constitution changes. See the written constitutions of Japan, France, Germany and even the USSR. No point in having any constitution in any form when men in charge do not follow it.[/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Unenforced laws are indeed meaningless. But their enforcement is nowise restricted to "men in charge". Even Stalin's constitution served in good stead the Soviet dissidents of the Sixties, who bravely fought the systematic abuses of human rights by demanding that the government abide by its own written rules. The same principle applies much better in societies responsive to the will of their electorate.