</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:
<strong>"the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets'"
I guess Mr. Tac would be in a better position to comment on this. In the meantime, I'd say that the labour party came into power because many people were tired of over 15 years of conservative governments. This has little to do with gun control. (The erosion of conservative support started long before the gun-related events). The same reason applies to Mr. Schroeder beating Mr. Kohl in Germany.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I do not share your capacity for divining the root causes of political change. To the extent that I can figure out the conjunctions of events, gun bans seem to go hand in hand with "a levelling, rancorous, rational sort of mind" characteristic of Whiggery.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority"
There is no majority ruling in the UK and there has never been. As far as I know, no government ever had more than ~45% of the popular votes.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I find little to choose between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the plurality.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort."
OK, let's put it this way: The US Constitution says:
"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How well does this work out in NY or Washington?
Conversely, Greece has a very heavy legal gun-ban but it is tolerated that people in Crete own guns without even reporting them (and they welcome their own PMs by shooting in the air).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Actually, the Second Amendment works out very well, as witness the effectiveness of preemption laws in forcing any attempts at infringement to the state level. By and large, the legislative process proceeds in the right direction, on which see the changes in the status of concealed carry weapon permit issuance laws. In 1986 8 states had a non-discretionary shall-issue policy, 20 had a discretionary may-issue policy, 21 states had a policy of not issuing any permits to civilians, and 1 state allowed unrestricted concealed carry. In 2003, there were 35 shall-issue states, 9 may-issue, 4 no-issue, and 2 unrestricted. The Clinton assault gun ban is set to expire this September. I'll take this system, warts and all, over yonder Cretans.