Here's something funny: You don't need a license to own a TV; you just need one to watch BBC. That's fine with me - there's a lot of great stuff on BBC.
Here's something even funnier: I, and most Brits, don't want to own a gun and couldn't give a sh*t about having the right to own one.
This one's hysterical: "I know that if the governemnt comes through the door of my home they will have obtained a warrant from a judge based on probable cause. You don't because your government isn't so restrained."
Actually, British police do need search warrants - you must have missed that during your research on the subject - and ever heard of the Patriot Act? They can enter your home, search it and never tell you about it.
"That said, I'm still a citizen and you're still a subject."
Wrong. Brits are citizens. This stuff about 'subjects' is archaic rubbish.
Any questions?
First of all, been here longer than you guys ('98) so I know all about the profanity. Sue me. An occassional expression such as I uttered doesn't get you banned. And sometimes they are highly technical terms. (although admittedly this wasn't one of those times)
Second, my understanding is that (and it is my understanding, so I sincerely apprectiate the education I'm getting) you don't have an analogy to the Fourth Amendment anywhere in your system - got to go review the Magna Carta...been a while. That the police have entirely more power than they do over here...and no, I don't think our police are appropriately restrained on some points. (That doesn't mean I'm anti-police...especially since given I used to be one.) I look forward to the Patriot Act being fully overturned someday as well.
Third, since when did you guys become a sovereign political entity as opposed to a subject? (KT...if you don't understand what I'm talking about let me know...I'll explain it to you.) IF you truly are...that's great.
Fourth...the whole second amendment issue determines where your form of government stands on the issue of who is superior - the individual or the State. Any State that fears an armed populace should be feared. Once upon a time the US operated on the principle that we don't regulate behavior based on the least common denominator and/or what people might do. Sadly that has been changing for some time and we continue to fight against it. However, on balance I think we are still better off than the UK. For the most part the US recognizes that normal people (not politicians) are basically good and firearms are tools.
A similar issue is self-defense/defense of property. A State that doesn't recognize these as the provence of the individual is a State to be feared. Don't bother arguing...go talk to the families of the people the Crown has imprisoned for defendoing their homes from burglars.
No, I'm not a bloodthirsty yank...but I do believe in a self-chlorinating gene pool. And the only places in the US where you can't defend your home/person are liberal utopian cities like Baltimore, DC, New York, Chicago, etc... The same places that point to the UK as a model regarding these issues.
So it appears that the UK and the US are somewhat similarly situated...more UK more free on some issues where the US is less free and the US more free on some issues where the UK is less free. With both countries still attempting to prove John Locke correct in the long run.
Regards.