|
The so-called "right" to bear arms is unique among other similar rights...it is self-reinforcing. A person with a heavy machine gun is much better equipped to continue having it than a person with merely a single-shot musket, and either is better equipped than a man with a rubber band gun.
As for relying to the Parliament, rather than on the Crown, to permit ownership of arms, that doesn't solve the problem. Men tend to be even more vicious than individuals when their responsibility for evil actions is diluted (mob mentality), so ten or a hundred people could just as easily do what one would. In the case of the UK, the "right" has been lost through lack of self-reinforcement.
Having weapons does NOT guarantee freedom. Absence of them, however, does guarantee present or eventual subjugation. It also tends to coincide with heavy-handed oppression, as only under that condition can the absence of arms among individuals remain a reality...without the constant threat of punishment, some individuals would buy or make their own arms promptly. As people get acclimated to the risk of punishment, the severity of it must go up, else they will disregard the law and the consequences of breaking it anyway. As the severeity of punishments and the scope of activities they cover (start with ownership of firearms and proceed to ownership of component materials or mere thoughts on the topic), more and more people would decide that compliance isn't as safe as arming and fighting.
|