Re: United States attitudes towards guns and governments

Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> >	The point is that many Americans take the right to bear arms
very
> >seriously, and a number are willing to violate the law to maintain
that
> >ability.  There are a number of nut cases willing to kill innocent
people
> >to keep their weapons.  The NAC would have to adjust to this American
> >attitude by either winking at the Americans when they ban weapons, or
to
> >leave that issue alone.
> 
> I can't see Britain and Canada ignoring the gun control issue or
leaving it
> alone. Actually, there is every possibility that the US will end up
with a gun
> control law similar to that in Canada, but it will take a ground swell
of
> popular support, it will divide the country, and it will take at least
20
> years. Actually, if you want a divisive issue that tears at the fabric
of the
> US and ends up swinging it towards Jon's NAC model, that could be it.
It also
> gives you the basis of Cal-Tex, where guns are quite legal and the old
US
> constitution holds sway.

OTOH, one could easily argue that a divisive civil war that had so 
polarized the nation along regional/ethnic/class/ideology lines could 
well result in more than a few groups being unwilling to disarm in 
order to be included. I think there would be (if the NAC had gun 
control - other than applied at a regional level) a LOT of hidden 
firepower (including military arms) in the former US. 

I think this part of NAC policy should be left to local regions to 
decide. I'll bet the British Police (uniformed) still as a rule don't 
carry guns. Especially in a world of puke-lasers and stunners and 
such technologies.

Tom. 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/