examiner - Will UK medical surveillance of gun owners arouse Britannic federalism?

[Mike]

http://www.examiner.com/article/wil...nce-of-gun-owners-arouse-britannic-federalism

SNIP

The United Kingdom’s gun laws could be the first major public policy test since the near-miss bid for Scottish Independence last fall. The policy question: Should the Law Lords in London dictate Britannic-wide medical surveillance on lawful gun owners?

The Wall Street Journal concluded last September that Prime Minister Cameron’s pledge to “hand substantial new powers to Scotland” and presumably England, Whales, and Northern Ireland amounted to “a new constitutional settlement based upon a new federalism.” The Washington Post seemed to agree, noting that the pledge amounts to “a radical re-thinking of power in the Union, bringing it closer to the local and regional levels."

Though admitting that surveillance of gun owners though medical records could deter gun owners from coming to doctors with concerns about their health and amounts to “a breach of patient confidentiality, the British Medical Association’s ethics committee has said that ‘public safety’ comes first.”

. . .

Mr. Pierce contends that this latest gun control power grab in London is an opportunity for the people and nations of the UK to take control of their rights, “After all,” asked Pierce, “would Scotland’s William Wallace have stood for a scheme of medical surveillance of Scotts by the Crown?”

In any event, English Common Law forms the basis of many American civil rights, including the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment “to keep and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Perhaps too, someday, "The Rights of Englishmen" will mean something again.

 

[DeSchaine]

Scotland HAD the chance to take control of their rights, and they screwed it up. Seems to me that all London will think is "we can promise the commoners whatever they want and they'll sit down and behave like good little children. But we dont have to deliver." The people might get aroused, but the House of Par will just make more empty overtures and keep on the way they are going. Personally, I think they deserve what they get. They allowed it to happen in the first place, with very little argument.

 

[qednick]

Scotland HAD the chance to take control of their rights, and they screwed it up. Seems to me that all London will think is "we can promise the commoners whatever they want and they'll sit down and behave like good little children. But we dont have to deliver." The people might get aroused, but the House of Par will just make more empty overtures and keep on the way they are going. Personally, I think they deserve what they get. They allowed it to happen in the first place, with very little argument.

Interesting to note that Scotland is predominantly far more socialist than England. So, for all we know, had Scotland voted to part ways, it may have helped Englanders to restore their freedom.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Scotland HAD the chance to take control of their rights, and they screwed it up. Seems to me that all London will think is "we can promise the commoners whatever they want and they'll sit down and behave like good little children. But we dont have to deliver." The people might get aroused, but the House of Par will just make more empty overtures and keep on the way they are going. Personally, I think they deserve what they get. They allowed it to happen in the first place, with very little argument.

Looks like gov'ts are the same all over then.