In the realms of the Commonwealth, the restrictions on personally owned firearms are less of a constitutional deal than they are in the United States.
The reason is that we are not so afraid of our governments, and this is a by-product of our reliance on the institution of the monarchy.
The entire governmental apparatus is sworn to that one, regular person. The entire civil service *shadows* the government, and in many ways it is the Cabinet Secretary who is the superior of the Prime Minister. When the last general election looked like it was going to lead to a deadlock, no politician was allowed anywhere near The Queen...the decision was taken by The Queen in the company of the Cabinet Secretary.
We're not so afraid of the armed police, or of the Army, because they are all in the control of a National Command Authority that is represented by one average person's average common sense.
In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is protected because in their day, and for good reason, of course, the Founding Fathers were afraid of their colonial governments and they could very well foresee another armed insurrection being necessary in the future. The Founding Fathers wanted an armed population to be a *threat* to the police and the Army. The British constitution learned from the American War of Independence, and it is partly a result of this catastrophe that the monarchy developed the way that it did.
It's just another way of looking at things.
If I had to pick which system were better, I am not sure if I would be able to do it. They are both very valid, both very functional, and both very, very FREE.
