what british really learnt

[pankajbanjara]

according to my understanding what the angrez log really learnt from the american war of independence was STRICT GUN CONTROL in the colonies or settelments under the rule of the crown, before the american revolution britishers had no specific laws regarding firearm manufacturing or ownership in british colonies or settelments, its only after they lost the war did they realise that if the subjects they rule are liberally armed what the consequences could it lead to for them.so going by the slogan NEVER AGAIN , which ever colony or country the angrez people ruled after the american revolution had very very strict gun control laws therby making it almost impossible for a civilian to own a gun in the colony or settelment , in that long list of colonies unfortunately came OUR COUNTRY ALSO , rest is history , even thou i have not but some one plz check the gun manufacturin & ownership laws in all british ruled colonies after american independence till they achived their independence ,, they all have almost similar strict gun control rules , unfortunately our govt still swears by the & abides in the same old angrez rule book .

[Grumpy]

That`s pretty well the case I reckon.
As an aside, please avoid that ugly Americanism `Britisher`. I`m British - you`re Indian, not an Indiansher. I wish the Americanshers would stop using the term.

[FN-Five-Seven]

Is it really that hard , to be able to type a paragraph in English with correct spellings , using proper punctuation marks , proper use of capital letters for proper nouns and avoid using Hindi words such as angrez log ?

[Kittu]

Hi grumpy
its seems its only a clerical mistake as the auther didnt knew subjects liveved in britain were known as british not britishers and so on thanks

[timmy]

I am afraid that the historical basis for the OP's premise does not exist. After the Jacobite Uprising of 1715 (well before the American Revolution), the British Parliament passed the "Disarming Act," which forbade the Scottish clans from having, "use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon."

This measure did not achieve its desired result, so in 1725, Major General George Wade was sent to enforce an even stricter law upon the Highlands clans.

The lack of proper weapons did harm the Scottish cause in the uprising of 1745, but did not prevent them from attempting to throw off the British yoke. So, after the "'45" uprising, "the last law by which the Highlanders are deprived of their arms, has operated with efficacy beyond expectations... the arms were collected with such rigour, that every house was despoiled of its defence."

However, recognizing that the Scots were the sort of people for who an idea was the most dangerous weapon of all to their subjugation, the British also passed the Dress Act, which banned wearing of Highland Dress (have you ever considered that wearing a kilt was as dangerous as a gun or sword?) and demanded that schoolchildren be required to pray for the King and the royal family.

I have long maintained that the imposition of gun control is more due to ignorance and tyranny. I cite the example of Hitler, who failed to subvert the Weimar Republic of Germany with guns, but was quite successful doing so with free speech. So I would ask, what is the real danger in a free society, and what measures to ensure its tranquility are foolish?

But back to the OP's premise, one must be wary of the stuff some people in the USA blather on about. They would have you believe that every urge for freedom and creativity was invented when Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Actually, these desires are as old as mankind. This is why I believe in RKBA as a global, or human right.

[nagarifle]

i am wishing to say that am not taking part in the issue of britisher, those britisher like grumpy had their day, as it is well known to one and all that every dog hasit it day. ass for my grammer and riting i am wanting you to know that i went to one of the finests skkools. tarn the coumpter is itnt reading my mind.

well at least the British are capable of learning and applying what they have learnt. [used to] most government have one desire that is to rule by any means. disarming or not letting one get armed is one method used.

[dr.jayakumar]

does this mean we are still ruled by the british?
dr.jk

[pankajbanjara]

nagarifle my brother

[brihacharan]

Does this mean we are still ruled by the Britishers?
dr.jk

> Good question Doc
> I would opine that "Though not in Practice" - But in Spirit
> The result of a backlash borne out of 200+ years of subjugation
> Lord Macaulay 's observation was that "The Indians are an enlightened lot, intelligent and of a proud lineage that was built on the foundations of a rich culture and social conduct. One cannot rule them by force - But one can, by destroying their spirit.
> Which they successfully did and got away with it
> The wheels of time are turning - UK will follow the way of the USSR.
> Change is constant & consistent - The Old order changes, Yielding to the new, Lest one old tradition be corrupted by the new!
Briha

[essdee1972]

With apologies to my American friends, the original Americans are still enslaved. Oh OK, not really enslaved, but on reservations and are trotted out as tourist attractions a la Wild Bill Hickock's Wild West show (I knew a native American exchange student once, and these observations are from talks with him. Things might have changed in the last 14-15 years, so I may be wrong).

Washington and the other founding fathers, although I respect them greatly (and wish our founders were as enlightened) were, at one level, dissident colonialists, who wanted to part ways with the mother country, due to certain differences with the government of the said mother country.

Colonialism in the US continued even after Independence, with the only difference being that now the home government (instead of the King sitting across the "pond") expanded into virgin territory (or at least virgin for the people of European descent (aka "palefaces"). The "redskins" were pushed out, massacred (anyone remember Custer?), and generally treated worse than the Brits ever treated us. (my use of "paleface" and "redskin" above is not racist, but only quoting what was common in those days).

Moreover, since the colonialists were expanding into hitherto unexplored (by whites) country and fighting against Native Americans, wildlife, Spanish / Mexicans (in Texas, say), and amongst each other, guns & weapons were a need. So most of them were armed.

In India, the "gun ban", as per my information, started post-1857 Mutiny.

However, all said and done, it is not a wonder that the British ruled the way they did. It was expected from Macaulay, Dalhousie, etc. etc. as employees of the Honourable East India Company (to give its full name) or as representatives of His/Her Majesty to ensure that the Empire was safe and sound, the taxes flowed in, British citizens were not massacred, etc.

The wonder is that our "native" government has continued the same laws. One wonders whether these guys are as afraid of being overthrown as the British were!!

[xl_target]

The wonder is that our "native" government has continued the same laws. One wonders whether these guys are as afraid of being overthrown as the British were!!

Aha!

[nagarifle]

does this mean we are still ruled by the British?
dr.jk

not in physical attributes but surly in spirit the Britishers [eh grumpy] are here. the majority of the laws are Britishers law which is wholeheartedly enforced by the governing bodies. Britisher may have left India but India has not left the Britishers.

what the heck man, lets take a look at the britishers,- Normans/Saxons/vikings, Romans/ franchies and now a lady of German decent is ruling the Britishers, God save the Queen easy

[Sakobav]

It could be a hypothesis to link USA independence with Indian laws but there is a disconnect here. India was ruled by East India Company for the formative years of Raj before 1857. A good time later from US war therefore rules were made based on local issues and conditions. Meaning mutiny had a big impact on such legislations than anything else

[pankajbanjara]

1643 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1857

[Grumpy]

So when did you give up your British passport Naga ?
What are you now, an Indiansher or have you acquired a home rule Nagasher passport ?
I wasn`t going to bother to give a proper response to this topic as the premise was so obviously incorrect but as the speculation has become more and more inaccurate and the opinions more wildly incorrect I`ve realised that I have to `put the record straight`. The events that promoted firearms ownership restrictions in the British colonies were the result of incidents in the particular colonies and the only `universal` colonial restriction that I can think of is the .450 calibre ban.
SO, Timmy is absolutely right in suggesting that the imposition of firearms legislation in the UK has absolutely nothing to do with discontent in the colonies. The colonies were thousands of miles away and presented no threat to the UK apart from economic threats to the national purse. The British regarded the colonies as an exploitable resource and colonial uprisings were a nuisance but nothing to be feared ...... They couldn`t even be bothered to deal with stroppy Indians using the British Army but, instead, created the Indian Army which was always considered inferior - as indicated by the fact that my British Constitution lecturer at college was an ex-Indian Army lieutenant colonel who was transferred to the British Army post Indian independence with a reduction in rank to Major - the reduction in rank applied to most Indian Army commissioned officers. The restrictions on firearms ownership in the UK, as Timmy says, had much more to to with tyranny ( certainly a degree of ) ignorance ( a lot of ) domestic fears and `kneejerk` political reaction.
The right to bear arms was not an American `invention` but one they copied from the 1689 Bill of Rights which enshrined the British right to bear arms ( except for catholics. ) The restrictions on firearms ownership occurred much later than most people imagine ( except for the Scots who were a thorough pain in the British ar*e - the Highlanders anyway - and even their restricted rights were a temporary imposition. )
In 1870 it became necessary to obtain a licence to carry a firearm outside the home. The 1903 Pistols Act required the licencing of any firearm with a barrel less than 9 inches in length and also denied drunks and lunatics the right to own firearms.
What provoked more restrictive licencing was the increasing number of anarchist and Bolshevic groups - the 1911 Sidney Street Siege by Latvian anarchists was a definite catalyst - the Russian Revolution by the Bolsheviks and the vast number of firearms which came into circulation as a result of WWI troops returning with `war trophies`. The 1920 Firearms Act introduced firearms registration and allowed the police to deny a firearms licence to anyone `unfitted to be trusted with a firearm`. The 1937 Firearms Act made the ownership of fully-automatic weapons illegal. The 1967 Criminal Justice Act introduced a licencing requirement for shotguns and the 1968 Firearms Act further confirmed the 1967 Act and also introduced shotgun licence fees. The 1987 Hungerford massacre brought about major changes with the Firearms ( Amendment ) Act 1988: Centrefire semi-automatic and pump-action rifles were banned, as were `short` shotguns with magazines. Shotguns were required to be registered and secure storage provided. The 1996 Dunblane massacre provoked the Firearms ( Amendment ) ( No.2 ) Act 1997 in which pistols ( handguns ) were banned.
You can see that troubles in the colonies had no effect whatsoever on UK firearms legislation - all the issues were which influenced firearms legislation were domestic apart from the Russian Revolution. As such, there was no imposition of firearms restrictions in the colonies based on UK domestic legislation. For the current firearms restrictions in place in India look to successive Indian Governments since independence. I know that it is is often convenient to blame policies on the British as the former colonial `masters but the fact is that all the firearms legislation that India has was legislated by Indian Governments. Independence gave you a `clean slate` as regards legislation.