“Ironically, the only gun control in 19th century England was the policy forbidding police to have arms while on duty.”

An absurd law indeed.

In the 18th century, local police were considered a foreign standing army. The sentiment was shared in the colonies and subsequent USA. The introduction of police was a slippery slope. Now that gun possession has been removed from the people and given to the police, security has decreased, tyranny increased.

In those days, the British Bill of Rights reinstated the ancient right to be armed after James II had prohibited the carrying of arms by Protestants. Generally it was considered a threat for police officers to be armed (as police were but government military). But 'rights' in England are granted by the Crown and were/are therefore regulated by 'law' (i.e. whatever the Crown or his/her government shall declare). My understanding is that even today, the British police officer is not permitted to carry a gun which is reserved for special armed units. While there are less 'gun crimes' per capita in the UK than the US, there is more total crime per capita than the US. Even turning in a gun found on one's property in England is considered an inexcusable felony and subject to years of imprisonment. American gun control advocates have been trying to pass similar legislation in the US for decades. There is one major difference between our two countries, however -- in England the rights of the people are granted from the Crown, and in America, our rights are recognized to be inherent and inalienable and to be protected by our government. That is, until enough people have been taught otherwise by those that wish to make them their subjects.

Don't put too much faith in your local cops. They are more and more federalized with money from Washington and when push comes to shove, they will do what they are told by the government.

Some good points here, but I still thinks it's absurd to ask a policeman to do his job unarmed.