OK, Mr. Toad. I'm getting rather tired of it too. I have a visitor here from America (I'll come back to this) , and don't want to spend a long time on this post.
Actually what pisses me off about your analysis of British firearms laws is the way you depict us as a nation of sheep, powerless to protest about legislation that was passed. We had the 1920 Firearms Act, and as your earlier quoted sources have said, it "sailed through parliament". Now to me, this comes as no surprise for the simple reason that no-one here (apart from pockets of special interest groups like your beaters) gives a fork about guns, and therefore it comes as no surprise to me that there was no opposition to this legislation. Points to note are that the Conservative government that passed it was re-elected, and that there was no opposition from any social class (natural Conservative supporter or natural Labour supporter). Indeed, when Ramsay MacDonald was elected (in 1924 and 1929-1935) I am unaware of any attempts to repeal this legislation. Guns were not an issue, and whatever conversations and other banter wafted around Whitehall at that time, there was never any actual threat of an armed proletarian uprising. However, don't think that as "British subjects" (as some people are fond of reminding us) that the people were not prepared to stand up to fight on issues which
were important to them: Wages, hours and working conditions were the primary issues, and the workers
did indeed protest in the 1926 General Strike. But I haven't heard of the workers protesting about any gun rights being taken away.
And yet you seem unable to grasp the fact that maybe - just
maybe - any surplus arms were handed in voluntarily. You said
Originally posted by Toad
So, now you have gun owners registered with the police holding now illegal firearms. These gun owners are given an "amnesty" period to turn in the guns or be in violation facing an average term of 18 months just for possessing a handgun.
The cops know exactly who has the guns and who hasn't turned them in (if any). That's pretty much confiscation to anyone with a clue.
How would the cops know who had guns and who didn't after WW1? What police records would have existed? How could they know if a returning soldier had picked up a weapon dropped on the battlefield by a dead soldier or even an enemy soldier? In the chaos following the war, the cops wouldn't have known who had what - especially as guns for the war would have been tracked by military records, not police records - if they were tracked at all. Even if they did - how could they deal with it? Are you suggesting they searched every working man's home in the land? - there would have been millions. Hardly seems plausible. Besides, if they were that worried, all they had to do was to cut off the supplies of ammunition and/or examine records of ammo sales...
For me, however, it's much easier to accept the scenario of weapons being handed in voluntarily. We were never an armed society as yours has been since Day1. We were never a nation of frontiersmen. We never had to have our menfolk defending the property by standing on the stoop with a rifle.
But for you (and other American gun enthusiasts consumed with the rights conferred upon them by your 2nd amendment) the notion of voluntarily handing in a weapon to the authorities because it is no longer wanted or needed is inconceivable. So for you, any such amnesty is tantamount to confiscation.
As for how disinterested our country is about guns, you only have to look at the low rate of UK participation in these gun threads. Apart from me (and I have a special interest having lived in the US) we have maybe one or two others - that's all. And as I said before, when I came to sell my Joyce Lee Malcolm book about guns in Britain, the eBay ad attracted just a single bid of £2 - that's how much interest there is in guns here.
My visitor here is an English friend - a mere subject - who has lived in Arkansas for about 4 years. We were talking this morning about the process of applying for US citizenship - something he doesn't intend to do. He's happy with his green card. I asked him if there's anything he
cannot do as a non-citizen. The only thing he knows about is not being able to vote. I asked him if he could buy a gun - yes he can. The only stipulation is that he be a resident of the state...
...so is he going to buy one, given that about 60-70% of the people he knows out there have guns? Nope... why not? He doesn't see the need for one. In a way, it would be neat if he did - think of it - a British "subject", owning a gun legally in the US.

By the way, Toad, I think you'll find that our PM, David Lloyd George, had a double barrelled surname even if it wasn't hyphenated. Hence, his surname was Lloyd George, not simply George.
Toodle-Pip
Beet.