I think it's more a protection against them moving too far, too fast. There's always that thought in the back of their minds "is this going to be the thing that finally makes people snap and fight back?"
On the other hand, things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a retaliation for Waco, didn't involve guns at all. Presumably if the English wanted to rise up, they would be planting IEDs, stabbing cops in the back while they ate breakfast at a cafe, throwing acid in their faces, etc. and wouldn't be terribly disadvantaged by not having firearms.
The real issue is that they probably won't be in a uprising in either England or the US. The politicians are skilled at ratcheting back when needed, and allowing performative "debate" and controlled opposition.
I think it's more a protection against them moving too far, too fast. There's always that thought in the back of their minds "is this going to be the thing that finally makes people snap and fight back?"
On the other hand, things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a retaliation for Waco, didn't involve guns at all. Presumably if the English wanted to rise up, they would be planting IEDs, stabbing cops in the back while they ate breakfast at a cafe, throwing acid in their faces, etc. and wouldn't be terribly disadvantaged by not having firearms.
The real issue is that they probably won't be in a uprising in either England or the US. The politicians are skilled at ratcheting back when needed, and allowing performative "debate" and controlled opposition.