That makes sense. The judiciary system is also fairly corrupt, especially during election season. I thought that the gun control is such a problem because the 'right to bear arms' is enshrined in the US constitution, which in turn makes it a patriotic issue. Another problem I have with the constitution is that it can seemingly be interpreted to fit the political landscape at will.For instance, how on earth are the NSA's activities 'constitutional'? The ability to make laws quickly here is undeniably useful, but it also makes law less considered. Personally, I'd rather my elected representative fully read and understood the implications of the laws that he/ she were signing off on. I think I'm right in saying that the Anti Terrorism Act, which was a huge piece of legislation (giving the Home Secretary the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial so long as reasonable suspicion was had), was only considered for 16 hours. Another reason the legislature is so quick is because the executive has a crazy amount of influence over the House of Commons, and MPs are unlikely to vote with their conscience and just do what their party says. I don't like the fact that legislation is very rarely subjected to vigorous debate. The House of Lords (although I hate the concept of an un-elected 2nd chamber) has the power to delay all pieces of law (except financial) for a year, which does at least give it some leverage over the legislative and executive. The Queen, however, is never going to use her legal rights as sovereign, purely because of self interest. This is not a great state of affairs. It does, however, seem preferable to the US system of constant pointless gridlock just for the sake of it.