Read on Twitter
Great question: complicated answer. At least part of the answer comes courtesy of the mother country, England.
Back in the day, able bodied men who worked land for their local nobility also owed military service and we're largely expected to maintain their own firearms. https://twitter.com/PaulSteveSamuel/status/1350385520568922112
Back in the day, able bodied men who worked land for their local nobility also owed military service and we're largely expected to maintain their own firearms. https://twitter.com/PaulSteveSamuel/status/1350385520568922112
That system was applied in the earliest colonies, where people who worked for the companies would have the land they were responsible for and if they needed to go deal with Indian raids they were expected to maintain a firearm, powder and shot.
(this is broadly speaking, there was variation between the colonies.)
Then after the English Civil War, the Charles II started taking guns away from certain unreliable elements after the Restoration. Those elements began crying tyranny.
Then after the English Civil War, the Charles II started taking guns away from certain unreliable elements after the Restoration. Those elements began crying tyranny.
That idea of guns as a hedge against Tyranny traces back to the Restoration. Ultimately, they worked out a deal and they got to keep their guns. But the idea that guns were a hedge against government overreach is an English export. Made its way into our culture. Been there since.
CORREX: I have unintentionally maligned Charles II. Still technically part of The Restoration, but it was Charles' successor, James II who tried to disarm unreliable elements (read: protestants).
It must be understood, however, that at the time Europe was coming off some truly horrifying history. Guns were part of the solution to, you know, religiously motivated massacres.
