@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:Because of how we had been treated by the crown, and because at that time there really was no standing army in this country, and because firearms were needed for survival, the framers of the constitution included the second amendment.
Not exactly. They could have had a standing army if they wanted one.
The reason they strengthened and protected the militia wasn't because they needed it. They strengthened and protected the militia because they
wanted it.
They felt that having a standing army would bring the same sort of tyranny that they had just defeated, so they wanted to avoid having a standing army at all costs.
mysteryman wrote:IMHO, part of the reason that the "gun culture" never began in England is because there was never a reason to. There was never a need to defend yourself against hostile invasions or against Indian attack, there was never the "westward expansion" that there was here in the US, there was never a serious need to hunt for food (at least not in the great prairies like we have here), in short England was already "civilised", while the US was still growing and expanding.
Actually, the gun culture DID once exist in England. In fact, it began there.
England did once have some of those problems. First the Romans invaded and conquered them. Then after Rome collapsed, various Germanic tribes (Anglos, Saxons, etc) invaded and conquered them. Then more Germanic tribes (Normans) invaded and conquered the earlier Germanic tribes. Then more Germanic tribes (Vikings) invaded and pillaged.
King Henry Plantagenet set up a system of militia in 1181 with his Assize of Arms. Our own militia system was descended from that.
Some centuries later there was a bit of a squabble over Catholicism, and the result was the creation of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Our own right to carry guns in public is descended from that.