🖼️🔄 elonmusk Retweeted Ne_pas_couvrir
Did you know that England once had a deeply rooted civilian gun culture, stretching from the 1500s into the early twentieth century, and that this English tradition helped shape the American right to keep and bear arms?
For centuries, English law and custom treated the armed citizen as a normal part of a free society. The 1689 Bill of Rights, enacted after the Glorious Revolution, declared that Protestant subjects could have arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law. That language reflected older English assumptions rather than creating something wholly new.
Under the militia tradition, able-bodied men were long expected to possess arms for the defense of the realm, and by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries firearms were widely available to ordinary civilians with relatively little state interference. Guns could be bought in shops, advertised openly, and acquired with few of the licensing burdens that later became standard. For much of this period, England did not treat civilian gun ownership as suspicious. It treated it as normal.
That inheritance mattered in America. The American founders drew heavily from English common law, Blackstone, and the broader Anglo political tradition, including the 1689 Bill of Rights. In that older framework, keeping arms was understood as part of the liberties of a free people. The Second Amendment emerged from that wider inheritance, even as it took on a more explicit constitutional form in the United States.
Britain’s sharp break with this older tradition came after the First World War. Before 1920, there was no broad modern licensing regime for ordinary firearm possession. The postwar period changed that. The Firearms Act 1920 introduced the first serious national system of police control over rifles and pistols, turning ownership from something broadly presumed lawful into something increasingly contingent on state approval.
The reasons were political as much as criminal. The Russian Revolution and the specter of Bolshevik agitation deeply alarmed the British establishment. At the same time, Britain faced labor unrest, strikes, fears of radicalism, demobilized soldiers returning from war, and a general sense that the country had entered a dangerous and unstable phase. Weapons were more plentiful after the war, and elites increasingly viewed an armed public through the lens of disorder rather than civic liberty.
Immigration and postwar racial tensions formed an important part of that climate. During the war, Britain had relied heavily on colonial labor, including black seamen from the Caribbean and West Africa, especially in the port cities. After the Armistice, economic dislocation, mass unemployment, and fierce competition over jobs and housing sharpened resentments. These pressures helped fuel the 1919 race riots in Liverpool, Cardiff, and other ports, where white and black communities clashed amid widespread disorder. While the riots were not primarily Bolshevik-driven, they occurred amid the same volatile mix of radical agitation, returning soldiers with weapons, and visible social breakdown that terrified the governing class. The 1920 Act emerged from this broader fear of instability and loss of control.
A similar pattern of social anxiety appeared again after 1945. Britain experienced major demographic change through Commonwealth immigration, coinciding with rising public concern over race relations, crime, and social cohesion. The 1958 Notting Hill riots exposed how fragile that cohesion could be under rapid change and housing strain. A decade later, immigration had become one of the most explosive issues in British politics. Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech captured those anxieties. In that same charged atmosphere, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 further restricted entry.
It was in this wider climate of unease that tighter firearms law became politically easier to justify. The new shotgun certificat...
