Genuine American gun culture comes from our rights as Englishmen, as guaranteed by the Crown. This should automatically clear up why New Hampshire has great gun laws and Maryland doesn’t, for those who know history. New Hampshire was established by John Mason under the authority and charter of King James’ Privy Council. Mason was an English sailor, cartographer, and most notably of all, a God-fearing and zealous Anglican. If you’re wondering what kept Vermont relatively sane, I’d call your attention to the fact that Vermont was a frontier state settled largely by families from New Hampshire. One might look at New Hampshire and Vermont as islands of relative sanity adrift in an ocean of Unitarian-Puritanical Dissenter perversion.
Maryland, on the other hand, was Chartered to Lord Baltimore who sought to create a homeland for “English Catholics,” by which he meant “English Roman Catholics,” for Anglicans are as Catholic as the Eastern Orthodox, although neither Roman nor of Eastern liturgy. Notable in the history is Maryland’s early border disputes with Pennsylvania, Virginia, and even New York (engaging in a border dispute with a territory whose nearest border stands over 100 miles away takes gumption on the part of at least one party). The Maryland constitution included no mention at all of “the right to bear arms.” Maryland, though, has a Southern culture and Baltimore stood long as one of the jewels in the crown of the South. The distinction between Maryland and the rest comes from the fact that the Southern colonies and states, and their laws and customs, were established almost exclusively by Anglican Royalists and patriots of House Stuarts’ reign in England.
Why should the lack of firearm culture in non-Anglican dominant colonies fail to surprise you? Because the notion of the right comes from the notion of the obligation. The kings of England, in both 1252, and 1363, declared the *obligation* of subjects, both rich and poor, to practice archery so that England would always have a standing army of size to defend against nations with far larger populations and that a professional military might be recruited from the best. Both Papists and Dissenters took dim views of this as England progressed and ceded from Roman foreign authority and cultivated its own historical sense of catholicity. To discuss the “bearing of arms” would have sounded to a Marylander or a citizen of Salem as palatable as an “All Hail and Good Health to King George” in the early 1700s. In short, to them weapons are for deposing the forces of order and can then be dispensed with whenever you acquire whatever form of government you desire, be it a papal backwater on the edge of Europe, or a proto-Trotskyist commonwealth. Ironically, the English tradition of arming against outside incursion formed the best defense against internal abuses as well, and so the eternal vigilance of the loyal peasant and his preparedness and willingness to do violence to maintain his way of life acted as a deterrent to both French *and* English royalty and nobility.
Ironically, it was the colonists descended from Englishmen, wholly opposed to Republican government, who were capable of perpetuating the discipline and gravity required to maintain a Republican government and nation.