Larry, I respect your opinions and regard your posts highly, but on the early colonial gun ownership issue, you are simply wrong.
Guns, usually smoothbore muskets in large calibers (.60+), were pervasive, and few colonial families were without at least one. They were as necessary as an ax or a hammer. Then, as now, there were cheap models available (commonly the British "Brown Bess") either as military surplus or as "home shop knockoffs" and were not considered "expensive" by those who owned them. True, the newer rifled barrels and more finely machined locks and stocks were considerably more expensive, and ownership of those guns was more rare. Then, as now, about the only people who were without a firearm in the house were either those so dirt poor they couldn't afford their next meal and those elitists who lived in the middle of town and relied on others to protect them.
If you think the early colonials, especially in rural areas, didn't mostly own firearms, then you must think they were not self-reliant and willing to protect themselves from the dangers of the day. This is not "NRA propaganda," it is common sense and historical fact.
jim |
