In 1766, Sir William Blackstone wrote in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

"“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

The statute referred to is the 1688 Bill of Rights, enacted after the Glorious Revolution and designed to repeal James IIs' prohibition on the carrying of arms by Protestants. (Read my full article here if you're interested: https://medium.com/@argonaut57/gun-control-and-the-uk-19bbad1528ec).

This law would have applied in the Colonies and would have permitted ordinary people to own and carry pistols, daggers, cudgels, blunderbusses or cutlasses for their protection. Those designated 'gentlemen' would be not only permitted, but required, to carry swords as well. So to be fair, I don't think a ban on carrying arms would have been one of the causes of the coup.

That law was not modified in any way in the UK until the Vagrancy Act of 1824, which made carrying weapons "with intent to commit a felonious act" a crime. Our current stringent firearms laws date from the second half of the 20th Century, and were enacted in response to public outrage over mass shootings. We don't have an NRA, however, which explains things!