Are you trying to quote Jefferson? Then get it right, you lazy lapdog. The correct quote was, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.
First, a "freeman" (not free man) was a citizen with full rights. Freemen (or freeholders) was another term for "the people".
Second, this quote had nothing to do with the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was proposing that this be included in the 1776 Virginia State Constitution.
Third, it referred to arms used on one's own property.
Fourth, it was rejected.
"That every man be armed."
Another misquote. Get off your lazy a$$ and do some research of your own.
Patrick Henry was debating Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 (the militia clause) of the U.S. Constitution, NOT the second amendment. That clause gives Congress the power to arm the state militias -- but that power is concurrent with the states arming the militia.
"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man (IN THE MILITIA -rp) be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"
"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man (IN THE MILITIA -rp) be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"
No, he was pointing out that since every man would be armed there was no reason to issue arms.
Again, if the second amendment dealt with the organized militia it would not have been inserted in the Bill of Rights, a section dealing with individual rights - it would have been inserted Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 - a section dealing with a specifically delegated power of government. Again, this is a basic principle of Constitutional interpretation.
Again, you clearly don't understand the basic premise(s) of our government and what the Constitution was and is - a limiting document which recognizes that each individual has certain rights merely because the individual exists and that over time governments will seek to usurp them and therefore must be held in check from people like you. Henry knew during this debate that every person would be armed, and argued from that point of view. You can't grasp these historical facts either because you are too stupid or you have an agenda.
You are pathetic.
I’ve given you page after page of fully sourced quotations and links to original sources you hydrocephalic miscreant. Take your trolling back over to gunguys.com.