"Local militias were only permitted to acquire artillery pieces once they organized and placed themselves under state control, although the order in which these aspects of the "legal" scenario often occurred was less than perfect. But private citizens were not permitted to "bear" such arms by themselves." Please provide proof. I'm not aware of any such regulations, and I've read a LOT in this area. Even as late as the civil war, it wasn't unusual for (say) a plantation owner to buy the cannon for his local militia--but HE owned the cannon.
"And yes; those private sailing ships were well-armed and a logical argument probably can be made that this is evidence of unrestricted access to arms. But I would respond that that goes a bit far.
And you would be wrong. History says otherwise. Unfortunately for your position, between the Revolutionary War and up until the civil war, if you could afford to buy it, you could own it.
"The 2nd Amendment says "well-regulated." That must have had some meaning to the framers, otherwise they would not have put it in."
It did---it meant "well-trained". See "regulated" as in "regulation of a clock's movement". The bane of Washington's existence was the poor training of his militia elements. It wasn't until von Steuben showed up that they were "trained up" to an acceptable standard.
What the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish is easy to ascertain from history---the only folks who would have you think otherwise are those that want to ban firearms.
2nd on regulated. From my profile page, something I found here on FR, that rings true:
The term "regulated" applied to clocks means "accurate in keeping time". It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations. Soldiers had to be drilled to load, aim, and fire as one unit. You do NOT want the rifle next to you to be firing (and emitting a shower of sparks) while you are pouring gunpowder into your musket. Everybody had to do every step together with no screwups
"
Please provide proof. I'm not aware of any such regulations, . . ."
The
Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 provided for extensive federal regulation of the state militias. The primary purpose of these two acts was to establish uniformity between the various militias so that their effectiveness could be gauged in the event they were needed. It is clearly extensive "regulation" of the militia by the federal government.
But most regulation was done at the state level. [This goes to my contention that the militias were "under state control."] I quote from an
historical overview of the topic contained within a larger discussion of the 2nd Amendment:
"
. . . The third area was the ability to arm the militia. This caused a great deal of debate during the battles for ratification of the Constitution. Some people argued that this meant only that Congress had the ability to specify what type of weapons were required. Others argued that this gave Congress the ability or the responsibility to procure arms for the militia ... The Second Amendment guaranteed that even if Congress had the power to arm the militia, nothing would prohibit the states from procuring their own arms.
... Under state law, every last detail regarding the militia was regulated, from the number of and times for musters, court martial procedures, how to notify people that there would be a muster, fines, how to appeal fines, uniforms (if applicable), compensation (if applicable, which it usually wasn't), and so on and so forth. An average militia law might be 80 pages long; some were far longer than this. . . ."
That does not mean that your plantation owner did not own the cannon he provided to a militia. I have never said anything that would contradict that. My point is that militias were not a free-formed autonomous organization that existed legally outside of regulation by the federal and state governments and especially outside of the regulation of the states. So if you're "not aware of any such regulations" you have missed quite a bit, given the body of law mentioned above.
"
. . . Unfortunately for your position, between the Revolutionary War and up until the civil war, if you could afford to buy it, you could own it."
My argument was that using evidence of the private arming of ships as supporting a right to unrestricted access to arms goes too far. It does. Many of those militia acts regulate the acquisition of artillery and more. And no, I'm not going to go through those various acts. If you can find evidence that the state militia acts did not regulate the acquisition of artillery by private individuals, put it up. But you're not going to find it.
"
. . . it meant "well-trained". See "regulated" as in "regulation of a clock's movement". . . ."
No; Article 1, Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution establishes that Congress can regulate the militias as quoted here:
"
. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . ."
This right of regulation was already ratified when the 2nd Amendment was passed. So the words "well-regulated militia" merely states what already was a matter of constitutional law.
And WW, I do not want to ban guns, nor do I want to do anything but keep true military hardware out of the hands of individuals, which is already a matter of law under the National Firearms Act -- the
Miller decision clarified this law. If you've read my posts you will see that. I don't think it's fair to lump me together with people who do.