Replies

Go to The Militia Act of 1792. That document defines the state Militia. In detail.

I did read it and, again, how does it "define" the militia?

There are rules for drilling, rules for what to bring and rules for how to select officers. There is nothing saying that a militia is such and such.

The closest it comes, from what I can see, is that ever free man (note that it's two words) from 18-45 is a member. Specifically: "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."

But again, the militia clause of the second is subordinate to the main clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's not really that hard to understand.

Jefferson was not talking about the second amendment. He was proposing that language for the 1776 Virginia State Constitution, 12 years before the second amendment was written. It was rejected by the Virginia State legislature.

I didn't say that he was. All I said was that his bias for having an armed populous and his understanding of the "God given" right to keep and bear arms was clear and obvious from his writings.

I'd normally say that you and your ilk are welcome to keep misrepresenting and misinterpreting that to your hearts content except that in this case you are doing grevous harm to me and my country.

That can not be tolerated.

I know. But, like Jefferson, they're not referring to a right protected by the second amendment.

No, they absolutely are. They are unanimous in their support for a freely armed populous.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers would say that it's up to the state in which the resident alien lives. In 1792, the second amendment, however, did not protect the RKBA of non-citizens. It still doesn't.

In this I have to agree with you. The Constitution is an American document that only protects citizens and legal residents (to a lesser extent.)

"I didn't say that he was. All I said was that his bias for having an armed populous"

Well, when you stick that quote into the middle of a discussion about what the second amendment protects, what are we to assume?

Maybe you could refrain from posting irrelevant quotes? It would save everyone alot of time.

"I'd normally say that you and your ilk are welcome to keep misrepresenting and misinterpreting that to your hearts content"

Oh, that's rich, coming on the heels of you misrepresenting Jefferson's quote as referencing the second amendment.

"They are unanimous in their support for a freely armed populous."

Yes they are. But can you find for me one quote that says the second amendment protects a freely armed populous? All the quotes I find refer to the second amendment protection of a select group of individuals -- "the people", "the whole people", "the people at large".

"The Constitution is an American document that only protects citizens and legal residents (to a lesser extent.)"

Parts of the U.S. Constitution protect citizens, parts protect "the people", parts protect every person -- citizen or not. The Founding Fathers were quite specific as to the language they used. Distorting that usage is, to use your words, not to be tolerated.