Replies

So, wouldn't it follow, therefore, that the second amendment was protecting members of the Militia?

In 1792, the second amendment protected the right of "the people", and we see that "the people" were white, male, citizen landowners -- period.

That's absurd. Are you saying that women had no right to free speech back in 1792, or the right to be secure in their homes or didn't have the right to assemble? Of course they did and in fact they exercised those rights continuously from the very beginning when fighting for greater rights like voting or when pushing for social change.

In 1792, the second amendment protected the right of "the people", and we see that "the people" were white, male, citizen landowners -- period. Coincidentally, these same people were Militia members per the Militia Act of 1792!

No, we don't see that at all. That is your twisted and inaccurate interpretation. The People in the Bill of Rights were the collected individuals in the United States. I.e. every person that had standing.

Nothing was said of landowners.

The militia act was more specific but it wasn't defining or protecting a right, it was merely laying out rules for the use and structure of the militia.

These were separate things and the overlap in designation was neither absolute nor deliberate.

The Constitution does not exclude women, children or non-land-owning males from the right to speak and assemble freely. The People in the First Amendment are the same as The People in the Second.

The Constitution was not an elitist document and should never be construed to have been. While it’s true that the framers were racist by our standards (inasmuch as they excluded black slaves and Indians from the citizenry) that has no bearing on their belief that the nation was made up of free individuals with certain inalienable rights, all of which are defended by the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

So, wouldn't it follow, therefore, that the second amendment was protecting members of the Militia?

Not at all. That is spurious logic, at best and outright dishonesty in reality.

Anyone even passingly familiar with the English language realizes that. Only those who have an agenda lie about that understanding.

In 1792, the second amendment protected the right of "the people", and we see that "the people" were white, male, citizen landowners -- period.

Well not quite. In Art. I section 2 from which you tortured the notion that "the people" are the electors, the Constitution doesn't directly define who those are. It's left to the states, via the requirement that the electors be the same as those voting for the most populous branch of the state legislature.

Today those electors are everyone over the minimum voting age, 18 in most cases, not a felon, and not an alien. Those changes were made via constitutional amendments (15, 19, 25 to some extent, and 26), for the most part. Thus no matter what "the people" were in those days, today it would be all citizens over 18 years of age.