Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.Doing the math, Madison computes a regular army to be at most 1/25 of able-bodied men (30K), implying the total of able bodied men was 750K. He then asserts that opposing them would be a militia of 500K men (ie, the majority of all able-bodied men in the US).
The clear implication here is that Madison is envisioning the "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment as consisting of ALL able-bodied men, and thus the right to keep and bear arms would necessarily be extended to ALL the people
Note also that only half of the male population would be considered by Madison to be "able-bodied". This comes from the simple fact of life that battles in the age of single-shot muskets generally consisted of firing one mass volley, then charging with bayonets, which means that only those with sufficient upper-body strength to be able to fight with sword and bayonet would be credible members of the militia
And thus .... what?
How about, "The clear implication here is that Madison is envisioning the "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment as consisting of ALL able-bodied men, and thus the right to keep and bear arms would necessarily be extended to ALL able-bodied men.
Not every person. Your logic eludes me.
"which means that only those with sufficient upper-body strength to be able to fight with sword and bayonet would be credible members of the militia"
Correct. And the second amendmwent protected their right to keep and bear arms. Why would the second amendment protect the right of a blind man? A six-year-old child? An 80-year-old woman?
Why can't their right be protected by their state?