It's the same argument robertpaulsen has been making on other threads, which is that only white property owning males constituted the "the people" at the time. There is however inconsistency in the posts of his because he also says "the people" was clearly defined in the Militia Act of 1792 but that required ALL white males between 18 and 45 to enroll whether property owners or not.
It's obvious to most of us though "the people" in 1791 and as confirmed by court rulings of that era meant all free citizens, including women who were indeed protected by the BoR. Since they obviously would not serve in a militia that implies the 2nd Amendment as with all the amendments referred to everyone and not just a select group of people and that it would be limited in practice to them only.
Interesting little speech by Madison...
Very insightful. The militia defined by the Act obligated into service a different (albeit overlapping) subset of the population than those allowed to vote. Strictly speaking from RP's view, a man aged 45 who did not own land was part of the militia but could not vote, but when he turned 46 and bought property he was not part of the militia but could vote ... something is very wrong with your reasoning, RP, when some rights are lost (to wit: unprotected) merely by aging, and others obtained by simple ownership of ground; such is anathema to the notion of "rights".