I'm trying to make a valid point and you're yipping and yapping like a crazed chihuahua gnawing on this voting/property-owning bone you found. Give it a rest already. You nitpick posters to death, yet offer nothing of your own. It's more important to you to play your gotcha game than offer ANYTHING of substance.
In 1792, "the people" (the voters) were adult, white, male, citizens. In some cases they were landowners. In some cases they were simply taxpayers. It depends on the state. For example, North Carolina, 1776:
"VII. That all freemen, of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land, for six months next before, and at the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for a member of the Senate."
"VIII. That all freemen of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within this State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons for the county in which he resides."
Oooooh! It says "21" and the Militia Act says 18! Oooooh. Jump on that, too. Show me just how smart you are.
The people were the Militia. Deal with it.
Well that's better than being fluffy the cat.:)
Your inability to make a consistent point I have to admit is fun to bring out. If the Militia Act defines the "the people" as you have said countless times then it follows that "the people" cannot be white, property owning males only as you also keep saying. If that's the case then I suggest you read post #232 because I believe that's why you're so determined to keep "the people" limited.
Which people? The over 21 white male property owners or the over 18 white male taxpayers? (Actually even by your definition it would the over 18 white male taxpayers, since the House of Commons was likely the most populous branch of the legislature).
But the point is there were *different* subsets of "the people" defined for different purposes, voting, mandatory militia service, etc. But they were always spelled out where they applied. That is the militia act spelled out what subset of the people were required to serve in the militia, the North Carolina provisions spell out the subsets of the people who could vote for state Senators or members of the state House of Commons respectively.
The second amendment doesn't offer any qualifications, ergo, like the rest of the bill of rights, it's the whole people that is being referred to.