You keep referring to the Heller case as if it was the only case ever brought before the Supreme Court of the U.S. I suggest you get a hold of a reader entitled, That Every Man Be Armed written by this guy stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html In it, he delves into the sole purpose of it being a necessity for every citizen, whether regulated or not, to keep and bear arms, whether they be long or short-barreled, for the purpose of protecting themselves from enemy invasions and rogue governments.

I have a copy of Halbrook , That Every Man Be Armed, 2013 Revised and Updated Edition.

This edition cites and quotes Heller and McDonald as the reigning U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Any older opinions you can come up, and interpreted in a manner inconsistent with Heller and McDonald do not mean diddly squat. Note that the precedent setting McDonald cited two of Halbrook's books.

At 228, in chapter "Update to New Edition": (footnotes omitted)

[The] blockbuster opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense, hunting, and militia service. The decision invalidated D.C.'s handgun ban. The 5-4 opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that "the right of the people to keep and bar arms" means what it literally says, and that this liberty to have arms for protection is a natural right recognized in the English tradition. It was considered fundamental by our Founders and was consistently regarded as an individual right in the nineteenth century.

At 230, in chapter "Update to New Edition": (footnotes omitted)

Finally, in McDonald v. Chicago (20I0), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment because "the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty," and is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition...." The opinion of the Court — written by Justice Alito, representing a plurality of four Justices — held that the right was incorporated through the Due Process Clause, while Justice Thomas would have incorporated it through the Privileges-or-Immunities Clause.

McDonald followed a long-standing precedent that rights considered fundamental apply to both the federal and state governments. Noting that Blackstone's view of the fundamental nature of the right was "shared by the American colonists," the Court — citing this author's The Founders' Second Amendment as a source — continued: "The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights." And the Court relied in part on this author's Freedmen book in its history of Reconstruction, concluding that "the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

Because the Second Amendment is "a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective," it "applies equally to the federal Government and the States." Refusing "to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees," McDonald rejected the power "to allow state and local governments to enact any gun control law that they deem to be reasonable, including a complete ban on the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense."

At 231, in chapter "Update to New Edition": (footnotes omitted)

Similarly, Heller held that the Second Amendment protects possession of the types of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding persons for lawful purposes such as self-defense and hunting, including handguns and long guns, i.e., rifles and shotguns.

I also have Halbrook,

The Founders' Second Amendment, Origin of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, The Independent Institute, 2008

Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, Praeger, 1998.

I also have:

David E. Young, The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms, A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, 2007.

David E. Young, The Origin of the Second Amendment, A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, Second Edition, Golden Oaks Books, 2001.

Clayton E. Cramer, Concealed Weapon Law of the Early Republic, Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform, Praeger, 1999.

My point was, the first part was placed there for a reason. If the second amendment was meant to protect the RKBA of all citizens (as you claim) there would have been no reason whatsoever to include the first part.

No other amendments contain an explanation. So it was placed there for a reason.

Here's an uncomfortable fact for you. In 1788, "the people" were the rich, white guys who had something to lose. No one else -- not women, not children, not slaves, not non-citizens ... no one.

In 1788, only "the people" had full rights as citizens. Their right to vote, run for office, own land, and keep and bear arms as part of a militia were protected. Their right to peaceably assemble, petition the government, and be secure against unreasonable searches were protected. No one else.

Granted, over the years that's changed. But in 1788, that's who "the people" were. The U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted with that in mind.

"The people" and "citizens" were synonymous terms. Your screed is nonsense. Women and children were citizens. Voting was not a right of citizenship. Slaves had no municipal rights or status and were neither citizens nor aliens. Well before women had a right to vote, they had the right to run for office, and multiple times ran for President of the United States, appeared on the ballot, and won votes. In 1879, a woman attorney was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

[...]

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen.

[...]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.

[...]

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

[...]

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of sufrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

My point was, the first part was placed there for a reason. If the second amendment was meant to protect the RKBA of all citizens (as you claim) there would have been no reason whatsoever to include the first part.

It is noted that you disagree with the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. You should write them a sternly worded letter.

"The people" and "citizens" were synonymous terms.

"The people" were citizens, but not all citizens were "the people".

If what you say is true, then all citizens could vote -- which was not the case back then. As you proved with your court case. Women citizens and children citizens and non-land- owning citizens (in some states) could not vote.

Now, maybe there were some exceptions in some states, but they were few and far between. The rich white guys were "the people" and had the power and the full constitutional protections.

And who served in the militias?

It is noted that you disagree with the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.

As I disagree with the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court on Roe v Wade, Kelo, Obamacare, selective incorporation, and most of their rulings on the commerce clause.

And I bet you do too.

If what you say is true, then all citizens could vote -- which was not the case back then.

This is just dumb obstinancy. Minor v. Happersett clearly held that suffrage was not a right conferred by citizenship. That one could vote did not mean one was a citizen, and that one could not vote did not signify a lack of citizenship.

Notice that about half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin in 1862 were foreigners, had not been naturalized, and yet they enjoyed the right to vote under the state constitution. At that time, there was no federal equirement that one needed to be a citizen to vote in elections for federal office.

Male aliens could vote; women citizens born in the United States could not. Voting rights are conferred by law, not citizenship.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079575241;view=1up;seq=381

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES.

MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.

Honorable E. M. STANTON:

About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them.

E. SALOMON,

Governor of Wisconsin.

- - - - -

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, D. C., August 12, 1862.

Governor SALOMON,

Madison, Wis.:

Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms. Your telegram respecting extension of time for volunteering cannot be answered until tomorrow, some information from different States being required.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As you proved with your court case. Women citizens and children citizens and non-land- owning citizens (in some states) could not vote.

As proved by Minor v. Happersett, after the 14th Amendment,

1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.

Syllabus at 88 U.S. 162.

In 1875, after the 14th Amendment, Virginia Minor was held to be a natural born citizen who did not have a right to vote because her state law said so. Suffrage was held to not be a privilege of citizenship.

Your continued attempt to conflate voting rights with citizenship remains misplaced.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, maybe there were some exceptions in some states, but they were few and far between. The rich white guys were "the people" and had the power and the full constitutional protections.

According to the law, as expounded by the U.S. Supreme Court, voting is not a right conferred by citizenship. And, "women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States."

Your personal misinterpretation of the law is irrelevant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And who served in the militias?

Who were members of that militia has varied according to which Militia Act was effective. Generally, it was the able-bodied male population between 18-45 years of age. Originally, it was exclusively white male citizens. The age range is now 17-45, and some females are included, and non-citizens are included.

Those who served in the militia comprise that subset of the members of the militia who were in the militia while called to service. Those who served may include persons who were ineligible due to sex, age, race, or alienage.

As I disagree with the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court on Roe v Wade, ... [et al.]

And I bet you do too.

The difference being that I do not project my personal opinion as being the law of the land.

Whether one agrees with the Court or not, when SCOTUS issues a an opinion interpreting the Constitution, its holding is the law of the land and all inferior courts are bound by that opinion.

Roe v. Wade, whatever one thinks of it, makes it unlawful for a state to prohibit abortion.

Roe at 410 U.S. 153:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The right of privacy, whatever exactly it is, and whether it is found in the 14th Amendment or 9th Amendment, "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This is a legal fact of life, even if it emanates from a penumbra. This will remain so until SCOTUS revisits the issue and changes it, or the Constitution is amended to change it.

The difference being that I do not project my personal opinion as being the law of the land.

I am not aware that I ever denied nor disputed the fact that the rulings were the law of the land. Merely that I disagreed with the rulings.

"This is a legal fact of life, even if it emanates from a penumbra."

The legal fact of life being that murder is legal if done in private by the mother. But if the fetus is killed as a result of a violent act by another … it is murder.

That's our U.S. Supreme Court in action. The same court that gave us Heller and McDonald.

half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin in 1862 were foreigners,

That was 1862. Minor v. Happersett was an 1874 ruling.

I'm talking about 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Who were "the people" (in Article I, S I, Section 2) who were allowed to vote? Rich, white, land-owning adult males.

So then, who were "the people" in the second amendment at that time? Rich, white, land-owning adult males.

Who were the militia? Rich, white, adult males. Only their RKBA was protected because they were the militia.

The legal fact of life being that murder is legal if....

There you go again. Murder is a crime and is never legal.

Well, at least you now recognize the Heller and McDonald are the law of the land and that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, historically rooted in English common law, and that the Second Amendment applies to all the states, and that it does not include any right to keep and bear SAMs or atomic bombs.

I am not aware that I ever denied nor disputed the fact that the rulings were the law of the land. Merely that I disagreed with the rulings.

[misterwhite #46]

The Heller Supreme court determines the law? Or the Cruikshank Supreme court? Or the Presser Supreme Court? Or the Miller Supreme court?

Seems to me the only reason you like the Heller decision is because it supports your view. I guess those justices never heard of stare decisis.

Yes. The Heller court determined RKBA law for D.C. and the McDonald court determined RKBA law for the states. To the extent you feel Cruickshank, Presser and Miller are not in accord with Heller and McDonald, they are dead, despite your attempt make believe they overrule Heller or McDonald with some nebulous precedent. You have heard of stare decisis, but the difference is the justices know what it actually means.

half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin in 1862 were foreigners, [had not been naturalized, and yet they enjoyed the right to vote under the state constitution. At that time, there was no federal requirement that one needed to be a citizen to vote in elections for federal office.]

That was 1862. Minor v. Happersett was an 1874 ruling.

That sure is an irrelevant observation with no point whatever.

Half the able bodied men were aliens who had the right to vote. That is absolute proof that having the right to vote was not a mark of citizenship

Women were citizens who did not have the right to vote.

And Minor v. Happersett made the issue clear:

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

[...]

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

That is the way it was from the beginning of the constitutional republic.

There is no constitutional right to vote.

To this day, the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

I'm talking about 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Who were "the people" (in Article I, S I, Section 2) who were allowed to vote? Rich, white, land-owning adult males.

The people were the men and women who were citizens. For constitutional purposes, the definition of the people has not changed since 1789.

Voting rights did not have shit to do with defining who were the people.

So then, who were "the people" in the second amendment at that time? Rich, white, land-owning adult males.

The people were men and women who were citizens. For constitutional purposes, the definition of the people has not changed since 1789.

Who were the militia? Rich, white, adult males. Only their RKBA was protected because they were the militia.

RKBA was and is an INDIVIDUAL right. It has never made a shit if one was in the militia or not. If your premise were true, RKBA did not apply to anyone over 45. For constitutional purposes, the definition of the people has not changed since 1789.

The militia originally included ALL the poor, dumb white men between 18 and 45. If the militia only included rich, white, adult males, we would still be British. As ever, the vast majority were poor, not rich. You would have had a small militia indeed. The country did not have enough rich, white, adult males to fill an army.

Keep repeating something really, really dumb, and it just stays dumb.

Half the able bodied men were aliens who had the right to vote.

Provided they intended to become citizens.

Wisconsin State Constitution (1848):

"Every male person of the age of twenty-one years, or upwards, of the following classes, who shall have resided in this State for one year next preceding any election, shall be deemed a qualified elector at such election. 1st. White citizens of the United States 2d. White persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization (...)"; "No person shall be eligible to the legislature, who shall not not have resided one year within the state, and be a qualified elector in the district he may be chosen to represent."

Voting rights did not have shit to do with defining who were the people.

According to Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, only "the people" were allowed to vote. Granted, each state defined the requirements of suffrage, and there were differences between states. But in 1790, on the whole, only those born on U.S. soil, with a connection to the community, property- owning, adult, white males had suffrage. They were "the people".

You say they didn't have to be citizens. True, it wasn't spelled out as a requirement, per se. It was assumed based on the other voting requirements.

If your premise were true, RKBA did not apply to anyone over 45.

The second amendment protected the right of the states to form and maintain a militia consisting of armed militiamen. Taking away their arms would be an infringement and, therefore, unconstitutional.

According to the Militia Act of 1792, white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 were conscripted into a local militia company. Those over the age of 45 were not excluded -- meaning, if they volunteered for the militia, their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.

For those not in the militia, their RKBA was protected by their state constitution.

The people were the men and women who were citizens.

Wrong. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, only "the people" voted. In 1790, women did not vote. They weren't allowed to vote. Ergo, they were not part of "the people".

Half the able bodied men were aliens who had the right to vote.

Provided they intended to become citizens.

The men were aliens AND they could lawfully vote. The fact that they intended to become citizens acts as proof that they were aliens and not citizens.

The women were citizens and had no lawful right to vote.

No matter what you choose to make believe, as firmly established by SCOTUS in v Minor v. Happersett, the right to vote was not conferred by citizenship.

Virginia Minor was found to be a natural born U.S. citizen, and like all similarly situated women, had no right to vote. A state law denying her the right to vote was upheld as constitutional.

Voting rights did not have shit to do with defining who were the people.

You say they didn't have to be citizens. True, it wasn't spelled out as a requirement, per se. It was assumed based on the other voting requirements.

Same shit, different post. Alien men could vote, while natural born citizen women could not.

No matter what you choose to make believe, as firmly established by SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett, the right to vote was not conferred by citizenship.

Virginia Minor was found to be a natural born U.S. citizen, and like all similarly situated women, had no right to vote. A state law denying her the right to vote was upheld as constitutional.

The second amendment protected the right of the states to form and maintain a militia consisting of armed militiamen.

The Second Amendment protected the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, not the right of states to form and maintain a militia. The Federal Congress was empowered to "call forth the militia" and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...."

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

SCOTUS rejected your argument to return to a bygone era.

According to the Militia Act of 1792, white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 were conscripted into a local militia company.

The Militia Act of 1792 did not conscript anyone. (Neither does registration under the Selective Service Act.) It defined who was included in the UNORGANIZED militia.

Current law states, 10 U.S.C. § 311: "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

It still defines who are included in the UNORGANIZED militia and conscripts nobody.

And the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, does not expire at age 45, a fact you seem utterly incapable of confronting.

The people were the men and women who were citizens.

Wrong. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, only "the people" voted. In 1790, women did not vote. They weren't allowed to vote. Ergo, they were not part of "the people".

Send a sternly worded letter of your dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court, informing them of their error.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The fact that they intended to become citizens acts as proof that they were aliens and not citizens.

Really? That's your argument? You're reaching. One state made one exception (which was conditional) and you then generalize that non-citizens could vote.

"the right to vote was not conferred by citizenship."

I don't think I said that. I did say that those who voted were citizens (or about to be). But each state defined who could vote and I can't believe they would allow non-citizens to take over.

Keep in mind -- Congress has the power to refuse to seat a Congressman and the power to de-certify the result of the electoral college’s vote in a Presidential election if they believe there was foul play by a state.

Alien men could vote, while natural born citizen women could not.

ONE state made ONE exception that allowed male non-citizens to vote PROVIDED THAT they were on a path to citizenship.

States allow you to drive on temporary tags. Are you going to claim that means nobody needs license plates to drive around?

"natural born citizen women could not."

Correct. Neither could children citizens. Or non-land-owning citizens. Or those citizens who didn't live in the state for at least one year. Or those citizens who couldn't pass a literacy test or pay a poll tax. A lot of citizens couldn't vote.

I'll say it again -- in 1790 when the second amendment was ratified, only the rich white guys voted. Adult, white, male citizens who owned property. They were "the people" described in Article I, Section 2. There were exceptions, of course. But they were exceptions.

My point being, they were also "the people" protected by the second amendment. NOT everyone and not even every citizen.

The fact that they intended to become citizens acts as proof that they were aliens and not citizens.

Really? That's your argument? You're reaching.

Cite an example of an alien, or anyone, who intends to become a citizen, who is thereby magically transformed into a citizen without going through the naturalization process.

I linked, cited, and quoted the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (Civil War) to show the Governor of Wisconsin making an official inquiry to the Secretary of War stating, "About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty-five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted?"

I don't think I said that. I did say that those who voted were citizens (or about to be).

I said it. Those who voted were aliens. They were not citizens. An expression of intent to become a citizen does not change one from an alien to a citizen. Give it up.

But each state defined who could vote and I can't believe they would allow non-citizens to take over.

BELIEVE. Read history, do not invent your own.

Various states allowed aliens to vote until a Federal law was passed making it unlawful for aliens to vote in Federal elections.

Wisconsin constitution, approved August 6, 1846.

Note that the state constitutions had to be approved by the Federal government.

Article III, Section I, 1st, gave White citizens the right to vote, and Article III, Section I, 2nd, gave White aliens, who have declared their intention to become citizens, the right to vote.

ARTICLE III.

SUFFRAGE.

SECTION I. Every male person, of the age of twenty-one years or upward, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the State for one year next preceding any election, shall be deemed a qualified elector at such election:

1st. White citizens of the United States.*

2d. White persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization.*

3d. Persons of Indian blood, who have once been declared by law of Congress to be citizens of the United States, any subsequent law of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

4th. Civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe: Provided, That the legislature may, at any time, extend by law the right of suffrage to persons not herein enumerated; but no such law shall be in force until the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the people at a general election, and approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such election.

SEC. 2. No person under guardianship, non compos mentis, or insane shall be qualified to vote at any election; nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights.

SEC. 3. All votes shall be given by ballot, except for such township officers as may by law be directed or allowed to be otherwise chosen.

__________

* By a decision of the Supreme Court, made during the year 1866, in case of Gillespie vs. Palmer, the right of suffrage was decided to have been extended to colored persons by vote of tlie people at the general election held November 6, 1849.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SEC. 4. No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in this State by reason of his absence on business of the United States or of this State.

SEC. 5. No soldier, seaman, or marine in the Army or Navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this State in consequence of being stationed within the same.

SEC. 6. Laws may be passed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery or larceny, or of any infamous crime, and depriving every person who shall make, or become, directly, or indirectly, interested in, any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.

Various states allowed aliens to vote until a Federal law was passed making it unlawful for aliens to vote in Federal elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

The issue of voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been contested throughout United States history.

Eligibility to vote in the United States is established both through the federal constitution and by state law. Several constitutional amendments (the 15th, 19th, and 26th specifically) require that voting rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for those above 21; the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards.

Between 1776 and 1807, women voted in New Jersey.

The Constitution of New Jersey of 1776, at IV, stated,

That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.

The legislature of New Jersey amended this constitution September 20, 1777, by substituting the words "State" and "States" for "colony" and "colonies."

Cite an example of an alien, or anyone, who intends to become a citizen, who is thereby magically transformed into a citizen without going through the naturalization process.

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that one state made an exception to allow a certain group of non-citizens to vote.

"An expression of intent to become a citizen does not change one from an alien to a citizen."

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that one state made an exception to allow a certain group of non-citizens to vote.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

If you choose not to own a gun, does that mean the second amendment no longer protects your right to own a gun? Of course not.

Same thing with the State Militias. Most disbanded because they were no longer needed. That doesn't mean the second amendment no longer protects that right. Almost half the states still have State Defense Forces in addition to the National Guard.

And the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, does not expire at age 45, a fact you seem utterly incapable of confronting.

The second amendment protect the arms of militia members, no matter their age.

ONE state made ONE exception that allowed male non-citizens to vote PROVIDED THAT they were on a path to citizenship.

FALSE. Stop making shit up.

What is your evidence that is was ONLY ONE STATE?

The New Jersey constitution of 1776, as amended September 20, 1777, allowed "all inhabitants of this State, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote...."

In Wisconsin, the aliens were not on a path to citizenship. They had merely made a statement of intent.

In Massachusetts, the constitution of 1780, Article IX provided,

All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.

Not amended until 1822.

States allow you to drive on temporary tags. Are you going to claim that means nobody needs license plates to drive around?

What the hell does that have to do with states providing aliens the right to vote and doing so in their constitution???

I'll say it again -- in 1790 when the second amendment was ratified, only the rich white guys voted. Adult, white, male citizens who owned property. They were "the people" described in Article I, Section 2. There were exceptions, of course. But they were exceptions.

You can say it again and again all you want. You can blow it out your ass.

I can quote state constitution after state constitution proving, as a matter of fact, that you are just blowing it out your ass.

Voting rights were solely dependent on State law. The Federal Constitution was silent on the question of who could vote. There was no Federal law on the matter. The States were free to choose as they please who was enfranchised within their State. Voting rights were determined by State law, not citizenship.

My point being, they were also "the people" protected by the second amendment. NOT everyone and not even every citizen.

Your point is bullshit, and as stated in McDonald, at war with the Supreme Court decision in Heller.

And there is Heller.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that one state made an exception to allow a certain group of non-citizens to vote.

It was not ONE. You just made that part up.

It was multiple states. They allowed ALIENS to vote.

As with Wisconsin, they wrote it into their constitution.

Not that it overly matters in proving your bullshit about voting and citizenship to be just bullshit.

If one state authorized aliens to vote in elections, and the Federal government approved that constitutional provision, it is proof that the right to vote did not connote citizenship.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

If you choose not to own a gun, does that mean the second amendment no longer protects your right to own a gun? Of course not.

Same thing with the State Militias. Most disbanded because they were no longer needed. That doesn't mean the second amendment no longer protects that right. Almost half the states still have State Defense Forces in addition to the National Guard.

The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right that inheres to ALL AMERICANS. Heller, the law of the land.

Americans have the right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after any connection to any militia.

They do not obtain the right by belonging to a militia, and they do not lose it by leaving a militia.

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

Your plea to return to a bygone era and argue that the 2nd Amendment RKBA derives from the militia has been rejected by SCOTUS and deposited in the trash heap of history.

You can keep mumbling that shit all you want and it will remain at war with Heller, as stated in McDonald.

The second amendment protect the arms of militia members, no matter their age.

The Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS.

As the Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS, it it would protect the right of militia members, if there were any, to keep and bear arms. It would equally protect te INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms of non-members of any militia.

Whether the individual is, or is not, a member of a militia is irrelevant to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Militia members, no matter what their age, are between 17 and 45 years old, mandated by Federal statute. The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms does not end at 45 because it has nothing to do with being a member of a militia. By Federal law, membership in the militia ends at 45.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The New Jersey constitution of 1776, as amended September 20, 1777, allowed "all inhabitants of this State, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote...."

"... for Representatives in Council & Assembly." Nice try.

"What the hell does that have to do with states providing aliens the right to vote and doing so in their constitution???"

It's called an analogy. License plates are required, but states will make an exception and allow you to drive with temporary tags.

"Voting rights were solely dependent on State law. The Federal Constitution was silent on the question of who could vote. There was no Federal law on the matter. The States were free to choose as they please who was enfranchised within their State. Voting rights were determined by State law, not citizenship."

I agree with all that. But the bottom line was that those who voted were citizens (with very few exceptions).

Americans have the right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after any connection to any militia. They do not obtain the right by belonging to a militia, and they do not lose it by leaving a militia.

We're not discussing the right. We're discussing the protection of that right.

Whether the individual is, or is not, a member of a militia is irrelevant to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

It makes a HUGE difference as to the types of arms protected. If we accept that the second amendment only protects those arms that are commonly used by individuals for self-defense in the home, that's going to eliminate protections for a lot of weapons.

If the second amendment protects the arms used by a State Militia, however ...

"the people" … refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

Correct. And in 1790, "the people" were the white adult male citizens who owned property. And white adult male citizens were in the State Militia. And the RKBA of "the people" was protected by the second amendment. Because they were in the militia.

Now, over the years since then, the definition of "the people" has changed and expanded.

The Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS.

Some arms for some Americans. From now on, five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will tell you which arms for what Americans using God-knows-what for their standard. Probably popular opinion.

States allow you to drive on temporary tags. Are you going to claim that means nobody needs license plates to drive around?

What the hell does that have to do with states providing aliens the right to vote and doing so in their constitution???

It's called an analogy. License plates are required, but states will make an exception and allow you to drive with temporary tags.

If license plates were a requirement of the state constitution, as with the voting requirements I have quoted, the legislature could not carve out any exception. It would require a constitutional amendment. If you know of any such constitutional amendment for an exception to the voting requirements in the state constitutions that I have quoted, cite and quote please. Until then, your analogy is pure garbage.

The New Jersey constitution of 1776, as amended September 20, 1777, allowed "all inhabitants of this State, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote...."

"... for Representatives in Council & Assembly." Nice try.

It was written 1776/1777. All inhabitants of th[e] State were allowed to vote until the law was changed. This provision was not changed until 1822. It was the NJ state constitution from 1789 to 1822 under the U.S. Constitution. Nice try yourself. It is a matter of public record that women were allowed to lawfully vote in New Jersey for its first few decades as a state.

Back in the early Federal elections, the only ones for whom there was a popular vote were the members of the House of Representatives. Neither Senators nor members of the electoral college were chosen by popular vote.

I can show where I get my information. You are merely showing your ass, which is where you are getting your information.

This time, let's try New Hampshire. The list just keeps growing longer, like your nose.

Constitution of New Hampshire 1784, Article XI:

All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected to office.

Constitution of New Hampshire 1792, Article 11:

All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected to office.

We're not discussing the right. We're discussing the protection of that right.

The Second Amendment protects that individual right. The right is not protected by membership in the unorganized militia, or the organized militia.

You are discussing the right, and you are discussnig the protection of that INDIVIDUAL right, in terms rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Write them a letter saying you want to return to a bygone era.

Whether the individual is, or is not, a member of a militia is irrelevant to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

It makes a HUGE difference as to the types of arms protected.

The second Amendment offers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right is the same in or out of the militia. As no RKBA right is gained by being in the militia, no RKBA right is lost when the individual turns 45 years old and leaves the militia. His individual right is unaffected by passing the maximum age for the miltia.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

Gramps has the same RKBA rights at 46 as he had at 45.

Correct. And in 1790, "the people" were the white adult male citizens who owned property. And white adult male citizens were in the State Militia. And the RKBA of "the people" was protected by the second amendment. Because they were in the militia.

Still bullshit, no matter how many times you pass this turd. You are at war with Heller ["at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." McDonald at 561 U.S. 780] and SCOTUS rejects your plea to return to a bygone era.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

You are living in a bygone era, citing nonsense.

The Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS.

Some arms for some Americans. From now on, five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will tell you which arms for what Americans using God-knows-what for their standard. Probably popular opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court holdings in Heller and McDonald are the law of the land. That you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court holdings, and are throwing a tantrum, is duly noted. Of course, it changes nothing. You may write a sternly worded letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and make your displeasure known.

Since 1790, the U.S. Supreme Court has been expounding the laws. Article 3, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution...." The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says. The decide by majority vote. Except for the number of justices on the court varying from 5 to 10, it has not changed since 1790.

You are at war with Heller ["at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." McDonald at 561 U.S. 780] and SCOTUS rejects your plea to return to a bygone era.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

You are living in a bygone era, citing nonsense.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

That's what I've been saying. And in 1790, that "political community" excluded women, children, non-landowners, non-citizens, slaves. The point being, in 1790, "the people" referred to an elite subset of the population -- the rich, white, land-owning, enfranchised, adult males. Not everyone.

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms referred to them. Not everyone.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

And in 1790, that "political community" excluded women, children, non-landowners, non-citizens, slaves. The point being, in 1790, "the people" referred to an elite subset of the population -- the rich, white, land-owning, enfranchised, adult males. Not everyone.

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms referred to them. Not everyone.

Still bullshit, no matter how many times your mind squeezes out this turd of thought.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

It means nothing at all regarding the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and membership or non-membership in the militia.

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

“the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community

Correct. We agree. And in 1790, who were "the people"? For one, we know they were enfranchised because Article I, Section 2 said "the people" could vote.

So, in 1790, who could vote?. We need to know that because the second amendment protects the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. I guess another way to say it is the second amendment protected the right of "the voters" to keep and bear arms, right?

Think about that then ask yourself, who was in the militia? Aren't they basically the same individuals?

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

That's not what the Heller court said. Mr. Heller can't have a military weapon. What made you think he did?

Prior to Heller you could make that case.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

It means nothing at all regarding the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and membership or non-membership in the militia.

According to the Heller court:

"Held. 2. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Meaning if a weapon is not "in common use" it may be banned. Say goodbye to "assault-style" weapons. Maybe not with this court, but certainly with some future liberal court.

All because YOU wanted the second amendment to protect an individual right.

For one, we know they were enfranchised because Article I, Section 2 said "the people" could vote.

Only according to your creative imagining of your illusory but unquoted provision of Article I, Section 2.

As has been repeatedly noted, and confirmed by SCOTUS, the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote for anyone.

Enfranchisement was solely a function of state government.

Think about that then ask yourself, who was in the militia?

I do not have to think about it and come up with some creative imagining. It is a matter of statute law.

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

That's not what the Heller court said.

Identify a weapon that a member of the militia has a right to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, that he does not have the right, at age 46, to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

You will have to read Heller for the first time before lecturing about what is in it.

Mr. Heller can't have a military weapon. What made you think he did?

My comment you quote made no reference to Mr. Heller or what weapon he had, or might have had.

You confuse the military and the militia. The members of the military get to bear all nature of arms. It has nothing to do with their 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

When did you stop beating your dog?

According to the Heller court:

"Held. 2. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Your quote is not from the Opinion of the Court in Heller but from the Syllabus which is not part of the Opinion of the Court.

For the statement in context from the actual Opinion at 554 U.S. 627-28:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The Miller holding has nothing to do with a 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms depending on some imaginary connection to being a member of the militia.

What type of weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with WHO has the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.

Meaning if a weapon is not "in common use" it may be banned. Say goodbye to "assault-style" weapons. Maybe not with this court, but certainly with some future liberal court.

All because YOU wanted the second amendment to protect an individual right.

Whether I want the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right is irrelevant to whether it does or not. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly and definitively answered the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. It does. You do not like that. I don't care if you like that not.

The right has never encompassed anything other than weapons, lawful to possess.

Heller at 582:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Heller at 626:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

Heller at 627-28:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Review your bullshit at your #2:

You can't have ordinary citizens with tanks, SAMs, flame throwers and machine guns.

As I said at the time, this is what happens when trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You destroy the square peg.

The second amendment doesn't protect arms for ordinary citizens. It protects state militias and the arms of state militia members from federal infringement. What are those arms? They are the arms selected by the state militia as necessary for the protection of the state. Round peg. Round hole.

So what protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? State constitutions.

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA. It is that mass of able-bodied persons between 17 and 45 years old, going about the business of their private lives.

The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right and has not one damned thing to do with whether someone is part of any ORGANIZED militia.

Nobody is a membeer of the ORGANIZED MILITIA. The ORGANIZED MILITIA does not exist today. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms does. The 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms exists independently of whether an ORGANIZED MILITIA exists, or not. It is a right of the individual, recognized but not conferred by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals

• before they are age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA,
• while they are age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA, and
• after they are no longer age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA.

Your misconception of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is noted.