As I said, the English law had quite a few restrictions, and same applied in US in populated areas. Of course back them they didn't have firearms which could be easily concealed, and they didn't want people walking around the cities with 5.5ft muskets. Its a matter of historical record, not opinion. Its different now that we can carry pretty much anywhere, and many States allow even open carry.
The historical record shows that virtually every free man in the colonies and later the states owned arms and had the right to use them for defense.
In rural areas many people owned guns, but most Americans did not. But whatever makes you happy. I showed you the actual law / historical facts, so there is no point in going around in circles and repeating stuff. You have believed a myth. Did all Americans own guns back in the day? No, not even close, - only about 13% did. They were expensive. So where did the guns come from to fight the British forces? https://revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/#:~:text=Most colonials, as research has,musket prior to the war. Basically, the local colonial governments took on the responsibility in arming their farmers and merchants. When the British marched on Concord, Massachusetts to seize a large storage of arms, they faced a different situation. They were too late. The militia had already been well armed from that stockpile of what were called state guns. After the initial confrontation at North Bridge, the conflict turned into a daylong running battle. The British were attacked with a variety of weapons. Many colonials showed up without muskets hoping to be given a firearm. Some had only axes and pikes. If few Americans owned guns, how did they become such great marksmen. Another easy answer – they weren’t. This is where the common phrase no doubt originated: couldn’t hit the side of a barn. Most colonials, as research has shown, only about 13 percent, had access to a gun and many of them couldn’t get the relics stored in the corner to work. The rest of the population didn’t own a gun with a huge percentage of that number never having even fired a musket prior to the war.
but in #26 you wrote "People had an established right to own and use arms". Are you now shifting the goalposts to just "free men"?
Are you seriously quoting Schenawolf? He's a self published author with no credentials, and his sole source for the essay on the page you linked to is Michael Bellisiles, who had his Bancroft Award for Arming America rescinded for his inexplicably bad academic research and his hundreds of falsifications of history. "As criticism increased and charges of scholarly misconduct were made, Emory University conducted an internal inquiry into Bellesiles's integrity, appointing an independent investigative committee composed of three leading academic historians from outside Emory. Bellesiles failed to provide investigators with his research notes, claiming the notes were destroyed in a flood. In the initial hardcover edition of the book, Bellesiles did not give the total number of probate records which he had investigated, but the following year, after the "flood," Bellesiles included in the paperback edition the claim that he had investigated 11,170 probate records. "By his own account," writes Hoffer, "the flood had destroyed all but a few loose papers of his data. It was a mystery how supposedly lost original data could reappear to enable him to add the number of cases to the 2001 paperback edition, then disappear once again when the committee of inquiry sought the data from him" (Hoffer, 153). One critic tried, unsuccessfully, to destroy penciled notes on yellow pads by submerging them in his bathtub, in order to prove that water damage would not have destroyed Bellesiles' notes. The scholarly investigation confirmed that Bellesiles' work had serious flaws, calling into question both its quality and veracity. The external report on Bellesiles concluded that "every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed" and called his statements in self-defense "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory." It concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question" and that he was in violation of the American Historical Association's standards of scholarly integrity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
Ok. I admit I am not familiar with the author. I found it by googling. What percentage of Americans owned firearms based on your source? The other source is from the writing of the founding fathers. Is that also deemed inaccurate based on "revised history"? Or Roman Catholics, or women in many cases.
Freed slaved, "contraband" were armed by the USG even before slavery was banned in the territories and before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ding ding ding. Most people aren't aware that it exists. I've seen arguments that the wording of the preamble suggests that the first 10 amendments are not open to interpretation or change. Of course, Congress and SCOTUS would largely disagree.
They weren't citizens and did not have the right to bear arms for self defense. See Scott v Sandford.
You must have been responding to someone else as what you are saying doesn't seem relevant to what I wrote.
Untrue. "Well-regulated" means what it meant to the person who used the phrase. In the case of the 2A, it means what it meant to the founders. It was, at the time, a commonly used phrase that described something that was in good working order. Congress can't just change the meaning of words to suit their whim.
That has nothing to do with what I said. I simply said that the Supreme Court, in Heller v US held that the "militia" wording in the Second Amendment in no way limited a citizen's right to own and bear arms.
gun banners tend to lie. they start with the premise gun ownership is bad, and work backwards to prove their faith based belief
I was pointing out that regardless of what the states might want at some later point, the states specifically granted the power to regulate the militia in the Constitution.
Yes, "good working order". Back then it required people who were trained, knew discipline, no kids, no mentally insane people, and men who are willing to fight, which is why they were required to swear an oath, and those who refused were disarmed. Today, such requirements do not exist, which is why I said our laws today are looser than back then.
Yes, during the time of the founders. Yes, no kids, although it depends on who is considered a 'kid'. Every war has had teen agers in them, and I am sure it was no different back then. I mean kids who are too young / weak / immature enough to serve and/or safely handle firearms. Its common sense.
