"Militia", what that meant then.

[Shell B]

Before the revolutionary war some* landed whites could vote for a range of elected officials up to and including their colonial governors.  By 1780, many landed whites who previously could votye (say..white women) had this right stripped from them.  Additionally, catholics, jews, an quakers were rarely given the right to vote regardless of whether or not they were taken to be white or landed.  It was a state by state issue. The states attached a variety of qualifiers.

The American Revolution started in 1775. What happened by 1780 and in the states is a little moot. We're talking about the colonies. Besides, they, and I, were talking about Parliament. Local governments, which were severely restricted in the decade before 1775 in at least the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wouldn't have had a say in Parliament. Puerto Rico is a good example of how the colonies were treated. They could have local government, but no representation in the "federal" governing body. Therefore, any federal (or Parliamentary) taxes were given to them without any of their own say in the matter. That's what gave rise to "no taxation without representation." If you understand it in context, it makes perfect sense.

The right to vote wasn't actually in the constitution until it was amended in 1870..and many of the framers thought that nothing good could come of enfranchising more people.

That's an oversimplification. They didn't spell out who had a right to vote and say citizens had a right to vote, but they definitely left it as an issue of each state. This was perfectly in keeping with the majority's hope to reduce the power of the federal government. I don't necessarily agree with it, given that states obviously didn't extend the voting process to everyone, but it wasn't as if the federal government was like, "Hey, guys, how do we keep peasants from voting?" The states did that, and still do.

Fun fact, the attitudes of the early american government and the previous colonial government just weren;t much different..mostly because those who were in government prior to the revolution found themselves in government -after- the revolution.  Their experience was a valuable commodity.

If you mean the rebel government that wrote the Articles of the Confederation and The Declaration of Independence, sure. If you mean that most of the officials were officials in some capacity under the crown, that's not true. Some of them were to some degree. Samuel Adams was a failed tax collector. Most of them were merchants, property owners, editors and other professionals. A large number of colonial officials were loyal to Britain or were appointed by Britain. Therefore, they returned to Britain. Even Benjamin Franklin's son, a governor in New Jersey, was a loyalist. He left the new country and despised his father.

This isn't believing some thinkers view on how things went down. These are the facts. There's mountains of evidence.

---

The notion that volunteer paramilitary forces won a war for you is great, doesn't cost a dime.  All you have to do is get people to believe it...then the complaints of "certain heroes" who may have lost legs seem less credible and deserving of adequate compensation.  How to make sense of "what was meant" by pro militia amendments from people who did not hold the militia in high regard or feel that a militia should ever be brought  down against them......?

-and yet some doubt that the framers chief occupation was propagandist.

You have to make sense if you're going to be sarcastic.  

So, you're saying militia's cheap, yay. Need to get people to believe it, but heroes might not have legs and lack credibility. We don't have to compensate them. How do we make sense of pro militia amendments? See, the founders were first and foremost propagandists.

The above is literally how your post reads to me. What does the militia being paid very little (they did cost more than a dime because they were quickly absorbed into the newly-formed Continental Army) and the Bill of Rights have to do with your former statements regarding propaganda?