"Militia", what that meant then.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Like I already told you, I'm not commenting upon whether or not I agree...or making any arguments as to whether or not "it makes sense".   I said it was a dubious slogan, and it was.  Propaganda is always about spinning some core truth.   The taxes a boston merchant paid on tea didn't mean a damned thing the masses who could buy cheaper tea from the EIC.  The taxes paid by colonists were lower than the taxes paid by mainlanders.  Those same people, who did rebel, would then be disenfrachised further, and their taxes would be raised...by their new government.

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.

Indeed they did, and do.  I doubt that either of us would agree that stripping even more people of the vote was or is aimed at limiting the power of the federal government........ though I'm sure they didn't want the federal government to insist that some people™ had such a right.  

They didn't want blacks, catholics, jews, quakers, or women to vote.  

Today, when we hear nutter states make the "states rights" case for voter disenfrachisement..we realize that they are speaking duplicitously.  Why would we imagine that the same argument applied to the same end then.....would be any different?  

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.

........? 

Indeed there is, and the experience of the previously colonial officials is pointed to as a contributing factor in the early american states stability - contrasted with what usually happens after a rebellion.  Sure, they needed more people..but those merchants, property owners, editors and other professionals largely held the -same- opinions on governance as any disgusted british loyalist who went home.  

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.

I'm sorry, I assumed that you had a level of familiarity with the revolutionary war that I shouldn't have, and I can see why that wouldn't make any sense in a vacuum. In my defense, lol...it wasn't aimed directly at you.

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?

So, there was a huge issue regarding compensation at the birth of our nation.  Sama alluded to it previously.  It got as far as a planned and panned military coup.  The militia was not, itself, regarded kindly by the people who wrote the second amendment.  Far from thinking that it was necessary for a free state to ensure it's yada yada yada..they considered the militia to be a militarily useless armed rabble.  It was.  They nevertheless wrote, into our funding document, a self serving lie about militias.  They also discredited those who sought compensation by raising the spectre of the militia volunteer.  Up to and including heroes of our revolution who we then sought to leave nameless.

The founding fathers were propagandists. Yes, they were many other things. Yes, I think that they were free thinkers..maybe not -actually- as free as they came back then..but I get the gist. I;m not pointing it out as criticism. Without propaganda they could have never succeeded. They had to find ways to make their own aims the aims of many, many more people who generally had no common interest or even had interests in contradiction.