"Militia", what that meant then.

[Shell B]

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". 

Nor am I.

I said it was a dubious slogan, and it was.

You still can't tell me why. That's all I'm asking. Were the colonists represented in Parliament? I already know the answer is no, so it wasn't a dubious slogan at all.

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.

If you've done reading on the topic, you'll know that they were aware they weren't being taxed as much. They were pissed that they didn't get a say in what was taxed, where, when and how much.

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? 

That's not the point. Your original post made it seem as if there was no voting mentioned at all in the original Constitution. It was mentioned in virtually every clause.

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.  

Huh? You said it was largely the same government. Now you're saying they just had the same ideas.

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.

Your first assumption was correct. I've been an American Revolution (particularly in Boston) researcher and columnist for the past decade. I think the problem is you assume you're more familiar with it than you are.

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.

What you're talking about in paragraph 2 does not follow from paragraph 1. This is where you're losing me. We're talking about pre-Constitution presumed propaganda. I disagree that "no taxation without representation" was propaganda. I also disagree that the founding fathers were "first and foremost" propagandists. There were only a handful of them who could be called propagandists to any large degree. If you had cited the Boston Massacre as an example of propaganda, I'd have agreed, but you chose a fairly honest quote from James Otis (who likely heard it before then, but who popularized it for the AR).