"Militia", what that meant then.

[The Grand Nudger]

You gonna regulate the left, are you?  Prune it, cut it back...promote "proper growth".

LOL, clown.

[Minimalist]

The Federalist Papers #29  ( written by Alexander Hamilton under a pseudonym)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Hamilton writes that, “It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline in the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects”.[1] Unlike militias of the past, Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military. “It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states…

To put it bluntly, not an armed mob of assholes with guns.

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion being that hoplites were better than helots on the battlefield.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're talking two different conversations here.

Yes, and my question was in regards to you claiming that "well regulated" meant "trained". I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it used in that context historically. For example, my sources all seem to use it in the sense that I described, as something that "works" or is "in working order".

And this reasoning, like that of the "originalists" ignores how language was used back then. The phrase "well regulated militia" had a very specific meaning in the 1770's, viz a part time, volunteer, defence force solely under the control of the government of the land or the officers thereof.

The fact that right wing judges and legislators have decided to interpret that phrase as to mean everybody is a travesty of the law and of the constitution. But then again, right wingers don't give two shits about the law or the public good.

Have you got any historical sources that back up the specific meaning, because I posted mine already. The phrase "well regulated" certainly appears in literature from the time in the context of "working" rather than meaning anything to do with legislation.

You'll have to give me a few days for links., I'm operating with one eye and a happily large amount of oxycontin. Surgery (5th on this eye) Friday. 

However, if you look at the Royal Navy Regulations you'll see where the military phrasing comes from. It is a special case, but wholly applicable to the subject matter at hand. 

I hope that made sense, the letters are doing a chorus line right now. Follies Berger I think.

---

The notion being that hoplites were better than helots on the battlefield.

And definitely better than helots who think they're hoplites but don't have the helmet, shield, greaves, etc.

[Minimalist]

And let's not ever forget what Washington thought of the militia.

• To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life - unaccustomed to the din of arms - totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.
  • Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem (24 September 1776)
    

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But they were cheap, and that's what the government wanted.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[vorlon13]

I was under the impression the militia of note in the Second Amendment was exemplified by the one the nascent USofA had just spent 2 years defeating.

For our readers in Rio Linda, I suppose I should note that was the British there that had been defeated. They had guns and such and some definite opinions regarding the revolution.

[Minimalist]

I recall a line from Ken Burns "The Civil War" wherein one historian was commenting on the impact of John Brown's Harper's Ferry raid.  As near as I can recall, and it wasn't Shelby Foote it was the bald guy, he noted "the militia system in the south had been a joke until this time, but then (1859) it began to take on a true form."  The narrator then cut in with:

"It was the beginning of the Confederate Army."

The thing is in the north the militia system remained a joke.

The results were apparent at First Manassas in July, 1861.  The South had a nearly two year head start.

[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?