Questions for gun control advocates, part 1

[jimmy the one]

82. most firearms belonged to british 1775

beevul/bor preamble: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

See that little 3 letter word 'and' between declaratory & restrictive? hoist on your own petard, agayne.

beevul: ..any notion that the framers would have protected ONLY militia members rights to keep and bear after just being at war with a country among whos first steps were to try and disarm the colonists, is absurd on its face.

The british tried to confiscate arms ammo powder & cannon from washington's armories ie concord & from surrendered soldiers, generally not muskets from colonists/citizens. Actually, the firearms the colonists had in 1775/6 were largely what the british had given them, so perhaps only reneging on their gifts. Only about a third of the male citizens in american 1776 supported washington, the others neutral or for george the third.

beevul: You claim, as evidence of my "misconception" what other people wrote about the bill of rights. How others "define" the bill of rights. That amounts to "because someone else said so after the fact" at best.

The 'someone' you refer to consist of better knowledgeable people than you ever will be on the subject:
William Rawle, 1825,1829 A View of the Constitution
Encyclopedia Britannica, and, well wiki, tho it's the weakest link I concede.

Rawle clearly differentiates between 'restrictions on the powers of congress' and a 'bill of rights' as being security to the rights of individuals. That they intertwine does not prove your point.
Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

beevul: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James. Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

I'll take Wm Rawle & Encyclopedia Britannica's word for it over yours any day.