>
> The devil always comes grabbed in sophistication and cloaked
> in reasonableness.  It was always thus and always shall be.
> The prevention of denial of weapons to the citizens of the USA
> was always the primary concern of the draughters of the 2nd
> amendment to the US constitution.  Well regulated or ordered
> refers to behaviour, not control by the state.  That is an
> interpretation of the word regulation that post-dates the civil
> war, when the influence of the US federal government began
> its so-far unceasing extensions of its powers.
Huh?  "well regulated" does NOT mean "self regulated" in any
context I have seen, recent or old.  It does not say WHO regulates
this militia, but to say that it is a body that regulates itself
is a stretch of the imagination.
>
> The people that framed the constitution of the USA had just
> successfully revolted against one of the most lawful and
> enlightened counties of Europe.  One that would ban slavery in
> all areas under its control fully forty years before the USA
> themselves.  One that had given the world the concept of
> habeas corpus to begin with.  One whose monarch was
> subject to the control and approval of an elected house of
> commons.  Yet, despite living in an empire governed with all
> these virtues, the future citizens of the future USA valued their
> liberty and the right to self-determination over comfort and
> peace.

These "virtues" amd the benefitthereof accrued to Englishmen NOT
English colonies.
>
> The Minute-men accomplished this with out a government,
> without a standing army, without access to military arms.

That's an over simplification.  They captured British arms
(cannon from Fort Ticonderoga), the French supplied others.  There were
more French troops (regulars) at Yorktown than American AND a French
fleet blockaded the Chesapeake so the British could not be reinforced.

To > claim 200 years later that these people did not intend that
> every able citizen would maintain the means to rise against
> tyranny is not creditable.

OK, but that does not mean that they all have to have access to hand
guns.

> A reasonable man does not stand up against the status quo.
> A reasonable man does not openly oppose that which is
> generally accepted. A reasonable man does not stand up for
> his beliefs and suffer the approbation, ridicule, and persecution
> of his fellows.  A reasonable man does not put his life at risk
> over a matter of conscience.
These were not unreasonable men.  England was far away and supply
lines were incredibly long when you consider they could only be
resupplied by sailing ships.  To say that reasonable men do not
upset the status quo is far fetched.  They will and do when it is
in their economic interest.  You think the Boston Tea Party happened
because if some nebulous ideas of conscious?  The Americans wanted to
control their own economic destiny.  There may have been other factors
but that was the main one.
>
> In short, the world does not advance on the backs of
> reasonable men.  It only moves forward kicking, and
> screaming, and resisting; by the implacable advance of
> unreasonable men.  If something proposed by a powerful
> organization seems reasonable to right thinking people, then it
> is probably something to be greatly feared.

"the implacable advance of unreasonable men".  WOW.

Regards,

Nick Demos