"A well regulated militia..."

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article

 

You are correct. It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.

 

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

 

no it doesnt,,,all it means is that to have militias the people need to be well armed,,

we went through this the other day but you ran away because you couldnt back up your claims

 

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008). The SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right unrelated to being in a militia. If you want to learn more, read an article I posted on the USMB on August 6, 2015

Maine adopts constitutional carry

 

No...

You can not be this stupid.... oh wait you can...

Next thing ya know you will be suggesting making all US citizens Slaves so you can take their guns...

 

Conservatives, of course, have come to loathe Heller.

 

Don't bother, the article is clearly devoid of merit, given the fact that there were no Democrats in the 18th Century.

 

1: At the time, the 2nd only applied to actions by the federal government; state governments were not so restricted
2: Slaves did not have any of the other rights of the people, so there's no weight behind the argument they would have the right to keep and bear arms.