Abatis
Platinum Member
Your question is too vague.Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?
Explain what militia context?
That is your terminology. You claim that "it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War". I'm asking you to explain how this "militia context" was evident, how it was "applied", who "applied" it, who the 2nd's protections were "applied" to and who the 2nd's restrictions were "applied" against.
The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?
The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?
When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.
When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.
Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.
SO.
Please...elaborate your position further.
Good Lord, Thom Hartmann has dropped the brown acid and joined USMB!