Had you quoted me I would have seen this and responded sooner.
You are in error in your facts. <snip>
Nope. I simply stated that because a bill was proposed does not mean it received approval. You showed nothing to dispute that. That's nine of the 13 States pressing for the Bill of Rights and demanding an amendment regarding the people's right to bear arms.
Really? The mere fact that "nine of the 13 States" asked for various Amendments to the Constitution does not necessarily mean they all were asking for an Amendment that called for the right to bear arms.
Madison's draft was lengthy and convoluted and underwent extensive edits in the House of Representatives. For example since "the right of the people" was already contained in the provision,
the comment that the militia would consist "of the body of the people" was deleted. A religious exemption was deleted due to objections that the Congress might exempt too many people on these grounds and thus destroy the concept of the militia. When the House submitted the proposal to the Senate they had indicated that the right be limited to keeping and bearing arms "for the common defense." The Senate refused the limitation choosing instead to retain its broadest form.
No one doubted that the right to bear arms was an individual right, not until the very first Federal weapons control act back in the 1930's using the power of the commerce clause to prevent the sale and possession of tommy guns. Prior to that state and local limitations were almost non-existent; typically limited to open carry and/or concealed carry bans while within city limits. In each case you could still own a gun.
As for your comments on Mr. Webster? The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Webster wrote as an Anti-Federalist. I will ignore the attempt to undermine his credibility and address the distrust of standing armies issue.
Not sure why you keep insisting that Webster was an Anti-Federalist. Your original source the Online Library of Liberty calls him a Federalist as does the intro to the NY Public Library's Webster collection
Collection consists of correspondence, writings by Websteron various topics, diaries, and miscellaneous papers. Correspondence, 1776-1843, and diaries, 1784-1820, relate to his career as lawyer, educator, editor of newspapers, Federalist agitator, lexicographer, and etymologist. Included are his writings on banking, the history of political parties, federalism, and suffrage. Also, papers concerning his American Dictionary of the English Language, Amherst College, epidemics, etymology, legislation in Connecticut, amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and other matters.
<snip>
You "will ignore the attempt to undermine his credibility"? Oh, did you mean the quotes I supplied which showed Mr Webster believed in the redistribution of property? Funny that you think such beliefs would "undermine his credibility" as those beliefs were in the same paper where he advocated for the right to bear arms. Maybe you should find some other person ( a property owning male of European descent ) who lived during the same period to support your beliefs. I will say it again - simply because proposals were laid before a legislative body by a member of the body, does not mean anything unless the proposal was approved and became law.
It's people who want to revise the history of our nation and the development of the 2nd Amendment who truly fail to understand the history of the process.
Oh I agree with you on this point, it is just that I believe your side is the one attempting to "revise the history of our nation The opinion of the minority plays with history, just like you attempted to do.
