Who are the Militia?

[jimmy the one]

131. irrelevant tapdance

beevul: All thaty ability to copy and paste, and yet you either can't or wont reply to the person you're actually addressing...for what...the hundredth time now?

Both my posts were replies to 'beevul', can't you read? apology warranted but not expected.Response to beevulReply #111

beevul: The early draft isn't what was passed into law. That just means they were expressed as different concepts by the author of that particular version, which did not pass.

That's irrelevant as the day is long. The author writing it didn't get confused over the difference between equipped & regulated, he wrote what he wrote in the vernacular of the day, using understood definitions of regulate & equip. I could have taken any contemporary quote contrasting regulate & equip in the militia sense - that it happened to be a 2ndA first draft is pretty irrelevant.
It was an official first draft & differentiated between equipped & regulated, considering them two separate concepts. Face the facts man, stop tapdancing, you're proven wrong. You only try to impose your expedient substitution to remove the regulatory intention of the 2ndA.

What did pass, and the context of what did pass, makes it very crystal clear to those without anti-gun blinders, that "well regulated" means well equipped.

Crystal clear? says who you?, what specious nonsense, where do you dig up this baloney;
..equipped was provisioning the militia, while regulating included disciplining, training, paying, logistics, supply, & INCLUDED equipping the militia with proper firearms.

That says about everything that needs saying.

Sure, for 2nd Amendment Mythology believers your pathetic dodge saves the day. But when it comes down to logic & reason, you haven't proved anything at all about equipped except that your arguement leaks like a sieve.
Oh, & which definition from websters 1828 dict, defines regulated as 'equipped'?