A well regulated militia?

[jimmy the one]

46. Only 1% - 6% voted unanimous for G.Washington

Justice Story, circa 1830: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

TeddyR, 2016: This is the only place where Story refers to "the citizens," and he refers to them as the "citizens" of a "republic." The citizens of a republic are all those eligible to vote, regardless of fitness for militia duty, and "citizens" simply cannot mean the same thing as "militia." "Citizens" might mean the same thing in this sentence as "the people," but you would have to suspend disbelief to think that "citizens" and "militia" are both terms for "militia."

Which citizens could VOTE circa 1789: only white Protestant males who owned property could vote. Not women, not poor people, not indentured servants, not Catholics and Jews, not slaves from Africa or Native Americans.
"Women, like slaves and servants, were defined by their dependence," says historian Michael Schudson. "Citizenship belonged only to those who were masters of their own lives." Because of these restrictions, only about 6 percent of the population of the brand-new United States chose George Washington to be the country's first president in...
In 1789, only white, land owning men had the ability to vote in most states. Since the Civil War, we have amended the Constitution to prohibit limiting voting rights based on gender, race, age... http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-18.htm

Yeah, citizens & people & militia were often used synonymously, as well as in the 2nd amendment. I don't have to suspend disbelief that 'the people' was used in the 2ndA differently than in the other amendments {also cause I don't disbelieve it}

teddy: it appears to me that you concede that the Second Amendment at the least protects the right of every able bodied male of militia age (assuming the Amendment is restricted to males) to keep and bear arms. Is that correct?

No, not anymore. It used to apply to only some or most of them white able bodied males (not sure about catholics & jews). Only about 20% of the 3 million population circa 1790 were white males of militia age. Ergo only about 600,000 had rkba, if that.
And evidently only about 180,000 white protestant males voted for George Washington for president.

Geez, not even that accd' wiki; election held dec 15 1787-jan 10, 1788, over 25 days:
Federalist electors {for GWashington} 39,624 90.5%
Anti-Federalist electors 4,158 9.5%
Total 43,782 100.0%

That above should demonstrate how {un}popular the anti-fed movement was, which supported including in state's right to bear arms provisions, 'in defense of themselves as well as the state'.

(a) Only 6 of the 10 states casting electoral votes chose electors by any form of popular vote.
(b) Less than 1.3% of the population voted: the 1790 Census would count a total population of 3.0 million with a free population of 2.4 million and 600,000 slaves in those states casting electoral votes in this election.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.

..you would have to suspend disbelief to think that "citizens" and "militia" are both terms for "militia."

They were used synonymously as we have just seen, yes? You are imputing to today's vernacular.