What did the Founders mean...

[jimmy the one]

38. only the bayonet knows what it is about

johnston: The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia. It is funded and trained by the federal government.

The militia act of 1792 has nothing to do with anything anymore, having been superseded. States do train their state guards, which can be incorporated into the national gds..

johnston: Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.

I've not heard this argument, that civilian arms, esp civilian rifles, were superior to military arms. You can't mean in revolutionary & post revolutionary era, 1770 thru circa 1820s? Do you take into account numbers & percentages?

1803 Dearborn census, well past rev-war: 183,000 muskets, 40,000 rifles, 13,000 pistols etc; ~17% rifles.
1840 War Dept census, 569,000 muskets, 8,000 pistols, 30,000 rifles (less than 1803!); ~6% rifles. Of course these figures are for govt provided firearms, not necessarily including civilian rifles, but 1803 would likely be civilian as well close enough, imo.

Rifles were more accurate in a marksman's hands, but also took 3 or 4 times longer to load the powder & bullet, than the musket, not a good thing during an ongoing battle, but better in sniping & guerrilla tactics. The slower loading time for rifles was due the bullet could not just be pushed down the barrel to the powder as in the smooth musket barrel, the rifle grooves offered resistance so the bullet needed be twisted down. Sometimes the rifle bullet become stuck or wedged, rendering rifle either useless or inoperable till fixed. Most military leaders preferred the musket, and while this agrees with your premise, it was because they saw the musket as more effective overall, what with the bayonet feature.
And prior to the rev-war, there were only about 60,000 firearms in the colonies, most all muskets or pistols ranging from junky to dubious to 'shootable' - it was only after the french sent washington circa 1775 100,000 charlemagne musquettes and the belgians 25,000, did the US have a sudden surge in national gunstock, and this was of course for war use, not divvied up to individuals unless they enlisted etc. All of Morgan's rifle company were provided rifles by the US govt..
So when you say that civilians had rifles which were better than muskets, it's disingenuous, since rifles were not abundant, and had tactical defects of their own.

Congressional Board of War, 1776: Were it in the power of congress to supply musketts, (sic) they would speedily reduce the number of rifles and replace them with the former, as they are more easily kept in order, can be fired oftener and have the advantage of BAYONETS (+emph)..

russian vasilyevich: "The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about,

johnston: .. there is no evidence gun laws affect crime rates..

There is evidence that higher state gun ownership rates will generally result in higher gun crime rates, other things being nearly equal such as population density, urbanity, demographics and region.

johnston: Since the Democrats are viewed as the "party of gun control", which is not popular, which is why the euphemism of "gun safety" is used, that loses elections.

Faulty premise. Gun control has majority support in most polls, with inherent issues ranging from 90% on background checks, to about 60% for high capacity magazines.
What is not popular, is the pro gun nra approach, yet it prevails due creepublican legislatures.