The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective)

[jimmy the one]

204. delusionary

dscntnt: Yes mythology! That must be it. Tell me, please, does it hurt pulling that straw-man out your ass?

You not only footstuck regarding Joseph Story in your OP, you just footstuck regarding Thomas Jefferson - where are you getting this nonsense, if not a mythological source? And you have a delusionary friend.

hans: jimmy has gone on for days now in various threads claiming Coxe's who are the militia quote was a direct response to Sam Adams' proposals for a BOR .. However the quote "in fuller context" reveals what should be painfully obvious..: The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress.

Firstly hans, that's not in fuller context, it's excerpted out of context, but I'm not harping on it being out of context today, das machts nichts jetzt heute.
2 Secondly, what you provide there is the 'prefatory clause' of what tench coxe wrote, the 'operable clause' comes later when he wrote that congress had no power to disarm the militia. See? The prefatory clause has little to do with the operable clause (accd'g to scalia & dscntnt).
3 Thirdly, he may have first addressed the 'minority' in pennsy, but his remarks were not limited to their ears, but the whole country (or at least yeomanry 16-60, & federalists too!). It matters little whom he was initially addressing, his later remarks form the crux.
4 Fourthly, if you think you've trapped me or something, or this an ace in the hole, disabuse yourself of that notion, or you're delusionary.
5 Fifthly, Tench Coxe mimicked & expounded upon what Sam Adams had written 2 wks earlier in Adams 2ndA draft, the first official proposal on an rkba, and likely used that draft as a basis for what he (coxe) contended in his remarks.

hans jul24: Why do you continue to conflate proposals from the states and drafts of the BOR in Congress? You are not trying to deceive anyone are you?
hans today jul27: jimmy has gone for days now in various threads claiming .. was a direct response to Sam Adams' proposals for a BOR at end of the Massacusetts constitutional ratifying convention http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172125339#post156

Hans on wednesday said it was WRONG to cite SamAdams 2ndA draft since it was a 'proposal from the state' while today saturday hans says it's OK to call SamAdams 2ndA draft a 'proposal for a BOR' at the same time citing massachusetts the state.
The upshot is that hans didn't realize on wednesday, that SamAdams proposal from the state, was & is considered the first draft of the 2ndA, in the BOR. I think he's delusionary on this. He proves little with his vagueness & obscurity & spindoctoring after the facts.