I don't like getting death threats

WASP is "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" but here I used the connotation of WASP upper middle class Eastern "liberal elite".

Air Force dogs were armed?!  Badass dogs.

                     hahahahaaa,  they kept us awake when the commander came around for post check. I hated the shift schedule. 3 days--day shift, 3 days--swing shift 3-11pm, 3days--midnight shift, 3 days off. I never knew if I was comeing or going. And on a 5 man squad, the grenadier at the back, WALKS BACKWARDS to protect the rear.  AND FOR THIS THEY WANNA GIVE ME ANOTHER STRIPE??!!  THEY CAN KEEP THEIR GOD DAM;  Oh, I'm sorry, that's for my therapy session.

Translation for liberal types and non-US citizens: you are morons and cannot understand. Reminds me of http://www.conservapedia.com/Freedom_of_press

Elubas is at least trying to read and understand, even if he does not agree. I have had debates with royalists (not the ones who think the Queen of England is a cool person to have around, the ones who think full political power should belong to one person divinely chosen), and even they had more intellectual honesty than you.

                      What the hell is the matter with you people. Normatic Knight has a very tough, dangerous job. He's actually one of the few, who like soldiers, is on the front line of combating crime, with brave, heavy lifting work. And instead of saying thank you for his efforts to make the world a better and safer place, you bitch at him because he uses a gun to perform his duties. The world isn't going to get any better by sitting on your ass in a forum.

I don't think a course in Loobelian Logic will ever clear things up for me.  You come closest to actual understanding when you're being condescending towards Jefferson:

"Mind you, I'm not saying Jefferson is right -- he was a slave owner himself of course. I'm talking about what Jefferson said, nothing more."

Nothing more, eh?  You reckon you can just pick quotes out of an age where the society and culture were vastly different than today's and make them mesh with a modern worldview? 

How about this?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - An 18th century Virginia plantation owner, also known as, Marse Tom.

Hell, this was written well before Andrew Jackson and the advent of "free, white, and twenty-one."  Notice that that slogan doesn't even mention "male"?  That went without saying.  The "those" referred to in the quote above are landed gentry only.  What do you suppose the landed gentry of 18th century America had to fear?  Knife weilding home invaders?

The original 13 colonies were lightly populated by farmers, and surrounded by Indians, French, and Spanish controlled territories.  These yeoman farmers were, quite literally, armed to the teeth.

Today, there are still more than 100 million privately held guns in the USA.

Who do you think is/was at greater risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime?  A person today or someone who lived during the Revolutionary period?

There's no doubt that a person who lived in the late 18th century was much more likely to be familiar with violence.

Farmers have a very long memory.

As for context, England and France were fighting wars (almost continuously) for about 100 years until 1815.

Why would it be different in the New World Colonies ?

Statistics  Facts

My reading of some of the history forums suggest that rate of vilonet crime was rather low.  Of course, when one was convicted of a capital offense, one was executed.  No repeat offenders.

If facts and statistics have led you to believe that the world is more dangerous today than it was in the 18th century, you may want to reexamine them.

Likewise, you may wish to revisit your preconceived notions.

I listened to this a couple of years ago.  Maybe you'll like it:  http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times.

You keep using the word "crime".  A word I've, intentionally, omitted.

True, I am talking about personal defense, rather that organized conflict such as war.

"Mind you, I'm not saying Jefferson is right -- he was a slave owner himself of course. I'm talking about what Jefferson said, nothing more."

"Nothing more, eh?  You reckon you can just pick quotes out of an age where the society and culture were vastly different than today's and make them mesh with a modern worldview"

Yes, nothing more. You already added more when you said that I'm trying to take a quote from the past and mesh it with a modern worldview. Perhaps you don't know what more means?

And the rest of your post continues to misunderstand the meaning of "nothing more."

Now, the reason why I was simply arguing for what Jefferson said, and not for whether he was right or not, was because Babytiger was sure of herself enough to claim that so many Americans were misinterpreting the founding fathers. That's simply a claim I had to refute. People throw around the word "misinterpret" to make themself look clever, when they really just mean, change the damn law. If you want to change the law, that's a fine opinion, but then call it changing the law, not "interpreting the constitution in a new, profound way."

In other words, commit to a view; don't ask to reinvent the law and pretend you are simultaneously trying to support the constitution. I don't care what view they commit to as long as they simply do so :)

Mind you, "Loobelian logic" is logic. If you want to learn it from someone else, ok, but please do learn it.

I was expecting a "Wow! I never thought of it that way." 

Silly me.

Well, anyway, I reckon if you kept slaves, you too, would arm yourself.

The slavery is a tangent.  It had scant little to do with the philosophy behind having a right to keep and bear arms.

The issue had much more to do with keeping the government in check.

Several states in the Revolutionary period allowed women to vote.  The last to rescind that civil right was New Jersey, in 1804.