After that, remember I was stating the average yearly production from 1795 to 1811 at 4,600. According to Mr. Bs table, which you believe in, for the ten year period from 1801 to 1810 the yearly production rate is 5,099, which is higher then the number I computed for the longer period which you disputed. As for the rate from 1811 to 1820, Mr B puts that at 10,473 per year.

Do the math: from 1795-1800 = 12,600 muskets
from 1801-1810 = 50,990 muskets
one year production 1811= 10,473 muskets
total= 74,063 (from Mr. Bs own table data)

I stated originally 74,400 that was based on a direct addition of every year of production from the Federal table in the Library of Congress. Both numbers, when divided by the number of years passed, produce an average yearly production rate of 4,300 (my error was using 16 years when in truth its 17).

In the end both your source and mine are roughly the same and my computation for number of arms produced from 1795 to 1811 is in cinc with your source. But where I am pointing out by 1811 we could produce 12,000 muskets a year at one facility, you want everyone to note that the first five years of production was weak. What you didn’t know until now was the first year was only 245 (start-up), growing in rapid stages until in the fifth year Springfield reached a production rate of 4,500 arms per year (1799) which is twice the yearly rate you quoted from Mr. Bs table.

By the way, from Mr. Bs table I can also compute that by 1811 Harpers Ferry had produced 35,218 arms to add to the 74,000 we have already computed from Springfield. By going directly to Mr. Bs source (see his footnote) I count just over 50,000 arms made at Harpers over that same time frame. That makes from 110,000 to 125,000 firearms made by 1811 from just the two Federal arsenals.

Mr. B’s table should match this one exactly since this is the one that he should have quoted from. It is the official record according to the Library of Congress.

As for your number how was it calculated. Check the table- if you are counting only the first five years of production, 1795 to end of year 1799, the total number is 7,550. If your run through the end of year 1800 the total number made is 12,419. If you choose to delete the 1795 year, since it was only a half year of production, and only count the first five full years of production it only brings the number down to 12,174. After the year 1798 production at Springfield was never below 2,000 a year (regularly over 3,000) and the year the low production occurred (1806) corresponds with a major facilities upgrade. The first year after the upgrade production exceeded 5,500 a year and climbed to 12,000 the year before the war of 1812 began. Production was curtailed during the war and for a few years after as work was split between building new guns and repairing ones damaged inservice.

.. have I really? questioned firearm production rate at Springfield Armory? Nah, it’s only you misquoting me again:

1) what gib said, post 127: .. 1795 to 1811 Springfield Armory produced 74,400 muskets. Spread over the whole 16 years that’s about 4,600 a year..
2) what I then said: .. SF production of course was far weaker than that average the first 5 years, & the first year what’d it make, 1,000?

.. so what I actually contended was that for the first 5 years SprFld production was just ‘weaker’ than gibson’s 4,600 avg production rate, & bellesiles table8 shows the avg Sprfld production rate from 1795-1800 at 2,102 avg per year (prove him wrong, post a link, but I trust him).
.. so actually I was right to correct gibson, since readers might think 23,000 firearms produced at SF armory from 1795-1800 rather than the actual 10,500. That was my point – that was not ‘questioning’ SF production, it was clarifying what you wrote.

gibson: .. why would the govt allow these men to leave service with a weapon that was needed by the remaining militiamen?

.. if the firearm was provided by the militiaman then it was his, but if it was provided by a national armory or otherwise paid for by fed or state, I presume it could be retained by the state, or under favorable circumstances, given to the militia member for honorable service rendered.
.. 2ndA was not intended to deprive anyone of firearms.

The truth is, under the logic you have put forward, the government would have had no choice, or impediment, to the disarming of the retired or disabled militiamen. Regardless of the fact no disarmament power is written in the 2nd, by your logic the protection only applies to the men “IN” the militia. Congress has the authority to regulate the militia under the terms of Article 1 Sect 8 Clause 16 (and did so with the 1792 militia act). Under this act, a disarmament provision towards men over 45 could have been imposed just as there was a requirement that all men acquire an arm with 6 months of turning 18.

The 2nd did not override the Congressional authority to define or regulate the militia. As you view it, the 2nd simply insured that Congress couldn’t disarm the militia. Thus, a regulation disarming the retired or disabled militiamen would not be prevented by the 2nd, under your logic, since disarming these men would not constitute disarming the militia. As you have noted, the men in question were no longer required to serve and thus no longer were even maintained on the local militia roles.

In addition, under your earlier statements that gun ownership was limited, how could the government allow the arms these men owned to leave service? You have, unfortunately for you, stated that guns were rare in those days. You have even questioned the production rate for arms at Springfield Armory. If these points were true, then why would the government allow these men to leave service with a weapon that was needed by the remaining militiamen? You like, as do most gun controlists, to note the fact the Militia returns do not show enough arms to equip the whole militia. So why would the government allow these men to leave with these “rare” arms.

Thus, by your facts, the government was neither prevented from disarming the retired militiamen and had a valid defense reason to acquire these men’s arms to equip the remaining militia. And again, by your corollary argument, such a disarmament would be in-line with the needed linkage of RKBA to militia service.

Yet the old and disabled men were not disarmed, though they were relieved of their militia duties as you put it. In the end the retirees- and their arms- were dropped from the militia returns, which in turn undermines your claim the militia return is a complete gun census. These men then became people who owned arms while not being connected to the militia (which sounds like the question the Supreme Court asked in Heller).

.. retired militiamen may have lost connection with the active militia, but the ‘people’ as used in 2A & by rawle have NOT lost connection with the militia; rawle can’t compensate for something which wasn’t intended to be accounted for in 2ndA to begin with – definition of what a militia was (including getting senile, mentally infirmed, violent, etc).
.. If a 25 yr old white male ‘people’ became mentally incompetent in 1792, would you argue he could still bear loaded arms in militia?, or even safely defend himself with rkba & a firearm? He’s still a people, but not really a militiaman entitled to bear firearms to defend the state.
.. 2 year olds similarly had no rkba granted them or revoked them by 2ndA. (tho surely many americans >45 fought in militia on a voluntary basis).

gibson:.. [retired militiamen] must have been disarmed to maintain the requirement that there be a connection between RKBA and militia service. Yet the men were not: according to you they simply were no longer required to serve in the militia.

.. gong, one outgrew the militia, not the ABILITY to own a firearm; & one outgrew the obligation to belong to a militia which could not be infringed upon by congress, that is all… a restraint on congress forbidding disarming the collective militia, which by consequent/corollary, granted rkba to americans to serve in their WR militia.

.. A band of 1792 americans >45 with legal muskets but not attached to a well reg’d state’s militia, standing armed alongside a road, could indeed be infringed upon by the state (see also presser).
.. there was no congressional involvement in disarming non militia members from owning firearms, there was never the fear of that, states would handle it. The fear was that of a majority of congress overpowering minority states if a group of states bonded unfairly & assumed majority control & tried to disarm minority states of firearms, 2ndA prevented that.

.. you use tortured logic fallacy to make an argument which was never there to begin with.

From your own post of 96, .. “Wm Rawle CLEARLY calls the individual clause a COROLLARY to the militia clause;_.. ie – a CONSEQUENT of the need for a well reg’d militia is that the right of people to keep & bear arms (rkba) shall not be infringed. OR, since a well reg’d militia is necessary, we INFER that people have rkba”. After saying (or inferring) this necessary militia relationship, you now say the 2ndA concurrently did not disallow other americans from owning guns. To what end were these other Americans allowed to Keep Arms if they were not in a militia in which they would Bear Arms.

Or in your Post 100: “there MUST be a connection regarding the people with the militia for rkba to be a corollary to the militia clause.” But since the men are now too old for service they have lost that connection and thus have no reason or purpose to “Keep Arms”. So, by the corollary, they must have been disarmed to maintain the requirement that there be a connection between RKBA and militia service. Yet the men were not: according to you they simply were no longer required to serve in the militia.

Or in your post of 115- ”if something hinges upon another law or rule, it is dependent upon that law or rule as a basis, so if you concede that Rawle is correct, there MUST be a dependent link to the militia for rkba to hold fast”. Since you hold that Rawle is correct there has to be a linkage between the militia for RKBA to hold fast. Yet you then say there were Americans not in the militia that owned guns?

I particularly liked your statement that the militiamen were not given any individual RKBA by the 2ndA. Yet by your own words, on retirement, the militiamen get that individual right simply because they were not disarmed as they left the collective entity that was the militia.

.. more screwy dialectic reasoning from gibson, poorly worded as well;
.. disarming individuals fell outside the scope of 2ndA; .. 2ndA forbade congress from disarming state’s militias & consequently (by corollary) granted rkba to state’s militiamen older than 17 & younger than 45, but 2A concurrently did not disallow other americans from owning firearms.

.. Men reaching 45 who outlived their militia requirement were NOT REQUIRED TO SERVE IN MILITIA ANY LONGER, that is all. Since they were never granted any individual rkba by 2ndA to begin with, there was no stipulation that militia retirees be disarmed, that was never the intent of 2ndA, either explicit nor implicit.

But these statements get away from what we should be now discussing which is what was said in the oral arguments. Instead of discussing the words of Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer or Roberts we are still talking about the writing of William Rawle who is never mentioned in any of the petitioners briefs or in the oral arguments. Simply put, if Libby is so right that Rawle is the first and last word on this matter why is it none of the legal scholars for the gun control side even mentioned it.

In truth we should have long ago been remarking about such things as Ginsburgs note about the men who had exceeded militia age under the 1792 Act. She obviously appreciates that not one says these men were disarmed. And if these men were not disarmed how could gun ownership only be in regard to military service: for the men were no longer required to serve.

.. your dialectic does not dismantle rawle.

gib: .. Bellesiles .. I leave it to the rest of the readers to interpret who’s lacking in credibility. Particularly when Mr. Libby doesn’t remember he made his statement in Post 127 not Post 96.

.. phfft; absurd to use my confusing my rawles’ post with my bellesiles post as evidence of a lack of credibility within my argument itself.
.. gibson does a sloppy tapdance in both instances, that is all.