What is a militia? At the time of the constitutions writing there were no security forces such as the police angecies we recognize today. Internal security was carried out by the militias of the various states and counties.
Not true. State militias were fundamentally a paramilitary force, not a police force. For law enforcement, there were regional and local officials in the form of sheriffs appointed by the governor, and cities and towns had local constables elected by the residents. Using a militia for police work would be akin to using the National Guard today--sometimes necessary, but far from the usual order of things.
So what is a well regulated militia (internal security force)? A well regulated militia would have thier authority held in check. There would be controls in place to ensure thier behavior was well within contitutional norms and that they did not be come a law onto themselves.
Also no. "Well regulated" meant, in the vernacular of the 1700s, that something was properly functioning, orderly, and methodical. In this case, well trained and prepared for it's duties.
What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States
The number of states is virtually irrelevant, since representation in the House and the electoral college is defined by population. The only place where the number of states is relevant is in the Senate, where it's the SMALL states that have an unfair advantage: Wyoming gets one Senator for every 275,000 people, whereas California gets one for every 18,500,000.
In your scenario, the fact that there are more individual states on one side or the other gives them no particular moral force or authority, if they don't have a majority of the people.
The problem wasn't taxation in and of itself; the problem was that the English monarchy didn't care what the colonists thought about the taxation, or what they thought about most anything. The American Revolution occurred because the colonists wanted to determine their own destiny.
Thank you! As a history geek it always drives me nuts when people say that the American Revolution was about taxes. It wasn't. The taxes spurred boycotts and protests, but not much more. The thing that touched off the war was the fact that the British government decided that the annoying colonials had to be taught a lesson, and did so by instituting a military occupation of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It wasn't about three pennies per pound of tea, it was the seizure of colonial government and the fact that the British expeditionary force dropped about one redcoat in Boston for every resident of the city.
But nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if he thought the second admendment was necessary for that, or for that matter, if the right to carry a concealed weapon was more of a privilege for members of his class only? That would be an interesting question to ask, were it possible.
At the time, everything was for Jefferson's class only. In early colonial America, if you weren't a wealthy white male landowner, then you pretty much got no respect. That said, Jefferson was a radical guy, probably the second most radical of the revolutionaries after Thomas Paine, and one who seemed to believe in the principles of equality. If you read his writings, he was very nearly an anarchist in some ways: describing his admiration for native american tribes that lived as a collective, without structure; believing that tradition and history shouldn't bind how people lived; and expressing strong opposition to the influence of money and the monied elite on governance. So I suspect he would be supportive. He also once copied down into one of his books a passage from another writer, remarking on the "false idea of utility," particularly when it came to carrying firearms: that laws were made about it in the false belief that they were useful, but that it did nothing to dissuade criminals, and made it harder for people to defend themselves.