> The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man I provided a link to the original source. He is arguing about who

> The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man I provided a link to the original source. He is arguing about who is responsible for arming the militia -- congress or the states, or whether citizens in the militia are responsible for bringing their own armaments. The important thing, he notes, is that every man have a firearm, whether by his own provenance or the state's or congress's provisioning. Directly quoting, he says, in light of the organization of the militia being subject to both federal and state oversight, as to whether the members of the militia should be required to arm themselves: > So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, etc., and thus at a very great cost we shall be doubly armed --- The great object is that every man be armed --- But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, etc.? Every one who is able may have a gun. Read the link and I dare you to offer an interpretation that explains why, during the discussion of arming the militia he engages in a total non sequitur of mentioning that all people should have guns?