Thank you. I will try to answer in kind.
The average continental soldier was expected to be equipped as follows:
"The Continental infantryman had equipment that was like that of the British soldier. In addition to a musket, he carried on his right side a leather or tin cartridge box that held twenty to thirty rounds of ammunition, a musket tool, and a supply of flints. On his left side he carried his bayonet in a leather scabbard attached to a linen or leather shoulder strap. Each soldier had a haversack, usually made of linen, to carry his food rations and eating utensils. The utensils usually included a fork made of wrought iron, a pewter or horn spoon, a knife, a plate, and a cup. He also had a canteen of wood, tin, or glass to carry water. A knapsack held extra clothing and other personal items such as a razor for shaving, a tinderbox with flint and steel for starting a fire, candle holders, a comb, and a mirror. Soldiers also often carried a fishhook and some twine so that they could catch some fish when they were near a lake, creek, or river."
http://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers
When you compare that to what the militia members were expected to bring, and then take into consideration that when these acts were passed, the militia consisted of all males between the ages of 18 and 45, then yes, I think that Washington expected the average American male to be armed on a level with the regular army soldiers. Actually, it seemed that AT LEAST the militia members had to maintain that level of arms, as there is nothing I have found in the documents of the day that discuss any restrictions on the rest of the country as far as being armed.
As for the second amendment and the argument that it only applies to the militia, I would point out that the amendment says that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of members of the militia. That same phrase is used in 5 other amendments - the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th - and in none of those cases is it interpreted other than to refer to the entire body of the American people. Why would it have a different meaning in just one amendment?
This is not to say that reasonable regulation is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, if it were up to me, no one would be able to buy a firearm without first having completed a course of instruction on general firearms safety, and demonstrated the ability to safely handle firearms. My dad required me to do that before I was able to pick up a rifle, and I will ensure that my grandchildren (who I will be allowed to teach to shoot, according to their mothers) are taught general safety and firearms handling before they ever pull the trigger on a live round.
If you are interested, here is an interesting link to a legal history of the second amendment. It doesn't appear to be biased in one direction or another, and it is pretty darn comprehensive. I recommend it for anyone interested in this subject no matter what your personal feelings are:
http://lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/SecondAmendment/judicial-interpretation-second-amendment.shtm
I await your thoughts on this post.
= new reply since forum marked as read