And not enough on the State Militas being effecient enough to avoid the pretext for maintaining a large standing army in the 1st place.
Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins
The whole purpose of the 2nd is to ensure the CONTINUED existence of THE militias and to secure the peoples’ role in them. {“Well regulated” “necessary” “not be infringed”} It was our right (and obligation) to possess and bear arms to make up effective militias. The new govt could not usurp or ignore their new powers re: the militias in any way that would make them ineffecient. They couldn’t disarm them they couldnt weaken them, etc. in fact, the roles assigned to the militias and the people should have already guaranteed their CONTINUED right to arms, but to be clear - the 2nd made it explicit.
Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army.
The roles of the Militias was spelled out quite clealry, in the Constitution. We the people would CONTINUE to serve in the entities that would be the 1st line to secure our liberties, and assist the new govt when needed, to secure the freedoms that were guaranteed to us.
= new reply since forum marked as read