Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
12. Like the Bill of Rights, the Constitution did NOT grant the right.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:11 PM
Feb 2016

The rights to arms, to bear arms, & the existence of militias, pre-date the document. The Constitution identified and provided new methods for how the Militias were to be regulated, and for the vital roles they were to play in securing our freedoms.
It was these new methods - the powers of the new Congress, that made the people feel the notion of the 2nd was necessary.

[20 Aug. 1789]

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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Fatally Flawed Second...»Reply #12