Reply #277: SO you know it was Madison who revised the article in the select committee? [View All]

[jmg257]

That HE would change his own recommendation? That is curious - do you have any definitive info on this?.. Not that it matters to his thinking the right to keep and bear was "absolute".


And Benson's comment quite clearly shows they thought one being "religiously scrupulous" is NOT a natural right, while "keeping and bearing arms" is.


That the exemption was dropped was indeed to help keep the people from being disarmed, and so the militia rendered ineffective...

Elbridge 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 {religious} 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."


Thomas Scott: objected that the exemption would mean that "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."