I found an interesting line in the Constitution

[jmg257]

83. A few things...foremost the 2nd amendment did not give us anything...

it secures an existing right & privilege the people already had.

Second - the militia was NOT the standing army. One was a state entity, the other a federal entity. States could NOT maintain "Troops", but they could have Militias (well regulated ones). The Congress could raise an Army, and maintain a Navy, but they were to call forth the State Militias for federal service in defending our liberties.

Third - the 2nd secures, to the people, 'the right to keep and bear arms', a right which is VERY HIGHLY connected to the duty and right to serve in the Militias...almost as if the 2 are interchangable.


In Congress 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."

'Keeping arms' and 'to bear arms' here obviously refers to Militia service.

Mr Gerry: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious exemtion} 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."

'Bearing arms' here obviously refers to militia service.


Our right and duty to serve in the Militia is what allows us to 'fight tyranny'...because it reduces the need for that martial power of tyrants - a large standing army. This is what the 2nd secured for the people, their role in defending their freedoms.

No doubt the people have 'the right to keep and bear arms'. And IF there is any confusion about what the restriction clause means, then one refers to the preamble cause...'well regulated militias being necessary'. Obviously that right is associated with Militia service. As debates in congress over the amendments clearly shows.