This message was self-deleted by its author

[Glenn Vardy]

137. It just isn't there.

Seems a debate about how individual rights may affect the workings and duties of government

The only time individual right's are mentioned is when the matter of being EXCUSED from bearing arms is mentioned.

intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government

And not to secure a right to own guns?" Why isn't anybody saying it?

if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army.

He doesn't want anyone to be able to get excused from bearing arms (military service) because you wouldn't be able to depend on the militia if everyone was excused or prevented from serving. How would having an undependable militia lead to the the violation of an individual right to own an arm? To Mr Scott, the people are keeping arms when they have a MILITIA that can be depended on, not when individuals "keep" guns.