Rigby5
Diamond Member
Every American, more or less, has the right to OWN WEAPONS and to BE IN THE MILITIA.
There's no right to walk around with one.
That's the US Constitution.
Here's what Congress had to say on it, while debating this amendment.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause being spoken about:
"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."
So, Mr Gerry was worried that this clause would allow the government to say who was religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, and then stop them.
The very next thing he said was "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
He's talking about the right to be in the militia.
Then he said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
So, he's talking about "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously.
Mr Jackson came along and said "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Clearly "bear arms" and "render military service" are being used synonymously. In fact they did change this clause back and forwards a few times between "bear arms" and "render military service" before getting rid of the clause.
"Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent."
I mean, who'd pay a substitute to have people walking around with guns in their daily life?
There's plenty more evidence.
For example the Dick Act in 1902/3 made the "unorganized militia". This was so that individuals wouldn't be able to claim their right to be in the militia/right to bear arms, and force their way into the National Guard. So they made it so people were already in the militia, so they couldn't claim a right to be in it. Clever huh?
Yes they do have the right to be armed at all times.
The Constitution only tries to divide jurisdiction between states and the federal government, so is not the best place to tell what individual rights are.
But the 4th and 5th amendments clearly indicate the right of self defense.
{...
Fourth Amendment
Main article: Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[95]
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution...}No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[95]