The brief discussion of the amendment in Congress makes clear that the committee had no intention of subordinating one right to the other.[75] Elbridge Gerry attacked the phrase dealing with conscientious objectors, those "scrupulous of bearing arms," that appeared in the original (p.137)amendment. Revealing a libertarian distrust of government, Gerry maintained that the declaration of rights in the proposed amendment "is intended to secured the people against the mal-administration of the Government," and indicated that the federal government might employ the conscientious objector phrase "to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."[76] This would return America to a European-style society in which governments systematically disarmed their citizens. Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania also strenuously objected to this phrase for fear it might "lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms."[77]
While congressmen firmly believed in the right of individual citizens to possess arms, no consensus existed regarding whether or not these people should be required to bear arms in the militia. One representative declared: "As far as the whole body of the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought not to require more than is necessary; for that would be a just cause of complaint."[78] But another representative observed that "the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[79] Other congressmen even went so far as to argue that the states should supply firearms to those Americans without them.[80] Regardless of their voicers' feelings about the militia, such statements clearly revealed an urge to get arms into the hands of all American males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and not to restrict such possession to those in militia service.[81]
Please try to ensure a rebuttal includes cites instead of Paulsenisms.
This statement was one man's opinion. He was certainly a patriot, but he wasn't a Founder or political figure.
Whatever. Arms into the hands of all American males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five? Hey, that WAS the militia. Who else was the second amendment to protect? Slaves? Yeah, right. Women, children, Indians, foreigners?
But the sentence following your cite is noteworthy.
"While late eighteenth-century Americans distinguished between the individual's right to possess arms and the need for a militia in which to bear them, more often than not they considered these rights inseparable."
"Bear" had a military connotation. Not just to carry arms, but to carry them into battle. Meaning the second amendment was referring to the collective right of a militia rather than an individual right.
If that's true.