"This is a personal right reserved to individuals to bear arms..."

"It is expressly provided in the Constitution of the United States, that the States may provide for their own defence in times of imminent danger. We are bound by that Constitution and we have a right to defend ourselves in the way that is reserved in the Constitution of the United States; that is left to every State in the Union, unrestricted and in full force. He knew that the people of the United States had reserved the right of self defence; but the States have given up the right to keep ships of war or troops in time of peace. What he had said he took from the book, and he had not gone beyond that. The right of preparing for war is exclusively reserved to the Government of the United States, and the States cannot, for their own defence, keep ships of war or troops in time of peace. Now for the qualification of these remarks, he would refer to the amendment to the Constitution which had already been read as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why this was intended to convey to individuals certain personal rights. This is a personal right reserved to individuals to bear arms; this was adopted to grant to every man the shield of self defence."

- Mr. Walter Forward, Oct. 3, 1837 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. [THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837, VOL IV. Pages 96-97]. Mr. Forward, (January 24, 1786 – November 24, 1852), was an American lawyer and politician. Elected to the 17th Congress in 1822, and reelected to the 18th Congress. He was appointed on March 6, 1841 by President William Henry Harrison to be First Comptroller of the Treasury. Served in that post until September 13, 1841. And was then appointed 15th U.S. Secretary of the Treasury by President John Tyler).

"Why he asked in a time of profound peace should we keep up an oppression--a practice known to operate as an oppression? After fifty years experience, not one solitary instance of good could be shown to have been produced by it. He had nothing to say against making it obligatory for men to be organized and enrolled--to be armed for their own defence. It was perfectly right that all free citizens should be armed for that purpose. Who doubted it?"

- Benjamin Martin, Oct. 25, 1837, delegate from Philadelphia county. [THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837, VOL IV.]

   "Mr Martin said, it would not be necessary to occupy the attention of the committee more than a very few minutes, as he thought the amendment must be fully understood. The question was now stripped of all those vexed matters which had occupied so much time. This consumption of time, however, was not to be regretted. The question was now reduced to this single point--if the freemen of this State shall be compelled at all times to bear arms, and to be mustered into service whether they are wanted or not. It was a question, therefore, easily understood. He did not believe it possible that a majority of this committee, or any thing like a majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth, would sanction the principle that the freemen of the State should, under all circumstances, be required to muster and bear arms, when there was no occasion for it. What was this Convention assembled for, but to make such amendments to the Constitution as circumstances seemed to require. An amendment of this kind, he knew, a short time ago, it would have been impracticable to carry out. But that time had passed over and passed away. On this hill where we now sit to form a Constitution, the mechanic and the farmer, were compelled to pursue their daily occupation with their arms by their side. But would any one say that this was necessary now? No. He had come to the opinion and who ever would take the trouble to examine the matter closely, would be convinced as well as he was, that the public opinion of this State was opposed to the adoption of any compulsory measure in reference to militia training. He did not himself wish, and he was mistaken if there were many of his friends who did wish it, that the matter should rest on any other ground than this--that no man shall be compelled to bear arms, or to pay an equivalent, except in time of war.

   "The merits and demerits of the militia had nothing at all to do with this question. Where would this effect the militia? No where. There was no necessity for bearing arms in a time of profound peace. No man could insist on such a point in a free government--in a Commonwealth Situated like Pennsylvania, her extensive interior surrounded every way by hills. With such natural defences there is no danger of invasion. Besides this, the population of the State from its earliest years had been so habituated to the use of fire arms, that they were, at all times, almost qualfied for soldiers."--Benjamin Martin, Oct. 26, 1837, delegate from Philadelphia county. [THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837, VOL IV.]  

 "He had, he said a deep and abiding impression that the liberties of no people could be maintained unless their yeomanry were armed and disciplined This principle was at the foundation of national independence and national freedom. It was important in reference to national defence from foreign aggression and still more so for the support of the liberties of the people against domestic invasion. All history showed that no nation could retain its liberty in opposition to the ambition of its own rulers unless the people were armed and disciplined for their own defence.  . ."

" . . .I do not regard this duty of taking up arms as a tax. I recognize in it a privilege, of which no citizen is to be deprived--the high privilege of a freeman--the privilege to bear arms. This we are not to regard as a tax or a burden. It is a duty to the public and a right appertaining to the character of a freeman; and in the old Constitution, which was framed at a time when men scrupulously criticised every word they used in such an instrument, the word equivalent is employed from a knowledge that the term tax would be inadequate for the idea intended to be conveyed."--Mr. Scott, Oct. 26 1837, [THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837, VOL IV.]