Re: Second Amendment : How soon they forget

"Lynn K. Circle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Reply is to Leif, not to Morton Davis)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur) wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Less than 6 years after the Second Amendment took effect,  House
> > members, in debate, stated their varied opinions on whether or not an
> > individual had a right to carry arms.  When told of that event today,
> > some gun  enthusiasts might say, "Wait a minute, wasn't that right
> > already  settled by the Second Amendment?"  Well, no -- not  that
> > anyone in the House remembered in 1797.
> >
> > And that is very very strange, particularly since several members of
> > the Fifth Congress in 1797 were also members of the First Congress
> > that framed the Bill of Rights.  One of them, William Smith of South
> > Carolina,  had  not only been present in the First Congress ? he had
> > participated in the  House debate on the Second Amendment itself.
> >
> > The debate in the Fifth Congress involved whether Congress should pass
> > a law to authorize the arming of U.S. merchant vessels, and
> > congressmen chose to consider whether the proposed measure might be an
> > extension of an individual right to arms.
> >
> > Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, according to the Annals of Congress,
> > thought there was no individual right to self-defense.  He reviewed
> > "the different stages of society" to show that established governments
> > were expected to provide public defense and that it "was their duty to
> > protect individuals, since they did not give them leave to protect
> > themselves."
> >
> > A quite different view was voiced by Robert Harper, of South Carolina.
> >  He spoke of a natural right to carry arms for defense, both on land
> > and on water.  "If a man on his journey should carry arms for his
> > defence against robbers, this would be proper," he said.   He asserted
> > that his view was supported by "the best legal opinions in this
> > country."
> >
> > But William Smith, also of South Carolina, seemed less definite:  "The
> > question was not whether we should authorize our vessels to arm to
> > protect themselves;
> > but whether, in the first place, our citizens have a natural right to
> > arm and defend themselves, and if they have the right, whether the
> > Legislature ought to restrict it, and in what cases.  Though some
> > gentlemen had denied this right to exist, no proof had been adduced in
> > support of that opinion."
> >
> > If the Second Amendment had really been written to protect an
> > individual right, wouldn't someone in the House have known that a mere
> > 6 years later?  And yet none of the above-quoted congressmen nor
> > anyone else in the House made any reference at all to the Second
> > Amendment.
> >
> > From this 1797 omission, it's quite clear that the Fifth Congress,
> > much closer to the birth of the Bill of Rights than we are today,
> > hadn't the faintest inkling that anyone could consider the Second
> > Amendment as a statement  of a personal right to arms.  That Second
> > Amendment notion is of much more recent vintage.
> >
> > The remarks of Gallatin, Harper, and Smith, respectively, can be found
> > on pages 256, 262, and 279 of the following:
> >
> >
>
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=007/llac007.db&rec
Num=21
> >
> > -Leif
>
>
> I give you credit for furnishing an easily accessible reference.  But
> at the same time, didn't it occur to you that some of us would
> actually READ those references?
>
> You've lifted your quotes and the supposed discussion right out of
> their original context and placed them within the context of the
> Second Amendment, something about which the original speakers weren't
> even really concerned.  Instead, their concern was about individual
> Americans arming SHIPS and taking them out as PRIVATEERS to (in their
> words) DESPOIL the ships of other nations who were assumed to have
> been attacking American vessels.  There really wasn't consideration of
> if or not individuals had the right to carry common small arms (as
> most normally did at the time), but whether they had the right to
> outfit ships with cannon.
>
> In other words, the debate was NOT about the right to keep and bear
> arms, but about the right of individuals to in effect declare war all
> by themselves. As stated THAT right had been reserved to sovereign
> states and not to individual citizens. But the Second Amendment is not
> about such acts at all.
>
> Lynn Circle
> NRA, TSRA, American Legion
>
>
>

DY: Good points LKC. Actually, even the out of context quotes LR presented
clearly show what the actual discussion was about. LR's spin was evident.

--
David E. Young    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
Cited over 100 times in the Emerson Decision
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Info: http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com