Fewer guns mean fewer killings. We want a handgun ban.

[tortoise1956]

167. Jeez, it's hard to figure out where to start

with so much smoke and mirrors placed in the way of the facts. J1 seems to have a good command of the English language, so I have to believe his obtuseness is deliberate.

I guess I'll take it one at a time:

1. According to J1:
"Women could not vote circa 1800, were considered second class citizens, and did not possess any right to keep & bear arms. Any women who wanted to usurp the family firearm against her husband's wishes, claiming her 'right to bear arms', might well get smacked across the face.

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment..."

This is complete and unmitigated bullshit. So women didn't have the right to a trial by jury, or not to incriminate themselves, or to peacefully assemble, to name a few? I don't care who your source is, that is an inane and untrue statement on its face. Hell, women carried firearms quite often in the past without being jailed for it, especially in the so-called "Wild West." That was in many cases their only protection in a place where might often equaled right. Can you can come up with 1 historical reference to a woman not being allowed to carry firearms in a place where men could? If this statement of yours was correct, it should be easy to shower me with dozens of examples.

BTW, Story didn't say that the right was limited to citizens of the United States, and my use of the word wasn't meant to imply the limitation either. The second amendment applies to the people - the same people that are mentioned in the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments. If those amendments identify individual rights (and they do, according to pretty much every constitutional scholar I have found), then the use of the people in the second was meant to identify an individual right as well, not a collective right.

2. Corollaries are inferred from the the proposition they are drawn from. That doesn't mean they are limited by that proposition - as a matter of fact, they generally expand upon that proposition. Thus, the prefatory militia clause advances the proposition that a well-regulated militia is a essential to the security of the state, and the second clause expands upon that statement by saying that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Rawle had meant to limit that to simply the militia, he would have certainly written something along those lines. He didn't - as a matter of fact, he stated very clearly that this right is a general right:

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Isn't this clear? "No clause in the constitution" includes the prefatory clause that J1 is so enamored of...

3. Rawle on secession (from J1's own link):

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/david-dieteman/three-views-of-the-constitution/

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.

So, Rawle believed that the state legislatures themselves didn't have the right to call for secession incorporated into the state constitutions - only the people of a state. With that in mind, Rawle would have seen the decision of the confederate governments to secede as unconstitutional. Not quite what J1 said.

Also, states can (maybe) secede with permission of the federal government, according to modern scholars:

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/does-the-constitution-permit-the-blue-states-to-secede.html

I leave it to you, Gentle Reader, to peruse the link yourself. Way too much information to copy here. Decide for yourself

4. On carrying a weapon abroad:

Once again, J1 demonstrates his ignorance of the language of the 19th century. According to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

ABROAD, adverb abrawd'. [See Broad]
In a general sense, at large; widely; not confined to narrow limits. Hence,

1. In the open air.
2. Beyond or out of the walls of a house, as to walk abroad
3. Beyond the limits of a camp. Deuteronomy 23:10
4. Beyond the bounds of a country; in foreign countries - as to go abroad for an education. We have broils at home and enemies abroad
5. Extensively; before the public at large.
He began to blaze abroad the matter. Mark 1:45.
Esther 1:17.
6. Widely; with expansion; as a tree spreads its branches abroad

The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries, like a Frenchman in England, or a German in the United States, or an Englishman in New York (Hey - good title for a song!). If Rawle had been using the word to mean something other than what common usage dictated, he would have explained it further. In the absence of anything that points to an uncommon definition, the most common definition is the one that should be used to interpret his statement.

BTW, I said Rawle's writings could be said to imply the right to bear arms outside the house. I also said that it was not stated as such in his writings.

5. When I posted a more recent edition of Story that went into more detail on why the people should not be disarmed, J1's response was (to paraphrase it), "Piffle! Words, words, words! I don't have the time to explain why they don't mean what they say!" I guess I have to wait on his pretzel logic.

Whoever instructed you in the fine art of debate owes you a refund, J1 - your skills are clearly underdeveloped...