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

[jimmy the one]

86. truth twisting rawle & story into individual rkba

tortoise: By two leading constitutional scholars of the 19th century - Joseph Story (Supreme Court for 24 years) and William Rawle: In these writings, they both stress that the 2nd amendment describes a right of the people, and is not limited to militia members.

Readers above can see the second amendment mythology in glory, an adherent twisting about the meaning & intent of two early 1800 constitutional scholars; Both Wm Rawle & Joseph Story supported a militia based or centric interpretation of 2ndA, despite what tortoise tries to spin otherwise.

tortoise: However, the plain truth is that two of the most brilliant legal minds of the early years of our country, both stated that this is an individual right that is not limited by the militia clause.

Pray tell, & copy & paste, where Rawle & Story posted the baloney you allege above. It cannot be done.
For those readers who can comprehend English better than tortoise, here is what Story wrote about the 2ndA:

Jos Story, circa 1820, tortoise's link: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Interpretation for tortoise: Without 'organization', ie militia, the people could not be duly armed. This destroys the inidividual RKBA theory right there, how'd you miss it? The intent of 2ndA is to keep the people 'duly armed' in militia.
Then Story asserts that without the people being 'duly armed' in a militia organization, the 'state security' protection of the miilitia clause would be undermined.

Maybe tortoise clings to this quote: Story: The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers....
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers;

Above Story was being redundant in the same paragraph, since both the militia & citizens (synonymous here) offer essentially the very same check against usurpation & power grabs by tyrannical rulers. Duh, Story assigns the same protective qualities to both the militia & the people in the same paragraph, he is equating them, & to single one out is invalid in context.

On to Wm Rawle, for tortoise. Cite where Rawle declared for an individual RKBA. Was it here?, where he wrote:

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rawle clearly refers to the 2nd clause as a COROLLARY to the militia clause, and a corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or law. Rawle in his 'domestic half' of his treatise, refers to 'the militia' about 7 times, yet does not mention any individual.

Tortoise throws his lot in with truth twisting scalia, who also manipulated both rawle & story into backing an individual rkba, with specious sophistry & casuistry & strained & fractured reasoning. The only way they win. Best climb into your shell.