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

[jimmy the one]

98. secession, invalid; states appeal to 2ndA, invalid;

Rawle wrote: 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.

tortoise: Notice that Rawle states in no uncertain terms that neither Congress, nor the states, have the right to disarm the people. (BTW, the word flagitious has the first meaning of "deeply criminal" in the same 1828 dictionary - that should explain how he felt about even TRYING to disarm the people...)

This argument by tortoise is valid, in that the 2ndA was not a restriction on states (but rather a right), but only shows Rawle being incorrect in this particular paragraph, since the state could not appeal to 2ndA on something the state itself had taken away from its citizens. Rawle might've been thinking 2ndA could be appealed to the states as being under federal jurisprudence.

Rawle was incorrect on occasion, as when he thought this:
It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union.
To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/david-dieteman/three-views-of-the-constitution/

Obviously the civil war of 1861 proved rawle wrong, & he was quickly, after 1825, called out on this.
However, any incorrrectness does not negate the vast preponderance of accuracy & prevailing thought in his 'View of the Constitution', 1825, 1829.