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

[tortoise1956]

93. Nice job of selective editing...

I see that in my absence (getting ready for my upcoming retirement, something I've looked forward to for what seems like a bazillion years) jimmy the one is once again carefully picking and choosing which words to use and which to ignore, in an attempt to convince others to agree with his faulty argument. I'll take it one at a time:

1. Story's writings discuss the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, NOT the subset of a militia:

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;

Normally that would be 'nuff said - not all citizens were members of the militia, but all citizens were considered to have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I bow to the ability of my opponent to corkscrew this phrase into meaning that only members of the militia are citizens, and, like any good Jesuit-trained debater would do, ignore the Fallacy of Appeal to Wishful Thinking and move on to his most egregious example of pretzel logic.

2. Here is the argument he presents as proof of Rawle believing in the collective rights:

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.

There are two problems here. The first is that a corollary is not something which is derived from a higher rule or law, at least not in any online dictionary I found. However, I do have a definition from the online 1828 Webster's dictionary here:
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/corollary

As you can see, in the language of Rawle's time, it meant simply a conclusion or inference drawn from a preceding premise or proposition. Thus, his "definition" falls down rather quickly, since it depends upon the militia clause being the main clause, instead of simply a proposition (Rawle's words, not mine - he defined it as a proposition in the first sentence of his section on the second amendment).

However, the main crux of his argument - that it is simply a militia right - falls on its face when one looks at the entire quote:

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.

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...)

As a side note, Rawle states that this is not an unlimited right, and discusses two scenarios where bearing arms could be illegal. One of them is a single armed person, who gives just reason to fear he will use them unlawfully. There is an implication that carrying them lawfully is fully acceptable. However, that is simply implied, so I won't add that to my argument.

So there you have it. Rawle says clearly that the constitution does not give ANY government the power to disarm the people, as long as the arms are not used unlawfully.

Standing by to see the response to this. I'm sure that the logical structure of any reply will bear close resemblance to an Escher painting...