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

[jimmy the one]

99. pretzel logic take III

tortoise writes: 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.

The passage tortoise refers to is printed below, since tortoise evidently is loathe to do the work himself, leaving readers to simply 'believe me', ala trumpism.

Rawle, 1825, on right to keep & bear arms: In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.

Tortoise argues, citing rawle above: 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.

Tortoise uses dialectic reasoning to turn his implication into a corollary, ha.
Rawle is saying that an individual who comes from a country where arms can be carried legally, and then carrying arms abroad, as could be a frenchman in england, or a german in the USA, should provide surety to the country (sheriff or town) he is in, that he does not intend to do harm by carrying his firearm.
In plainer words, an american circa 1800 could not go visit england or france or any country where arms could NOT be carried thusly, and claim that he has a right to keep & bear arms since he is part of the virginia militia, and thus must provide surety to the foreign town or sheriff.
So tortoise is wrong once again, since a single person carrying a firearm ABROAD in a country which does not allow that practice, would have to provide surety to the town, whether he had unlawful intent or peaceful intent.

tortoise: 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...

Quite the opposite, it is you who thinks he is ascending, when you only dig your hole deeper & deeper.