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

[jimmy the one]

176. pretzel logic take VI, plus footstick alert

tortoise, sticking his foot in his mouth: 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, [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. 6. Widely; with expansion; as a tree spreads its branches abroad

tortoise, cont'd: 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 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.

Rawle did indeed 'explain it further', it's just tortoise inexperience with rawle that made him footstick.
The problem tortoise has in his footstick above is that wm rawle in context was indeed speaking of foreign countries, thereby rendering definition 4 from 1828 websters, the apt definition.
In his treatise on the 2nd amendment, rawle has two segments, one a 'domestic half' of the treatise, & the other a 'foreign' half. I paste the 'foreign half' of rawle's treatise below:

rawle's foreign half of his 2ndA treatise: 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. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.
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. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs9.html

Tortoise makes the same ignorant fallacious claim that scalia did in heller, that rawle was singling out the 2nd amendment in his foreign affairs half of his treatise, when he was NOT. It is clear rawle was referring back to the 'right' in 'any govt', that is 'most of the countries of europe', and not just america's 2ndA.
Tortoise also, incredulously, uses strained & convoluted reasoning that rawle was NOT referring to abroad as being abroad in a foreign country, when in context rawle was clearly referring to foreign govts.

tortoise with his foot sticking out at an awkward angle from his mouth: Whoever instructed you in the fine art of debate owes you a refund, J1 - your skills are clearly underdeveloped...

This underdeveloped skill just rammed your pathetic arguments past your foot & down your throat. Get a napkin & wipe the egg off your face too.