Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: I see J1 is back spinning tales from his fertile imagination. Let me see if I can address at least some of his flights of fancy:

One recent tale from your infertile imagination supposed that wm rawle intended 'going abroad' to mean going out to the front & back yards of one's house. My DU link below proves rawle meant it as traveling to foreign lands.
>>> tortoise: 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, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205510
__________________

tortoise: J1 himself actually provided a link one time to a British source that confirmed that, although the right to bear arms in pre-revolutionary war England was limited, it was indeed an individual right.

Tortoise above corrupts what I posted, & below is the proof. Observe how he takes one sentence from the 'british source' out of context, disregarding what followed. That is considered unethical, a misrepresentation, & a LIE, since in context it meant an individual right to belong to a militia:

21 British Scholars, my 'british source': The {scalia} Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or usearms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178205

tortoise: .. The fact is that most of the colonists considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, and as such, expected to be allowed to enjoy the rights of British subjects. That included the right of all loyal Protestant subjects to bear arms for their defense.

Pretzel logic take 4 is it now? Tortoise argues that colonists loyal to the crown would've been distressed over the british confiscating cannon & arms at concord & elsewhere in order to prevent their mutual adversaries, the rebel colonists, from having those arms with which to fight against themselves - the loyalist/tories - and the crown.