Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: Notice 3 separate paragraphs? That is because Rawle was following the rules of English writing – when you have a change or modification to the train of thought you are pursuing, open a new paragraph.

Yet you had no problem whatsoever in disregarding your own rules above, when arguing you were referring to a preceding paragraph above the one I was referring to:

tortoise 1st paragraph: On September 1, 1774, Gage decided to seize all remaining powder in a powder-house on Quarry Hill. He had been informed by a brigadier general ,.... (much text) .... impounding all firearms and associated material (bullets and powder) that were found.

tortoise starting a new paragraph, referring to the King of England & ministers, not to Gage, nor the boston tea partiers: On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?)
... about midway down: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172206840#post23

When I said no, that was not disarmament, tortoise tried to include paragraphs above the one referring to the King & ministers, so as to justify his errant use of 'ban'.

tortoise backpedaling: As I stated in the parts you quoted, Gage had stopped allowing any withdrawals from the powder-houses, either public or private stores. That is a clear case of disarmament,..

Tortoise must think if he does it it's ok, if others do it, it's wrong.
----------------------------------------------

tortoise: Since it is a pretty good assumption that Rawle was discussing actual limitations of the right while inside our borders, once again his concoction fails to hold up.

Since tortoise was dead wrong on the above, proved by a mere footnote which he didn't see, it seems the concoction was all tortoises.

tortoise: (The foreign/domestic half argument seems to be the brainchild of J1 alone as far as I can tell, since there doesn't seem to be anyone else on the internet who espouses that view. As an unsupported, illogical and nonsensical invention, it neither merits nor receives any further mention.)

Now that my 'brainchild' has shown to be valid correct & spot on, and is not 'unsupported illogical or nonsensical' it seems tortoise has crawled into his shell & is suddenly being, well, speechless about it. Yes, there was a domestic half, and a foreign affairs half, to Wm Rawle's 2A treatise, a good way to put it.
Hopefully it is the last we will see of tortoise' ridiculous argument that 'going abroad' meant going outside to your front or back yard.
And hopefully tortoise will stop pretending he knows much about Wm Rawle's writings & other historical vignettes, when most all he really knows is superficial, and a keen willingness to twist facts about.