I want a gun with some...

[jimmy the one]

36. big mike spreads misinformation

big mike: Both Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer explicitly state that it is an individual right

No they don't, you post baloney from 2nd amendment mythology.

big mike: While in Section II, essentially on Page 3 of his dissent, Justice Breyer states:
In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (emphasis added)
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. (STEVENS,J., dissenting).

To try to hoodwink readers that heller was 9-0 for an individual rkba interpretation demonstrates either a deceptive nature, or your misconception of what was actually written.
Big mike cites simply ONE of the 4 interpretations of 2ndA which exist today & noted by breyer, then misleads by leaving off the other 3 considerations, thus misleading that breyer was actually an individual rkba adherent:

Justice breyer in fuller context shows big mike for a charlatan: In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(Proposition) (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of forces.” United States v. Miller,(1939);
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller..
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).

Yes, those are the 4 possible constructions & rulings today which 2ndA has morphed into. Note how big mike only mentioned proposition 1 which is individual rkba friendly.
But Breyer was NOT contending he, nor the 'entire court' of 9 justices, considered 2ndA an individual right.
Justice Breyer, in proposition 1 above, was simply noting that the 2ndA when considered AS an individual right was ONE of the several 2ndA interpretations which exist.
Two other propositions breyer noted (2 & 3), described that the collective/militia interpretation also existed. These 4 propositions are what justice breyer meant when he said 'all justices could agree with' existed, and thus formed the basis for further debate.
In proposition 1, breyer was simply defining what the individual right was, note his usage of i.e. which means roughly 'in example': The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred; - this then became the basis for court discussion whether the 2ndA did indeed confer an individual right. But breyer was not contending propostion 1 was what the dissent adhered to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=117174