Antonin Scalia's death calls Supreme Court gun rights stance into question

[jimmy the one]

35. militia, clear & unequivocal in 1939 miller

surfer guru: The right to arms isn't granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd, the right to possess and use arms for legal purposes is a retained right -- no aspect of the right was ever conferred to the federal government that would allow the feds to dictate to the citizen what uses are allowed or qualify the protection of the right.

Your tailing might comport with the militia interpretation, but how with the individual? Congress would write each white property owning male in all the states specifically about his single shot musquettes and what when why or where he could or couldn't hunt? that wasn't even a concern back then, game was plentiful unlike in england, indeed citizens were encouraged to own guns due their short supply in militia. Congress created the militia act of 1792 a mere five months after writing the 2ndA, pretty obviously to some of us, providing a technical description to a constitutional definition.
How do you explain (without more sophistry please) these of scalia's (I presume, & faulty) wordings in the heller decision: The {2ndA} operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
2 {faulty reasoning from scalia} The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

When scalia used the word clearly or unequivocally in heller, it is often a ruse, to deceive people into his errant point of view. Common rightwing ploy.
I did not miss this either, since the right to self defense has indeed existed for thousands of years prior to 2ndA. Tho the ancien regime hardly had gunpowder arms, just mainly those bows arrows & edged weapons: The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

And of course, you left off again the clear, yes clear, quote from the 1939 supreme court miller decision, which unequivocally, yes unequivocally, supports the militia interpretation (regardless of scalia & the gun lobby concocted song & dance, in their attempt to neuter it).

supreme court, 1939: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.