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

[jimmy the one]

37. little problem with militia centric pov

jmg: I don't think there is doubt about the 2nd securing an individual right... Of course, its purpose, or primary purpose as Breyer notes, is the continuation of the Militias. Nothing about recognizing the security of an individual right seems to contradict that. It is the securing of an individual right for self-defense purposes that is argued.

Well, an auxilliary individual right (militia centric) going alongside the militia interpretation I have little problem with, since that's probably what it was imo. But there is no individual rkba disconnected from militia, inherent in 2ndA.
For a minute there I thought you were arguing pro gun nonsense about breyer supporting the individual rkba; they sometimes do it taking the 4 propositions below & citing only the first, so this:

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:
(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. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(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, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."

is refined down to, unbelievably, THIS, which they contend is unanimous support for the i-rkba!:

based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(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.