Justice Stevens Scolds NRA & Suggests: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

[jimmy the one]

114. early quotes supporting individual rkba, hahahahaha

bossy: there was commentary from the pre-civil war era supporting than individual rights view.

I checked the wiki link & what you contend is laughable, & merely rightwing spin, for most all of those quotes supposedly supporting an individual rkba are cherry picked from authors really in support of the militia centric interpretation:

Justice Story (supreme court early 1800's): The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and {referring to his above paragraph} the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.

Story's concern was that the militia system would disintegrate, & 'thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by' the 2nd amendment. Geez, can't you read?

Then you have: Timothy Farrar In 1867, --- anything written after the civil war has no reliable bearing on what transpired in 1791 for the 2ndA had become schismatic by then, by 1830 actually.

Tucker early 1800, citing blackstone: In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game

English game laws did not disarm poachers or 'the people', generally landed gentry did as they reinterpreted the English bor 1689. This type of disarmament, the period lasted only about 30 years in the early 1700's.

In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary (on 2ndA):

Yeah boy, tench coxe was a firearm salesman, pointing out that every man should have a gun, & wow, I betcha had monthly sales too, 'Buy a musket from me during july & get a free pound of powder!'

on Wm Rawle: In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause (2ndA), which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power..

here it is in context, gee, look what's on rawle's mind: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of govt. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state govt is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You all do know what a corollary is, dontcha? it's something which is derived from a HIGHER LAW OR PRINCIPLE. Ergo, accd'g to rawle, the right to keep & bear arms is derived from the need for a well reg'd militia. Duh.