"the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama

[jimmy the one]

7. Can't use the grammar ruse anymore, lizzie

lizzie: The linguistic analysis, however, is unequivocally in favor of the individual right interpretation. The structure of the language of the amendment simply cannot be validly parsed to restrict the right to the militia. The ascription of the right is made to the set "the people," not to the militia subset

.. the 2ndAmendment's grammar, is UNEQUIVOCALLY in favor of the individual interpretation?
Sorry, you can't use that ruse anymore, since scalia in 2008 heller ruled that:

According to Justice Scalia, the “militia” reference in the first part of the amendment simply “announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”

See? scalia himself linked the two clauses, the individual RKBA clause (accd'g to him) was there to 'prevent elimination of the militia', which in itself shoots down your 'unequivocal interp of individual rkba' baloney.

But {scalia} added that this “prefatory statement of purpose” should not be interpreted to limit the meaning of what is called the operative clause — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Instead, Justice Scalia said, the operative clause “codified a pre-existing right” of individual gun ownership for private use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As I said you can't use that ruse anymore.
Furthermore, ms linguistics, note that scalia cited one wm rawle from 1825 as saying this:

Rawle, as quoted by scalia,2008: "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. ......
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scalia ruled, 2008: "The Court based its reasoning on the grounds that the operative clause of the Second Amendment -- 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' -- is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons.."

There's the new conundrum scalia has put you in, ms linguistics, explain how the individual RKBA COROLLARY, controls the militia clause proposition, it is DERIVED FROM.
(A corollary by definition is derived from a higher proposition above it, a derived inference from a higher rule or law, IT CANNOT CONTROL THE PROPOSITION IT WAS DERIVED FROM)..