Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: Actually, I'm quoting Justice Stevens about the individual right ... If you read the very first paragraph of the dissent in Heller, you will see that all justices agreed that the second amendment detailed in individual right.

This is not true, it's a lie or a misconception. Post this excerpt so I can demonstrate how wrong you are, as I have to numerous people in the past. I know what you are driving at, so post your 'proof'.

Tortoise: Your Story quote left out the section immediately above that: 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 usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Damn inconvenient, I know. He is stating - clearly - that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the citizens. Not militia - citizens

That particular sentence by Justice Story is not 'clear', it's ambiguous; you referring to it as 'clearly - not militia - citizens', is a scalia style ploy to obtain phantom support when something could be interpreted in a couple different ways. And I posted the entire Story quote in post 66, I did not 'leave out' anything since not obliged to repeat all.
Tell me tortoise, how could armed unorganized individuals with no militia training or discipline, resist and triumph over the usurpation & arbitrary power of tyrannical rulers? They could not, story was speaking of the people as being the militia.
Furthermore, here is story's fuller paragraph, which I noted previously, where Justice Story equates the militia & the people, using the very quote which you tortoise claim clearly infers an rkba of individual citizens:

Story, circa 1830: The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. .... 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 usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

You see above how Justice Story equated the people & the militia by equating how they could both check tyrannical rulers? A MILITIA could do that, armed individuals could not.

tortoise: Not militia - citizens. With that in mind, how can you still say that he didn't believe the second amendment was an individual right? Yes, he discusses the importance of militias in keeping tyrants form usurping power, but there is nothing in his writings that ties the second amendment to militia members only.

same para, Justice Story, equating the people with the militia again, & how to 'duly arm' the people: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and 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 burthens, 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. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html