Gun Control & RKBA

icon: 'Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join

That's not what tortoise contended, icon & tortoise changing the goalposts? Even so, they do not contend an individual rkba disconnected from miltia, which was the original assertion by tortoise:

tortoise, #74: Rawle, Story, Tucker- all of them said the 2A was an individual right, and not dependent upon being in the militia.
jimmy the one #90 asked: Where have they said this? post excerpts where these 3 'clearly' conditioned 2ndA as an individual rkba disconnected from militia.
tortoise #92: 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.

They did no such thing, except under a hypothetical. It's beyond belief that you & presumably tortoise would cite the heller dissent as some sort of proof for an individual rkba, or that all the justices thought 2ndA detailed & described an individual rkba.
The dissent was more pro militia than I am (barely).

dissenting opinion, heller (icon's very source): The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
The opinion the {Scalia/heller} Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; post-enactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.