Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: Story is stating that without the individual right, the militia can't exist. In other words, "Militia" is a subset of "citizens", not the other way around. The "duly armed" clause ties to his worry about whether or not the militia itself would be of much use without good regulations, and has no bearing at all on the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Without the militia, the individual right still exists.

Thanks for the scalia far right wing revisionist history regarding Story's quote. I think it's pretty plain forward what story is saying; your spin made me ill. You, not I, are the right wingster spinning justice story's words, in a quote where he is focused on the militia.
Below is Story's 'duly armed' clause, and as we can plainly see, justice story is equating 'the people' with 'the militia', and, despite your importunings, it's NOT his worry that the militia would be of much use without regs in this sentence (only in others), but whether the people would even constitute a competent armed force WITHOUT a militia. He is worried about what would happen if the people abandoned the militia system of discipline & regs, and became simply 'individuals with guns'. That you attempt to spin this into some backing of an individual rkba is appalling:

Story: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
Some 'militia' organization.

tort: Anyone who can argue that "citizens" in this paragraph actually means "militia" is not interested in facts that conflict with his beliefs.

See my same day reply to teddyR on same thread. Only 1% to 6% of american people could vote in 1787, for G Washington.

tortoise: As for your reference in another post to Blackstone not equating "having arms" to an individual right, here is a copy from Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", book 1, chapter 1:
then tortoise emboldened this from Blackstone: ..and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.

Right, as explained by the 21 british scholars (my above post 30), the english 'right' was militia related. Self preservation under a militia auspices. I didn't see anywhere that Blackstone unequivocally wrote of an individual rkba, you rely on ambiguity in what 21 british scholars clarifed in my post 30..

{21 british scholars} In no part of his Commentaries does Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms, nor does he cite the Declaration of Rights’ “have arms” provision in his discussion of personal security.
The “have arms” provision in the English Declaration of Rights, which was later codified as the Bill of Rights, provided two protections to the individual.
First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders.
Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.
... In doing so, the {US Supreme} Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point. ...Amici, based on a wealth of scholarship, disagree with Malcolm’s conclusions. Contrary to Malcolm’s view, the “have arms” provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia
.. The {supreme} Court “throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of constitutional decisions.” That the Heller decision is recent only weighs in favor of quick action by the Court to correct its error of historical interpretation