Gun Control Reform Activism

gulllaume: I have dual citizenship.

I looked into that once or twice after gwbush elected. Need live in canada (or vv) 3 years iirc (means 'if I remember correctly').
If trump somehow gets elected I plan on moving north to montreal/ottawa region & start fulfilling that requirement.
IIRC, I somehow have the impression you are from a central or western provice, like calgary etc., correct me if wrong. I think we briefly exchanged pleasantries on this previously. Maybe I'll be your eastern neighbor someday.

But I can also read, and any unbiased reading/interpretation of the Second Amendment would not dismiss 50% of the words as "merely prefatory". That is an outrageous exercise in linguistic and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree completely. As well as what you say above, Scalia's opinion & ruling was full of specious & faulty reasoning.
William Rawle circa 1825 wrote in his 'View of the Constitution', that the militia clause was a proposition that few would dissent, & that the rkba clause was a 'corollary' to the proposition, thus meaning something which is derived from the proposition.
So scalia, merely 'prefatory' my ass.

Rawle below, tho his view of 2ndA does contain some ambiguous interpretations, exploited by pro gun side. Rawle was even cited by Scalia to support his heller ruling. Scalia didn't cite the entire Rawle opinion, just parts which he could spin.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 1829 (2d ed.) ---{1st edition 1825}
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 government. 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 government 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.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. {exploitable}>>>Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html