This message was self-deleted by its author

[jimmy the one]

55. individual rkba a corollary to militia clause

eleanors: .. the awkward language structure used in the Second is used in some state constitutions to show how a democracy must rely on one right in order to secure other rights.

Baloney as applied to 2ndA. It protects us from nothing, secures us nothing that we couldn't obtain if it were repealed tomorrow. I renounced 2ndA years ago & could still go out & buy a firearm by passing the background check, there's no 2ndA check to buy a gun.
2ndA is obsolete & worthless.

eleanors: The Second's militia clause, however, is even more subservient in that the feds are relying on the individual RKBA in order for it to exercise a power.

Huh? baloney again to the subservient thingy; in 1825 revised 1829, quaker Wm Rawle wrote a treatise on the 2nd amendment, where he clearly referred to the militia clause as a proposition, and the individual clause as a corollary to the militia proposition.
A corollary is something which is derivedfrom a higher rule or law.

Wm Rawle, 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.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

Who ya gonna believe? wm rawle of the times, or eleanors a latter day aint?