A well regulated militia?

[jimmy the one]

40. Story's full quote, parsed

teddyR: I'd like to see some support For the argument that "the people" and "the Militia" mean the same thing. I mean, support from legal authority would be nice, other than your misreading of Story.

Sure, I can do that, from a former supreme court justice; tho I'm not misreading Justice Story, you are, perhaps following Scalia's heller misinterpretations.

From the very quote from Justice Jos Story we've been using. It's what I've been trying to get across.
Here is Justice Story's full quote, and note the emboldened parts. I've spaced the quote for clarity:

Justice Story on the 2ndAmendment: {year}1833 The importance of this {2ndA} article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.
It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
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.
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

Right after extolling the virtues of the MILITIA as the natural defense of a free country, Story notes that is was "..against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies..", then he immediately invokes "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms...". Story was pretty clearly speaking of the citizens militia established by the militia act of 1792. To think Story was speaking of an individual rkba disconnected from militia service is ABSURD, after leading in with the importance of a well regulated militia.

Story then goes on to further link the 'People' with the militia: "How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."
Nowhere in Story's entire quote does he mention or even hint unambiguously at an individual right to keep & bear arms. He is clearly in militia context start to finish, & uses 'the people', 'citizens', and 'militia' synonymously.

The sentence you admire so much, starting with 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms..', is immediately followed by Story with: "And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable,"

What do you think Story is referring back to? the right of the citizens to keep & bear arms, of course.

The 'citizens' Justice Story mentions, who had the right to keep & bear arms, comprised generally free white males of militia age, perhaps older white males as well. Free blacks could but likely didn't want to risk gun ownership back then. In other words, it wasn't ALL the citizens who had the right to keep & bear arms, only militia aged ones.

Story's final sentence expresses his concern that militia indifference may lead to disgust, and undermine the protection of the 2nd amendment, most probably the protection of the well regulated militia (since militia mentioned in previous sentence): "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".