+64 (second amendment interpretation 42)

continuing from the preceding post:

Or look at this in the opinion:

"During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule .."

Whether that fear comes from the direct effect of disarmament or the court's theory of its leading to eliminate the militia, in both cases it implies dependency on that the militia can resist the government.

Or this

"John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress's "command of the militia" could be used to create a "select militia," or to have "no militia at all," but also, as a separate concern, that "[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508-509 (M. Jensen ed.1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people"

That also imply dependency on that the militia can resist. (Again, the dependency I keep talking about is within the meaning of post +61).