+98 (second amendment interpretation 71)

In the preceding post it seems better to express the existence in the Amendment of that right, mentioned using the word "right", as being attached to the status of the necessity of the militia. Because we are not sure that right can survive the severance of that attachment, that right did not establish an existence that needs to be proved discontinued when the status of the necessity of the militia is no longer here.  
Also, it probably would have been better or safer to precede that point with the one about how the status of the necessity of the militia could have been itself what caused that right to exist, instead of making it follow.