Once again Timothy Noah contributes nothing to the discussion and misrepresents information by taking it out of context. The point Scalia was making is that a pistol is in fact a “commonly used” arm. The section Noah quotes from is Scalia giving examples of why pistols are commonly used, if not the preferred firearm for self defense. By Noah’s logic then all police should carry rifles instead of pistols, usefulness ne dammed. Noah also makes ridiculous arguments such as “The barrel can be used to break a snitch's jaw” and “There's no such thing as "rifle whipping." As if rifles didn’t have barrels and that you can’t “butt stroke” someone with a rifle. Noah is so blinded by bias he can’t distinguish the different terminology for different tools that perform a similar function.

I also fail to understand Noah’s circular logic about banning legal guns so they do not become illegal guns. That is like saying because certain words can be used in an illegal context, then the legal use of those words should be banned. As if the ACLU wouldn’t jump all over that. The Bush administration uses the same logistical reasoning to curtail our civil liberties that Noah proposes, that your rights can be used against you so in order to protect you from people who will abuse those rights we will just remove those rights all together from everyone. Sorry Tim, if doesn’t wash for the Bush administration it sure as hell doesn’t wash for you.

Speaking of media bias, CNN now wants to "start the debate" about what the 2nd amendment really means... As if now, after the meaning has just been legally defined by the highest court in the land, was the right time for such a debate. As if it's still up for grabs. Of course, CNN's take on the issue is heavily laden with anti 2nd amendment positions and shrill emotional outraged letters from their largely-intellect-challenged viewerbase.

In the past at CNN and MSNBC (or as I like to call them Obama Channel 1 and Obama Channel 2,) the Yellow-Journalism/Politically-­Correct-Position on the 2nd amendment dovetailed nicely with their unabashed favoritism towards their poster-boy Obama and his opposition to the gun-rights of American citizens. Of course, they're not happy about being on the losing side now. Aren't those grapes sour, ladies?

Just saw Obama on OC2 (see above) backpedaling, flip flopping, and generally trying to weasel his way out of his original position now that the SCOTUS decision has come down and he's caught on the losing side and in an embarrassing position. Too late, Wack-o Barack-o, we remember what you said, not going to believe your lies now.

Apparently not, or you would have known that this case was settled law from decades ago: The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right.

By your logic, the current ruling is the wrong one since the previous ruling necessarily indicates that the question was no longer "up for grabs." You seem to be indicating that the SCOTUS can never make a mistake. So Brown v. Board of Education should never have made it to the Supreme Court because Plessy v. Ferguson locked it down and the issue was no longer "up for grabs." Surely something has gone astray here since the previous rulings (and there have been many) that claim the Second Amendment is a collective right contradict the current one that claims it is an individual right.

Surely you're not saying that we as a society shouldn't discuss this discrepancy, are you?

Why do I get the feeling that your definition of "anti-2nd Amendment Positions" is simply that it isn't yours?

You are seriously misinformed. There has never been a SCOTUS decision tagging the 2nd AM. as a collective right. There have been many attempts to CLAIM that there are, but all are out of context and incorrect.

And it is not possible for the 2nd AM to be a "COLLECTIVE" right. Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights????

Thank you, Joe.

To imply that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals suggests that NO right in our nation applies to individuals. Therefore, you can only practice your religion when in the context of an organized church? You cannot be protected from quartering troops against your will when it's not widespread? An individual can be subjected to illegal search and seizure as long as it's not everybody?

The constitution is designed to protect individual rights by its very conception. Assimilation is what the framers were fighting, not bolstering.

Yep, everything else in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, just not the second. Uh huh. I guess since a lone person can't really assemble, that's a collective right, and you have to join an assembly organization before you can assemble. Sure thing.

I see you have the same problem the NRA has: You think the Second Amendment begins with an ellipsis. Instead, it begins with words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" has to do with your right to own a gun for your individual protection?

I know very well why we have a Bill of Rights. It was to ensure that certain actions of the government were explicitly excluded. And just to make sure, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that the Constitution is not a laundry list. You have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution and yet are still protected by it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Has it occurred to anyone that your right to own a gun for personal protection might be a Ninth Amendment right, not a Second Amendment right? Of course not. Everybody's knee-jerking. You saw someone saying that the Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it says and you immediately assumed that I was some anti-gun freak, right?

The Second Amendment is clear: You have a right to own a gun because the State might need you to help defend it.

What does that have to do with your right to own a gun for personal protection?

Huh? Why does one specific amendment to the Constitution, which clearly indicates that it is talking about a "well regulated Militia" rather than an individual, mean that none of the other rights are talking about individuals?

The First Amendment doesn't talk about organized religion. The Third Amendment doesn't talk about scope. The Fourth Amendment is restricting the actions of the government.

The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated Militia." When was the last time an individual was considered a "well regulated Militia"? Yeah...we got a National Guard. It's Bob. Is there a reason why you want to ignore the first half of the Second Amendment.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Constitution is not a laundry list. You have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution and yet are still protected by it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Has it occurred to anyone that your right to own a gun for personal protection might be a Ninth Amendment right, not a Second Amendment right? Of course not. Everybody's knee-jerking. You saw someone saying that the Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it says and you immediately assumed that I was some anti-gun freak, right?

The Second Amendment is clear: You have a right to own a gun because the State might need you to help defend it.

What does that have to do with your right to own a gun for personal protection?

Huh? Why does one specific amendment to the Constitution, which clearly indicates that it is talking about a "well regulated Militia" rather than an individual, mean that none of the other rights are talking about individuals?

The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated Militia." When was the last time an individual was considered a "well regulated Militia"? Yeah...we got a National Guard. It's Bob. Is there a reason why you want to ignore the first half of the Second Amendment.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Constitution is not a laundry list. You have rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution and yet are still protected by it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Has it occurred to anyone that your right to own a gun for personal protection might be a Ninth Amendment right, not a Second Amendment right? Of course not. Everybody's knee-jerking. You saw someone saying that the Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it says and you immediately assumed that I was some anti-gun freak, right?

The Second Amendment is clear: You have a right to own a gun because the State might need you to help defend it.

What does that have to do with your right to own a gun for personal protection?