No, I wasn’t thinking of The Donald. I was thinking of this guy:
Pretty much shows you where the battle lines are drawn today. Thank you, Antonin Scalia, for perverting the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and giving the gun nuts something to hide behind. Hide behind the 2nd Amendment they might, but sensible people will continue to fight them. A friend (I’ll call her B) signed a Stop the NRA petition today and posted the link to Facebook (the link’s embedded here so you can sign too, if you want — just click on the image): 
A gun nut (I’ll call him D) jumped in with the obligatory defense of the NRA. B stood up to him in fine fashion, but he wasn’t through. D’s response to B’s response is what really got my attention:
I’ve heard this argument before, the suggestion that you’re committing treason if you don’t carry a gun. You know, so you can stop bad guys, as the Constitution requires. I couldn’t resist pimping our gun-humping, NRA-loving friend: 
Now that’s one I haven’t heard before! Not only are you not in compliance with the 2nd Amendment (and thus the Constitution) if you don’t carry a gun, the NRA is now the same as the 2nd Amendment (and thus the Constitution)!
Funny, when I see Wayne LaPierre spewing race war rhetoric with his robotically oversized rectangular mouth, sending mobs of uneducated whites running to the gun stores with ooga-booga tales of rampaging inner city blacks, it’s not the Constitution I see, it’s the KKK.
By the way, I thought long and hard before calling D “that guy.” Should have stuck with my first choice, “cunt.”
As much as I liked this, and I did sign the petition and I’ve been a gun owner for more than 30 years,I have to say that this is pretty much what President Obama was talking about in his fine speech. It’s just more of the same; more of the same hand-wringing and more of the same stupid defense of gun ownership in response. This is just an argument that reason is going to constantly loose against irrationality. The NRA is expert at feeding into the paranoid conspiracy theory of government. The Demonazis are going to take away your guns so you can’t defend yourself. The insanity is laughable, how many gun owners who carry could actually defend themselves or anyone else if push came to shove. Faced with a someone who actually was trained they the only thing they’d do is piss their pants and sorry, but just being in some branch of the military for a few years doesn’t constitute real “gonna win the firefight” training.
If bad guys don’t have weapons there is no need for good guys to defend themselves with guns either.
Paul,
May I suggest you reread Scalia’s opinion? It does a number of things that are noteworthy. First, it specifically states that the second Amendmenr is not a right to to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for whatever purpose. Second, it separates the militia clause from the right to own a weapon. More on this in a moment. Third, it reaffirms the right of the government to regulate weapons. This has long term implications.
As to the second point, by separating the militia clause, it severely limits the type of weapons an individual can use. A militia is defined as “light infantry’.” A light infantryman goes into combat with the weapons he can carry, which today is absolutely awesome. It use to constitute a rifle, pistol, sword, pike, dagger/bayonet, ax. Thus, the door is open for prohibiting weapons like an assault rifle, large capacity semi automatics, etc.
As to the third point, time will determine how this plays out, but limiting weapons is constitutional. It is a matter of being smart about it.
Dick, I’ve read elsewhere that Scalia’s majority opinion was more nuanced that the gun nuts would have it, and I’m sure you’re correct on all points. But that isn’t how it went down on the right or even in the “liberal” mainstream media, where it is universally regarded as a reinterpretation of the “militia” clause, a reinterpretation that means anyone and everyone gets a gun. And full bore on semiautomatics, assault weapons, and bazookas. I’d like to see Scalia or anyone else try to walk back the misinterpretations. There’d be a burning at the stake.
You should monitor gun control conversations on Facebook or Twitter. You can’t even suggest something as simple and harmless as background checks without being vilified or even threatened. The gun nuts are off the charts. Joe the Plumber looks like Ghandi compared to most of them. And they ALL cite Heller, or whatever the name of that case was.
Paul, I have sampled a few of the gun control rants on social media. In a word, wow! They are not rational and exhibit the very human trait to double down on a losing cause or belief. As for Scalia walking it back, he doesn’t have to. That is the job of the courts when a relevant case comes before them. There will be no quick fix to our gun problem, but slowly a framework for meaningful change is being created. But I doubt that the NRA will ever concede that a six or seven year-old’s right to life trumps the Second Amendment.