Reply #1: Mr. Horwitz needs to do some fresh research.

[TheWraith]

"Simultaneously, I highlighted the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which appeared to endorse the National Rifle Association's view that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of "preventing government tyranny.""

No. The Heller decision stated that the second amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. Period. It has nothing to do with "tyranny" or anything else. That's not the NRA's view, it's the legal fact, which has been pretty well established over the course of the last ~200 years, and in the writings of the founding fathers. A simple reading of the second amendment will make it's meaning quite plain: that people are entitled to own firearms for the defense of themselves and of the country. It's also clear that it's never been intended as an "overthrow the government" button: see Shays' Rebellion.

Lastly, the assumption that a few hundred teabaggers in a park 11 miles from the Capitol are going to present an imminent threat of civil war is laughable. If the right wingers start something, it's not going to be because we decided not to violate the constitutional right of assembly.