There may be particulars of Heller that can be disagreed about. But the central question of whether it protects an individual right should be uncontroversial. That part should have been a 9-0 decision.
It was not, and the notion that the result is so obvious that a reader should privilege opinions in a random comment on a message board over those of Supreme Court Justices is risible.
You can articulate why you think Heller was properly decided and you can of course disagree with any or all of the justices on the court. The specific thing I am calling you on is the idea that the result is so straightforward that anyone who can read the text of 2A would reach your conclusion. That's an unsupportable argument.
