[DustyMoment]

Did you read the decision?

What part of "here is what was in the article that was linked to the story" did you miss? I read the article linked to the story. That's what we do here - we read articles linked to FR and post our comments. So I read the article and posted my comment.

[Clinging Bitterly]

"First, it is astonishing that the Ninth Circus . . . . . er, Cicuit made this ruling. Second, while I disagree with the foundation of the ruling justice's opinion (that the right to bear arms was a bulwark against external invasion), they still made the right decision. In point of fact, the Second Amendment was written to balance the power of the people against the power of a strong central government. It still remains (IMO) possible that we may exercise our Second Amendment rights in exactly the manner that the Founding Fathers envisioned."

That is what you said. It doesn't actually reference the "article" from SAF but paraphrases a portion of the actual decision, from which it appears you made the assumption that defense against government tyranny was not addressed therein, when in fact it was.

One would think you'd be pleased to learn it was an aspect of the decision, but rather you argue about the content of an article you did not even mention in your original post.

If you have a problem with what SAF published in reference to this issue you should take it up with them.