Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .
If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .
Ah, the classic tribesy hang-up on a single word. "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
Also, your post doesn't support some other interpretation- it supports the interpretation that the second amendment is an individual right, which agrees with what I said.

Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.
Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right. Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think. That is, I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with .
You're ignoring the substance, and messing up the frivolities. Re-read the ruling you posted and what I posted and try and think a bit about how they screwed the ruling up. Also, did I argue there was no dispute amoung scholars of the 1930s?

CR