Good question L-A.

An outright ban on all indivudally owned arms is far different than a simple limitation on the types of arms necessary to reasonably defend oneself -- don't you think??

i am completely uneducated in this type of thing, and i thought the same as otter.

the limitation of types is the personal bigger issue to me.

if KC wants to hunt some yummy poultry to prepare and serve to me, i'm all for it. but i don't think i want folks living near me owning assault weapons.

how does one address a proposal to limit what types are acceptable without people screaming 'second amendment'?

Sweetjane, definition of an assault weapon is not straight forth:
"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition.
Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle,the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots, even though incorrectly classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles."

Otter, Jane raises the precise point intended by my question. Who decides what types of arms are "necessary to reasonably defend oneself?" The rationale used by the Court in yesterday's ruling was that handguns are presently Americans' preferred weapon. What kind of rationale is that? Certainly at the time the second amendment was drafted such was not the case; rather the majority preference would have been shotguns or rifles. There is no present ban on Uzis or AK-47's. Should there be? What about rocket launchers? Seems to me dead from an AK-47 is the same as dead from a handgun. If it's ok to ban certain categories of guns, which ones?

I simply found the Court's rationale to be weak and they left open many more questions than they resolved. For instance, if the second amendment proscribes only the federal government from restricting the right to bear arms, are states still free to impose legislation? (D.C. is not a state but rather a "federal city" thus I foresee argument that this ruling is not applicable to state legislatures.) And if the federal government cannot abridge the right to bear arms, can they legislate in any way on the issue? If state legislatures are not bound by this ruling, how far can they go? Are registration requirements constitutional? What about waiting periods? Laws banning armor-piercing bullets? Can a state deny a gun permit to someone with a history of domestic violence? For me the issue is when, if ever, does public safety override individual rights? (Should we all be able to carry our handguns onto planes?) Until yesterday these issues were pretty much resolved. Now, many of those lauding the decision might want to go back and read it. By my reading Scalia left open the possibility for a far greater amount of government intrusion in this area than we've seen previously. But that's just my take.

Scalia specifically left these areas open for debate -- which is what he should have done. I won't say these are easy issues. However, the court did definitively say, once and for all, laws that overtly or otherwise create a de facto ban on individual gun ownership in sweeping and arbitrary fashion are in violation of the constitution. As for all the nuances you cite -- let the debate begin. It's a good one to have.

Ans SJ -- there will always be "people screaming second amendment" no matter how reasonable the attempt to balance rights with responsibility (e.g.: waiting periods, background checks, etc.)

What do you deem "arbitrary" about a local governmental agency deciding, based upon the unprecidented number of handgun deaths in their city, that handguns should not be possessed in that city? How is that different from an outright ban on any other type of gun? I am NOT saying I think the ban was proper, I'm just looking for a rationale that is applicable across the board.
No one is more in favor of reasoned debate than I; the qualifier being reasoned.

There is nothing arbitrary about the problem you state. The reason for deciding to violate the constitution is irrelevant (and in this case very misguided). I am calling their prescribed remedy arbitrary and unconstitional.

Declaring all personal firearms illegal is a very clear arbitrary standard. The court did well to identify a handgun as a type of gun accepted by today's standards to be the type one would most expect to see used for self-defense. (You did say the court should be concerned with changing times, right?) Can you help me with what I may be missing (serious question LA)?

What is strange about the American Constitution is that once implemented a clause apparently cannot be repealed or varied. How can Amendment #2 be altered?

The constitution can not be altered. But, the ammendments can be repealed. Prohibition is the prime example.

From USConstitution.net

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention.