...who understand, despite their political inclinations, that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the individual's right to own firearms, as noted in the linked NYT article.
Read the article in this link regarding the discredited "prefatory language" line of attack that some "progressives" love to use in an attempt to claim that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it clearly says.
"Think that any of this prefatory language limits free speech rights and the conduct of criminal trials? You shouldn't; as Professor Volokh shows, the existence of prefatory language in the granting of a constitutional right is entirely normal and when it comes to prefatory language creating two clauses in the granting of a particular constitutional right, these examples show 'how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.'
So if we are not going to limit free speech rights or the conduct of criminal trials because of the existence of prefatory language in the constitutional provisions concerning those issues, why should we do so when it comes to the Second Amendment?"
Now if we could only get more academic and intellectual honesty from them on issues like "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming", we would REALLY be making some common sense progress, wouldn't we?