A 2nd amendment comment. I did not see it anywhere else.
We all know that the 2nd amendment reads in part "... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What many do not do is look at this and fully understand what it means. Heller affirmed that "the right of the people" means that it is an individual right and not one held by the states. This is the first time ever that this phrase was ruled to mean this (for some reason people held it was a state right for a long time, in part due to the "incorporation doctrine" invention SCOTUS did).
"keep and bear arms" is a phrase that goes back to the 1500s and changed only slightly since. Keep means to own and possess, to have. "Bear arms" means to use in defense. In the 1500s it meant defense of the realm but by the 1700s it also included personal self defense (and there are legal reviews in the early 1800s, comments by the founders in the late 1700s that back this up). Under this logic there is no 2nd amendment right to have a gun to rob a 7-11 but there is one to protect that store and its contents from being robbed. This lack of understanding almost always causes the controversy. Those who think a literal interpretation of the constitution means that anyone can have a gun and do anything they want with it generally want more laws to prevent that while others who do not see the need to use a gun just because you have a gun generally want fewer laws.
"shall not be infringed" while Heller did use a bit of the "living document" interpretation and ignore this phrase entirely when Scalia listed a long list of infringements that are allowed, this phrase has a clear meaning. No infringements to the right of self defense and state/national defense with a gun is allowed. Not registration, not permits, not banned weapon lists, not banned people lists, no infringements are allowed.
Fundamentally the 2nd amendment exists to guarantee that you are able to protect yourself. It is a right of self defense.
For people that think felons should be excluded from owning weapons are you not saying they are too dangerous to have a gun? If they are so dangerous why are they not monitored until they no longer are a danger? No one argues that while incarcerated you lose certain rights. You lose the right to keep and bear arms, it is impossible to have a prison when the prisoners are armed. You lose the right to associate with people you choose, to assemble, (ignoring that the first amendment reads "Congress shall ..." and thus does not apply to the states). You lose the 4th amendment protections and your cell and person may be searched. There are various other rights that you lose because you cannot operate a prison that way. There is nothing that states you lose them for life though, and in fact only the second amendment is a right lost for life, all others are restored once your term of incarceration is complete (there is no right to vote in the constitution just lists of reasons that may not be used to disqualify you).
Probation, parole, supervised release, halfway house, house arrest, and more are modified forms of incarceration. While incarcerated, even if it is modified, rights can be curtailed. Thus supervision not only makes a felon gun ban constitutional it protects society more than a mere gun ban because people are being monitored, they are being supervised, there are people in charge of ensuring they reintegrate into society.