Having spoken of the scary part of 4 Justices

voting to trash another part of the Constitution, this is the money quote:
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," from John Paul Stevens.

Think about that. A big part of the whole document is "The Federal Government may do these things: it may NOT do these things." Yet, somehow, the fact that most of the Bill of Rights is a list of "These are things you will not screw with. Period." seems to just slide by. Or not exist to him.

Mr. Stevens, that is EXACTLY what the Framers did: put a limit on what elected officials can do. I should say 'limits', because the documents are full of them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On the other hand, Scalia, should I ever meet him, will drink for free:
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
and
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”(bold mine)

This, and other federal judges, is why, at this point, I will have to plug my ears, put a clothespin on my nose, take a stiff drink and vote for McCain: a better chance to keep statist clowns like Stevens from being chosen to fill the next vacancies. Yeah, I know, but a much better chance with him than with Obama.

I've noticed one thing: most new reports tend to repeat the 'own handguns for hunting and self-defense'. It's like they either do not understand or have a positive allergy to the 'right to keep and bear arms' part.