(In)Justice John Paul Stevens proves why anyone who can read the law as written and memorize it can be a lawyer or a judge:
The second amendment reads:
I think it's pretty obvious that there might be just a teeny weeny little restriction there in that bold and italicized part...
H/T to Rachel Lucas for bringing this mind-numbing level of sophistry from Stevens to my attention.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."
The second amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think it's pretty obvious that there might be just a teeny weeny little restriction there in that bold and italicized part...
H/T to Rachel Lucas for bringing this mind-numbing level of sophistry from Stevens to my attention.
Related Entries:
- Don't be so quick to celebrate the Heller decision
- A lot more rests on D.C. vs Heller than the Supreme Court's legitimacy
- Legislating lawlessness
- No self-defense for you!
- Going John Galt
- Goodbye 4th amendment, we hardly knew you
- Gun rights vs Freedom: an absurd dichotomy brough to you by Reason
- Daily dose of links
- Felons and the second amendment
- A window into the liberal mind
It's amazing that one can be such an idiot and yet make it onto the highest court in the land.
If the mother wanted to be equally low, she could have told people coming in how much her daughter had enjoyed the free samples >:)
I'm sorry, I only have access to the english version, the one that says the government can't mess with the right to keep and bear arms. Which one was the judge reading?