The Constitution is a product spec for limited government.

The dissenting Justices in the Heller case are equivalent to developers who completely disregard the spec, or treat it as mere suggestion, and code whatever they personally think the product should be instead.

The Stevens dissent is a ludicrous read, ultimately saying that the Second Amendment is unimportant enough that it can be legislated away bit by bit. In Stevens’ view, you have the right to defend yourself with a handgun that magically appears in your own home, but not the right to purchase, own, or transport that handgun, and this is an allowable restriction of a right specifically mentioned as the SECOND amendment to the Bill of Rights.

This same Justice has found a right to privacy mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, a right of habeas corpus for illegal enemy combatants, and a right for government to confiscate property for the benefit of political contributors, but he can’t read a simple sentence and decipher its meaning.

He says 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.” Hmm, if they weren’t making that choice, then what’s the point of even having the 2nd Amendment at all? Nobody is this stupid, except someone who has already decided what they think, and is then attempting to justify it.

Also FWIW, I agree with Eric Raymond, the 5-4 decision is a disaster for Obama.