Stunning: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Doesn't Understand Difference between Machine Guns and Semi-automatic guns
Justice Stevens: "the 2nd Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the sort of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years."The reference that Stevens is making at the beginning of the clip is to Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller stating:
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. . . . We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. . . .Obviously, this argument can't be made to semi-automatic weapons such as those used in the very attacks that Justice Stevens discusses for the very reason that semi-automatic weapons are indeed typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
How could Stevens write an opinion in the Heller case without him having a clue about the types of weapons that he was writing about?