[David]

"In dissent, 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." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated."

The express purpose of the Bill of Rights and specifically the definition of such rights expressed in the Second Amendment is to "limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to" limit the rights of citizens to engage in the conduct or acts described.

That's what the Second Amendment is in the book to do. The language in the dissent is just silly.

[Billthedrill]

LOL! 90 seconds. GMTA.

[Redbob]

"The language in the dissent is just silly."

You've GOT to read the whole decision:
Scalia as much as said Stevens' dissent was "silly" in more than one place!

I'm thinking there's no love lost between those two!