Today's JPFO Alert catches retired anti-gun Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens making some rather surprising admissions about the meaning of the Second Amendment.
If this "fix" is to change anything, must that not mean that the Second Amendment as actually written is unencumbered by any such limit on its application? To borrow an old analogy used by the forcible citizen disarmament zealots (as irreparably flawed as that analogy is), no one seems to have suggested that the First Amendment should be edited to say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except with regard to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater . . . " (unless that's one of Stevens' other five proposed amendments).