So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.
Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?
Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.
Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.