to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.
Absolutely. I think his misinterpretation (I won't get into whether or not I think its intentional) can be summed up in just a couple quotes from the article:
(and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.
First, here (emphasis mine). He has the 2nd amendment backwards. He is claiming a militia is a required piece of the Amendment. It isn't. A well-regulated militia is the goal of the amendment, and it accomplishes that by making sure the People, who would compose the militia should it be needed, have the weapons and experience using them.
But that (my) definition isn't even on his radar:
Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.
Granted he is talking specifically about Sandyhook styled shootings, but to say "unquestionably"? I question it. I think Sandyhook is an acceptable risk when it comes to gun ownership. Additionally, removing guns in this day & age is just wiping somebody's nose and claiming you cured their flu. McVeigh & Nichols filled a truck with gasoline and fertilizer. 9/11 used box-cutters & a plane. Technology improvements don't only make cell phones cheaper & more useful than the pony express, it also means explosives and other weapons (3-d printers anybody?) are cheaper & more useful than bows & arrows. So if you want to actually stop mass killings, then go after mass killings. Fund mental health research & treatment, balance wealth inequality, accept that public assistance is required in a world where technology is raising the education bar higher than most people can reach and that when public assistance is as laughable as it is today... the have-nots are going to be restless.
Incidentally, I think the 1939 Miller decision is wrong. Whether or not guns have some other lawful use is entirely irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment. Tanks, APCs, and F-16s even are relevant to a militia in today's technological world. Especially if you consider some of the original arguments behind the 2nd amendment: tyrannical governments abusing the people with the military, so you "outlaw" a standing army and rely on The People forming a militia for self-defense until a regular army can be formed. Requiring "some other lawful purpose" is putting an additional restriction, or infringement, on the right to own guns and preventing a militia from behind formed. And since it is easy enough to simply declare there is no other lawful purpose for any gun (Police fill the defense role, beef industry fills the hunting role, so, done), such logic invalidates the entire amendment. (Specifically to sawed-off shotguns, there is a place for them with today's style of house-to-house close-quarters fighting where unskilled shooters need to hit whatever baddy is directly in front of them without penetrating walls or the people behind them; there is even more of a reason as better guns are outlawed/restricted/demonized, thus severely limiting people's chances of learning to hit the broad side of a barn).
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.
Whereas I say no, they remind you that you're begging the question by simply assuming the debate has already moved on to "how to get guns out of the hands of mass-killers". Like I said above, people owning guns is not the problem. Revolutions don't happen just because people have guns. Mass killings don't happen just because people have guns. You don't have the flu just because your nose is runny (I like that analogy, so I'm using it again). Private gun ownership IS so important that it is protected by the Constitution, else it wouldn't have been mentioned, but, again, that is not the only argument for private gun ownership.
But lets talk about the "intelligent debate". I'll start by bringing up Fort Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Christopher Dorner, Charles Whitman, and Franklin Regional High School (already touched on McVeigh) before I even ask: How does restricting gun ownership to a "well regulated milita" stop mass killings?
Of course the answer is: It doesn't. I'm sure Stevens would agree there, so I'll go into the followup question: What science based evidence do you have the says gun restrictions not only have a significant impact, but more of an impact than pursuing other avenues of violence reduction, such as mental health research & treatment, population density reduction, education, and/or resource equality; while at the same time assuring government abuse of its citizens can't or won't happen?