Yep, All you need is the Cato foundation and its resources behind you (esp Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp) and you can change the Constitution to meet your needs.
As an example of just how wrong Cass Sunstein has it, let's look at his remark from the video:
"It is striking and noteworthy that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns -- not once."
From David B. Kopel (1999):
THE SUPREME COURT'S THIRTY-FIVE OTHER GUN CASES: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Twenty-eight opinions remain, including nineteen majority opinions. Each of these opinions treats the Second Amendment a right of individual American citizens.
While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the Second Amendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court's "liberals" Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as were the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenth century: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a right that belongs to individual American citizens.
Someone should tell Comrade Sunstein that the only reason it has taken so long for the Supreme Court to suggest that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is because for the past two centuries, it's been implicitly understood that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms.
Only recently has that right been questioned. And it's only due to the success of the anti-gun movement that this question has been brought up.
He [Comrade Sunstein] also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering.
Well of course he wants to gut the Second Amendment--he's openly hostile to the First.
Thanks for bringing him up, Mikeb--I need to make some new targets for my next range session with the boys.
Yep, All you need is the Cato foundation and its resources behind you (esp Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp) and you can change the Constitution to meet your needs.
ReplyDeleteThe States is a plutocracy.
This is the same guy that thinks your kid's hamster should be able to sue you.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "Cass Sunstein has it exactly right."
ReplyDeleteAs an example of just how wrong Cass Sunstein has it, let's look at his remark from the video:
"It is striking and noteworthy that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns -- not once."
From David B. Kopel (1999):
THE SUPREME COURT'S THIRTY-FIVE
OTHER GUN CASES: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
From the conclusion:
Twenty-eight opinions remain, including nineteen majority opinions. Each of these opinions treats the Second Amendment a right of individual American citizens.
While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the Second Amendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court's "liberals" Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as were the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenth century: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a right that belongs to individual American citizens.
(extensive details at the link)
Yup, Sunstein is nuts.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should tell Comrade Sunstein that the only reason it has taken so long for the Supreme Court to suggest that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is because for the past two centuries, it's been implicitly understood that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms.
ReplyDeleteOnly recently has that right been questioned. And it's only due to the success of the anti-gun movement that this question has been brought up.
Ah--Cass Sunstein--the guy who wants to "infiltrate" groups who say things the government doesn't want said. That's a lover of liberty for you.
ReplyDeleteHe also at one time speculated that it might be desirable for the government to mandate a kind of "fairness doctrine" for the internet:
He [Comrade Sunstein] also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering.
Well of course he wants to gut the Second Amendment--he's openly hostile to the First.
Thanks for bringing him up, Mikeb--I need to make some new targets for my next range session with the boys.