Posted on 09/15/2009 7:52:36 PM PDT by majstoll
Recently confirmed by the Senate, academic Cass Sunstein from Harvard law School is now the Obama Administration's "regulatory czar." Gun Owners of America has warned: Expect problems! . . .
[But] in 2007 Professor Sunstein gave a fascinating lecture in which . . . [n]ot only does Sunstein note at time hack 37:20 that gun control advocates' claims that gun control contributes fantastically to public safety "appears not to be sufficiently supported in social science," but more importantly, at the end of his lecture, he states at time hack 57:47:
"And here's a point for the Second Amendment advocates, a concession for them, something on which I think they are correct. If the Second Amendment does create an individual right, rather than a collective right or a civic right, then incorporation does follow."
(Excerpt) Read more at opencarry.org ...
That's good, right?
I keep hearing about how smart this dork Sunstein is. He sounds like a real dumbass to me. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights applies to the U.S. Government and We the People. The Bill of Rights is We the People telling the U.S. Government all the things that it cannot do. Sunstein is an ass.
Holy Crap!!!
Whadda yawanna bet that if asked the same question today, he’d give an entirely different answer?
Obama didn’t hire another loony liberal black activist neo-Marxist?
He hired someone with a brain?
What’s this world coming to? First I agree with him that Kanye West is a jackass, and then this.
Oh, and by the way, Cass, the second amendment doesn’t “create” anything.
Is this the same fellow who wants to ban hunting and give animals rights?
~~~~~~
Typical liberal crap-think...
The Bill of Rights does not "create" ANY rights. It (including the Second Amendment) protects pre-existing rights.
Animals are people too!
Yes. Provided he has the integrity to say the same now, in light of the Heller decision. And provided others of his ideological bent are likely to reach the same conclusion.
Paging Dr. Lott. Dr. Lott, please respond to the nearest Defeat the Idiot Telephone.
Always be suspicious. Remember that for years the effort was paradoxically that the 2nd Amendment was *not* an individual right, but *because* of this, there should be *less* gun control.
Pretty bizarre, huh? But the fear was that if there was a ruling that the 2nd Amendment was decided by the SCOTUS to be an individual right, it would actually *favor* gun control.
In all the celebrations over Heller, there hasn’t been much reflection to this older interpretation, but there should be, in case the gun controllers try to resurrect it. The Byzantine legal reasoning behind that old idea needs to be reexamined, to make sure that Heller hasn’t inadvertently opened the door to mischief.
Remember that the SCOTUS left a huge loophole in Heller about licensing and local controls. So we had better stay on our toes in case the left tries a “Hail Mary” maneuver like Roe v. Wade.
My tagline.
And the Libtards wonder why gun sales have hit an all time high.
Been reading Sunsteins articles.
Here’s one “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11065802/The-Rights-of-Animals-A-Very-Short-Primer
“We do not, after all, allow scientists to experiment on human beings, even human beings with serious disabilities, when and because medical advances would be significant.” - page 8
“even human beings with serious disabilities”
It seems like Sunstein thinks that it’s worse to experiment on humans without disabilities than it is to experiment on humans with disabilities.
Put differently, Mengele would’ve been more acceptible if his subjects had serious disabilities.
This is very similar to Holdren’s - babies don’t become human until after “essential early socializing experiences”.
I think we here on FR all pretty much agree that people are people and animals are animals. All people have human rights. It seems like a bunch of Obama’s people aren’t clear on this.
Also from “Rights” - page 11
“Hence some people urge that certain animals, at least, are “persons,” not property, and that they should have many of the legal rights that human beings have. Of course this does not mean that those animals can vote or run for office. Their status would be akin to that of children - a status commensurate with their capacities.” - Page 11
A good SNL sketch - fake game show, “Which is the person?”
The contestants would be Sustein, Holdren and Peter Singer from Princeton.
Show a slide of a dog. Sustein buzzes in. “Well, I’ve written that “certain animals, at least, are “persons” ... their status would be akin to that of children” so I’ll say yes, the dog is a person.” Audience boos. Big buzzer. Host - “I’m sorry, that is a dog. A dog is not a person. Have you been released recently from a mental institution?”
Sustein - “No”
Now, let’s meet our guests. What do you do?
I work for the Obama administration.
Phone rings.
I have some bad news for you Cass.
I believe he is also the guy who stated that if after our death our organs could be used by someone that they should be able to take them, why do they need our permission?
This is really spine chilling since they want to have control of healthcare.
Reminds me of the news article where young Asian boys were rounded up and a kidney removed—big business. Of course, they didn’t give permission to do this............
Agree,agree and agree....
"common sense reasonable restrictions" has a nice ring to it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.