9/08/2009

Cass Sunstein on whether people have a right to keep and bear arms

posted by John Lott at 3:56 PM

8 Comments:

Blogger juandos said...

I'm glad that Justice Burger is dead and can no longer pollute the Supreme Court with his inane views on the 2nd amendment...

9/08/2009 6:30 PM  
Blogger Karl said...

He keeps mentioning the a militia would have a hard time against a standing army. The Iraqis did very well against our army.

9/08/2009 10:28 PM  
Blogger Braxton Hicks said...

Swords and Plowshares!
You know what I'm talkin' 'bout,
Swords and Plowshares!

9/09/2009 8:48 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Substein refers to statements that Burger made in the 90's and later describes them as "from the bench." He seems to be unaware of (or just wants us to forget that) Burger retired from the Court in '86. Little wonder then that his comments failed to raise much discussion in legal circles, given that that they were made in such a noted law journal as Parade magazine by someone who had been retired from law for the better part of a decade. He did get it correct, however, that the 2nd amendment didn't create any right to guns. That's not what the Constitution or its amendments do; they only recognize and protect rights. Things created by constitutions and laws are more properly referred to as "privileges".

9/09/2009 11:13 AM  
Blogger TooMuchTime said...

Well, this was before the Heller decision.

However, I did hear some lib-com-poop say that the Heller decision does not apply to all 50 states. It only applies to D.C.

Excuse me! Mr. Heller is a citizen of the United States. I am a citizen of the United States. If Mr. Heller has a constitutional right, then I have the exact same right!

Rights are not granted on a per person basis.

I would like to see Mr. Sunstein and his brown shirt storm troopers try to take away someone's firearms. You can bet they will be used for personal protection.

9/09/2009 3:46 PM  
Blogger Chas said...

"Second Amendment revisionism" does not stem from a recent Supreme Court decision, but from new laws in the 20th century that no longer respected the Second Amendment. Whereas the individual right to keep and bear arms had previously been taken for granted, in the 20th century it was subjected to increasing infringements and even outright abrogation.
The right to keep and bear arms means that gun possession is a right not a crime.
"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "can be infringed" as long as there is a difference between prohibition and permission.
Recent USC support for the Second Amendment is inconsistent with the court's "tradition" of gross ignorance of it. Good. The USC has finally stood up and done the right thing, instead of shirking its responsibility as it did for decades. Are we supposed to believe that continued gross ignorance would be better, since it would be more "traditional"? That is ridiculous.
Support for the individual right lacks moral appeal? I would ask Sunstein how the individual RKBA ties in with the hideous, grotesque and gruesome immorality of mass slaughters of individuals by the millions, directly perpetrated by governments, such as the Holocaust. One cannot look at that and claim that there is no moral appeal. Ending segregation so that blacks could eat at lunch counters had moral appeal, but preventing holocausts so that millions of people can avoid being butchered by their governments does not? That is so ludicrously imbalanced that it does not constitute a defensible position. In fact, it is race or gender discrimination that is of lesser standing and lacking in moral appeal when compared to the importance of preventing the horrific finality of genocide.
Lots of analysis from Sunstein, with his perfectionists and his minimalists, but not a word about the pervasive Marxist/leftist influence that has driven and continues to drive the gun ban agenda against private gun owners. He speaks of "the driver of the Second Amendment truck", but he ignores the question of the driver the truck that is trying to run it over and kill it! Sunstein ignored the Red elephant in the room, though he might as well have been sitting on it. Although, maybe it wasn't in the room, but instead was waiting outside, behind the wheel of the truck.

9/09/2009 4:08 PM  
Blogger JohnK said...

Is this a law college lecture? Did someone pay the college to have this guy present his opinions to their student instead of teaching the law? This is precisely what is wrong in our colleges and universities.

John K.

9/10/2009 12:59 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

should I just lay down and LET some criminal take what is not theirs, or shall I WAIT for law inforcement to come and collect what is left of my family! I feel safe in beleiving you have NEVER BEEN a victim Mr. Sunstien!! An armed populus are considered citizens! An unarmed populus is (in my book)are considered SUBJECTS!!! AND THAT IS WHY WE LEFT ENGLAND IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

9/21/2009 12:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home