“Those who trade freedom for security will find themselves with neither.” – Thomas Jefferson
Our rights and freedom remain under attack by the government. Free speech, privacy, excessive taxation and now it is time for guns…
So here comes Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar who has been trying to convince the Senate committee responsible for his confirmation as head of The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that he will support the 2nd Amendment.
Think about this title, head of The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – read his book, Nudge. Learn about his total philosphy. This is a scary man. He will have the ability to affect all types of government regulations across a broad spectrum of the government regulatory agencies.
In a letter to explain his position, Mr. Sunstein wrote: “Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes.”
However, a videotape of a speech made on Oct. 23, 2007, Sunstein said something quite different. He said: “My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears.” Later in the same lecture, Sunstein said, “My tentative suggestion is that the individual right to have guns as it’s being conceptualized now is best taken as a contemporary creation and a reflection of current fears – not a reading of civic-centered founding debates.”
“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. ”
– Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”
Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference in which he states, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
So which position does he really believe? There is a very disturbing trend here. It seems that many of Obama’s appointees have two positions; the one they say they support to get appointed and the one they clearly favored in the weeks, months or years before their appointments.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore
14. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Another Czar, another crazy progressive. Should we call a time out and vet all the Czars? It appears many of these people are well out of the mainstream with their ideologies. The people helping the President create policy should be in touch with citizens they serve. I’d to see a comprehensive list from the White House of the positions that have been created, the purpose/need for the role, who is filling it and why they are qualified. Remember transparency? Also does the President agree with their views on policy? Bottom line is this is blurring the lines of separation of powers as designed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. It is time for transparency! Or time to get rid of all these special appointments unless there is a public vetting and some Congressional oversight.