www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30255/
Beck: "Cass Sunstein is a guy who is against the Second Amendment who believes that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not an individual right but a federal right. He says almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine and if the Court is right, the fundamentalism does not justify the view. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. He believes that the Second Amendment is the biggest ?? I'm looking for the ?? I'm looking for the exact quote ?? is the biggest lie in American history."
Let's split that quote up, and address each point.
"Cass Sunstein is a guy who is against the Second Amendment who believes that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not an individual right but a federal right."
Sunstein stated, in a letter Saxby Chambliss requested:
"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."
The whole fuss over his interpretation of the Second Amendment stems from a lecture he gave in 2007, in which he 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."
In the rest of the lecture, which can be seen here, he discusses the original meaning of the Second Amendment. In it, he reads James Madison's first draft of the Second Amendment, which states:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
After several revisions, the Second Amendment as we know it took shape. But, if the intention behind the original version was intended to apply to the individuals' right to bear arms within a militia, not on their own. He never said he was against an individual's right to bear army, only that it's a contemporary creation based on modern interpretations and fears. Fear often drives us to defend ourselves. If he feared nothing, we wouldn't have anything to defend ourselves against.
Therefore, he's correct in what he said in his lecture. The individual's nonmilitary right to bear arms is a contemporary creation, and is based on fear. He never said the right to bear arms isn't an individual's right. He's just trying to present the original version of the Second Amendment and show its progression to modern day. Today, individual's don't have the right to bare arms, they have the ability to. If they had the right, there would be no questions asked when they went to buy a gun. In fact, they would be given one at birth without having to pay a cent for it.
The last part of Beck's comment is unsubstantiated, uncited comment because he doesn't present an exact quote, nor does he cite where he got this quote from.
The second part of Beck's argument centers around Sunstein's proposed regulation of the Internet, which make sense to me. Sunstein states people who post unsubstantiated information on the Internet should be held accountable. I personally agree with these sentiments. There is too much anonymity on the Internet. People hide behind their keyboard and spew nasty nonsense, assured that they won't be found out because they're in fact anonymous. He's not saying people should be censored on the Internet; he's just saying there should be a lot more accountability than there is.
None of Beck's information is more than inflammatory, hyperbolic misinterpretation. Based on his past rants, I guess it's business as usual for him.
Check out my newest article...
Annie Le, Raymond Clark, and Workplace Violence
Comments
Lets examine that:
"Cass Sunstein is a guy who is against the Second Amendment who believes that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not an individual right but a federal right."
On October 23, 2007, Sunstein delivered a talk at the Chicago School of Law entitled "The Second Amendment: The Constitution's Most Mysterious Right." Here's a video link:
blog.livesfortunessacredhonor.com/2009/09/07/cass-sunstein-the-2nd-amendment.aspx?ref=rss
Sunstien spends an hour in this lecture trying to shoot down that the 2nd Amendment guarantees and individual right. So, does his letter to Chambliss represent a 180 turn in his thinking, or is he a lying weasel trying to be confirmed? Watch the video. Beck is hardly lying about Sunstiens position based on his own words here in this high profile speech, is he?
I'm limited in the number of characters I can write here, so I'll have to break this up. More to follow.
uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/11/sunstein-on-the.html
"The last part of Beck's comment is unsubstantiated, uncited comment because he doesn't present an exact quote, nor does he cite where he got this quote from."
Yes he does give a citation. stopsunstein.com Take a visit, and tell me you aren't alarmed by the quotes and and the videos. If anything, I'd say Beck was being too mild.
I note that we both linked to the same speech, which is astounding. Did you even listen to the link before posting?
You commit a common error when you refer to the milita. The founders were'nt talking about the National Guard, or it's equivalent. They were talking about everyday people who were expected to be able to defend themselves, if necessary, perhaps even from their own government, should it prove to be too oppressive. From what I've learned now about Sunstein, if he is confirmed, too oppressive may be right around the corner.
Finally, "Sunstein states people who post unsubstantiated information on the Internet should be held accountable."
I agree as well, but not in the way either you or he intends. There is an old axiom when it comes to 1st Amendment freedoms. "The cure for bad speech is not censorship, but more speech."
I disagree with you at times, but I would never say you should not be afforded the opportunity to exercize your right to free speech. I'll just exercize my right to disagree with you. That is the way it is done in a free society. In the end, the validity of speech by either of us is determined by the strength of our respective arguments, not a Speech Commission, or what ever Sunstien has in mind.
If I am wrong, let someone correct me. If I am untruthful, let someone prove me a liar. Censor me, and this is no longer a free country. Sunstien would dearly love to silence his critics, like those at stopsunstein.com. Then he would not be held accountable for HIS radical views.
Had you followed the Heller case, you would be far more versed on the Second Amendment. The "unorganized militia" which Madison referred to is the population at large, specifically those between 17 & 45 years of age. See 10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes. Those excluded for religious reasons, at the time of the writing, were the large body of Quakers so influential at our nation's founding.
Sunstein was NOT correct in his lecture.
You are Clueless.
The Ultra-conservative right wing nuts are frothing at the mouth yet again. Why does Obama think there can be anything resembling "bipartisanship" when the opposition is bent on total destruction of his administration? He needs to wake up and smell the napalm. these crazies on the right are strictly Slash and Burn. He needs to use his office to jam down their throats what the country needs: Health care reform; banking reform and an end to corporate control of elections. You can't play footsie with a bunch of die-hard liars and propagandists.
And, might I add, Allen Glines' porstache is hawt! I would take a ride on that scratchy muff-cloth anytime!
And seriously, you right wing haters, it's not child torture if the parents agree to the price.
Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!
wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesm
Jeffz, how can there be "bipartisanship" when the Republicans were not even allowed to present ANY IDEAS in committee. Who is worse? You will find out. It's all well and good when things are going the way you like them but what will happen when one of these ramrodded bill takes away something YOU WANT and people like yourself are telling you that it is okay.
His letter to Chambliss represents the same 180 turn that every person surrounding Obama, including Obama himself, has taken. Depending on the purpose of the statement and who they are talking to, the message changes.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people's right to do what they did: declare independence. Without weapons, the people could not have done so. Also, militias were not official military units as we know them today. They were comprised of every adult capable of wielding a weapon. The right to keep and bear arms is usually the first right tyrants cut into and eliminate because it is the primary right that is a direct and real threat to tyranny.
Despite being an opinion show, Beck does check his facts before publishing so that he doesn't lose credibility, not with his critics but with his mainstream audience.
I thought you were a TV Examiner - but it seems you write on whatever you please... pathetic!
Gline! I told you to knock off the political crapola and write about television. Where's the Punky Brewster recap you promised?
You're fired.
O moustachioed one: the 2nd Amendment *does* guarantee an individual right. I thought this was settled fact on the internets?
I am pretty sure that you've been online since the mid 1990s so you must have been aware of blogs in 2002. Around that time one Clayton Cramer published post upon post about gun rights prior to the Civil War. He and others found roomfulls of evidence; and one anti-gun, Bancroft-winning historian, Michael Bellesiles, was exposed as a fraud and got his Prize yanked as a result.
If Sunstein had used your argument in 2007, he would have been slapped around like you're getting slapped around here and now.
“We ought to ban hunting”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
“[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”
“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
- 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions
“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”
- Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” August 2002.
I don't give a fig what Sunstein says. SCOTUS says the 2nd applies to individual ownership. Maybe you think SCOTUS will change course with a bunch of Sodamajor clones? Let's see SCOTUS enforce that ruling. C'mon, lefties. Come get our guns.
It'll be the last thing you ever do.
Remember this. Cass Sunstein is next up for a nomination to the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration...and if you think he was busy selling "crazy" before just wait until he has a lifetime appointment!
Madison's rough draft of what became the Second Ammendment is only relevant if you wish to study why sections of it did not make it into the final version. Could it be that the other founders felt the original version too restrictive on the citizen's rights? One should also notice that an ammendment to the text was proposed, and defeated, that would have added the words "for the common defense" to the current language. If the "collective right" folks are correct, why did that happen?
Jefferson suggested that we read the text of the constitution with a view that the simplest meaning is the correct one, not try to twist the words to fit what we wish was in there but isn't.
Allen your ignorance knows no bounds. You are uneducated on every topic that you write about and bad writer to boot. Did you sustain severe brain damage when you crashed your car while trying to change a CD?
Yo yo yo Grand Master Glines, forget the hype, put down the pipe, and don't forget to wipe.
Stick to stories about Tila Tequila and your Tupac poetry, you suck at politics.
PS: I like your pornstache.
While most any clown can use a keyboard, only the really big time Bozo's like you who also appear to have their head burried up their A&& could come to the conclusion you have. Here's a tip: do some research before spouting off. Hey, I hear ACORN in Baltimore is hiring, maybe you can apply your otherwise useless skills there. Give them a call..
Glines! You idiot. If you can't submit another Tila Tequila article, at least give me that write up on Bea Arthur.
You're fired.
No, you're wrong. Michelle Obama has the right to "bare arms" even though they border on obscene. I, however, have the right to keep and bear arms in keeping with my God given, unalienable rights as speeled out in the Bill of Rights which are comprised in the first ten amendments of our Constitution. Back then, the people were the militia which is not the case right now. But if you read the writings of our nation's founders you will see that the militia was not the only reason this right was spelled out in the Bill of Rights. They also feared a government that turned into a bunch of tyrants as in the one they just fought a war to become independent from. Every man has a God given right to defend himself, his loved ones, and his property from those who would take these things from him.
jefflz, "Why does Obama think there can be anything resembling "bipartisanship" when the opposition is bent on total destruction of his administration?" Maybe because these czars Obama has appointed are so far off in Left Field? This yahoo wants animals to have rights to sue humans for whatever imagined reason. Isn't that a bit crazy? There is nothing moderate or centrist about Obama, and certainly not with Reid or Pelosi being his hatchet men.
jefflz
Yea you queer fool; you devicrats were hell bent of geeing GWB succeed... Right? How quickly you forget your own drivel.
jefflz
I meant "seeing". Be glad your messiah has done a good job slashing and burning. Don't forget law reform. The insurance companies earn 3% profit. The average law firm earns 85% profit. That is obscene profit making / price gouging, yet I never hear any calls to regulate the law industry. Government interference is the reason for most of the trouble, especially in the medical insurance industry. For example, try to pick and choose the parts of coverage on your work offered insurance plan. You cant take off substance abuse or maternity or psychiatric counseling even if you wanted to. Why??? Government mandates.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!