SUNSTEIN: 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. Modern gun owners who are invoking the Second Amendment on the basis of a principle they favor are perfectionists, not so different from older people who tried unsuccessfully - I'm pleased to say - to get the protection clause read to strike down mandatory retirement laws.
In terms of judicial developments, 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! It would be amazing - though, given that fact - don't be surprised if the first time it happens is in the next three or four years.
We have an FCC Czar who thinks the 1st amendment is an exagerrated...well " This freedom is all too often an exaggeration."
And now we have a regulatory 'czar' who thinks those who actually BELIEVE the 2nd amendment is real are some kind of ocd 'perfectionists'
How many of these incidents is it going to take before some people wake up?
If the FCC czar is not scaring them at WaPo when he threatens the 1st amendment directly, what will it take? An elected freak in reaction in a near future like Ron Paul with the powers gifted him by this SICK administration?
These guys are not playing footsy. The language they are using is direct. I take their words seriously.
They believe they are on the side of the righteous and the good and that the simple act of oppostion and defiance categorises you immediately as a right wing smear merchant nut or worse. These people are a danger to the republic.
THESE PEOPLE ARE A DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC
THESE PEOPLE ARE A DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC