Care to explain this, AHSA?

I thought Third Power and I were friends, and thus didn't expect him to force me to start my day with this news:

Beyond the already well established nominations of anti-gun fanatics to Obama's cabinet, we have another for the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. One Cass Sunstein.

What do we know about Sunstein? Well, that he's a raving loon, for starters.

He's an "Animal Rights Advocate" in the same vein as PETA to the point that he stated in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions . . .

I won't spoil the suspense--follow the first link and (here it is again) and read what Sunstein proposes--it's utterly bizarre.

There's more--Thirdpower also shows us that Sunstein wants to ban hunting. Still feeling good about your Obama vote, "Sportsmen for Obama"?

As it turns out, I've talked about Sunstein before, and his advocacy of a kind of "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet, to counter what he considers the threat of the internet fostering extremism.

He also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering.

In fact, the example he uses to illustrate his "point" is the gun rights debate.

He also looked at the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"A group whose members lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker. The group's members, to the extent that they shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control,” says the professor.

It is in this vein that Sunstein sees the advent of the personalisation of information via the Internet as such a threat.

As I pointed out in my earlier post:

The problem with that thinking, Cass, is that wherever one goes, "the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker"--that's simply the nature of a position that lacks grounding in facts and logic.

Nicki, by the way, beautifully eviscerates yet another Sunstein article, in which he laments the rise of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and suggests that even if one accepts that, it should pose no barrier to restrictive gun laws (this was before Heller--I have to admit that he pretty well perfectly described what Heller would do).

Is everyone enjoying their HopeandChange™ yet?