Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

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?


Anonymous said...

He thinks that the NRA is extreme...

One can only wonder what he thinks of people such as you and me then...

Or GoA?

The_Chef said...

His book is a collection of articles. One author jumped out at me in particular: Peter Singer. That guy's a loon.

If he's running in the same "philosophical" vein as Singer, heh, well, you can give up any hope for a rational discussion.

Anonymous said...

I could care less about Sunstein. He sounds like a nut. However I doubt the extent to which the majority of the bloggers here actually research the issue with the 2nd Amendment. You said in this blog that "'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" yet you give no facts or logic in your blogs. To often you use your feelings instead. I know you will read this and say the same about anyone for gun control (for many it is true) but atleast some of us use actual facts. I dare you to give me one fact that shows that gun control is bad. BTW I am not for banning firearms, I am a hunter and fully support gun sales. I just don't buy the "individual rights" arguement under the 2nd Amendment.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

I just don't buy the "individual rights" arguement [sic] under the 2nd Amendment.

Then we probably don't have much to discuss. Just run off and wait for the government to tell you which of your firearms you can keep, like a good little AHSAhole.

me said...

I smell a liar...an anti-rights coward once again donning the sheep's clothing.

If you fail to buy the "individual rights" argument with regards to the second you fail to grasp any concept of American law, such as where authority resides and how it is delegated.

Just how much have YOU researched the issue? Which seat on the supreme court do you occupy?

Ya know, if it wasn't sinking to the same level of backstabbing anti-American behavior I'd suggest we start calling hunting rifles "sniper rifles" and HI power ones at that to tie these ignorant fudds up for a while in order to defend themselves for a change.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

He wasn't done, HH--did you see this gem?

Hoops? My brother lives in Chicago and owns a firearm. He got it shortly after his garage was broken into twice. It didn't take much time so anyone who wants to get a gun legally should be able to do so. If this resident didn't register their gun they should be charged.

I was going to say to him, "May your chains rest lightly upon thee," but I'm starting to think he prefers 'em to rest heavy.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 45 you proved my point beautifully. No facts just argumentative BS. I respect your service in the military but not your clear lack of logic. The government won't take our guns. It is literally an impossible task. And what exactly is your problem restricting gun ownership? Are you afraid lives might actually be saved? Or are you just a stubborn prick unwilling to make a compromise?


me said...

Maybe he's one of the new air force disinformation squads?

OK my hunter of Iowans can you point to any law that has STOPPED a crime? Obviously your brother, the criminal wasn't deterred by a law, so why would you be in favor of more laws?

Perhaps you'd like top take a quiz.


me said...

Oh damn! Sorry, it just clicked. He's one of those "classic democrats."

The kind who put Byrd in office and want to ban "Saturday night specials" and have a poll tax, and lynch folks.

Don't feed the trolls...to anything with teeth that are too sharp. It might shorten their suffering.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

You have more patience than I do, HH--but then again, I'm "just a stubborn prick unwilling to make a compromise."

Actually, now I kinda feel bad--I've been saying nasty things about him, while he's paid me a compliment.

I really do need to work on my people skills.


Unknown said...

Iowa Hunter I hope you're really from Iowa cause at least then you're only half a liar.

But still 100% moron.

Anonymous said...

Iowa Hunter, my wife and I and one grandchild just didn't buy the "individual rights" argument as regards the first amendment. As you are not a registered purveyor, possessor, or user of words, we demand that you shut the fuck up.

We outnumber you and you have no "individual right" to free speech. So, submit to the collective, at least until you have paid a fee and received your permit to have, hold and express your opinion.

We do, however, thank you for showing us the glaring error the founders made as regards their interpretation of rights, especially of the individual type. Now, we don't have to listen to twits. Or we won't until you and your ilk get your free speech permits.

Till then, STFU.

By the way, my nephew and son are still in the military. Please send your address so they can be quartered in your home. Their rent is a bitch, but you don't have an individual right to not have troops quartered in your home. So send that address. We won't quarter them in everybody's home, in keeping with 'collective rights', but since you have no individual rights under the BoR open the damn door, show them their rooms and STFU.