http://www.breitbart.tv/cass-sunstein-right-to-bear-arms-arguments-stem-from-fears-not-civic-centered-founding-debates/

An inept, inexperienced and dangerous Obama White House actively skips around the safe guards for cabinet positions with its "CZAR" appointments. It has nominated embattled Harvard University law professor Cass R. Sunstein as the president's nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein misfired one time too many in public statements and once again another Obama CZAR is suffering from self inflicted wounds.

A videotape has surfaced of a lecture Mr. Sunstein gave on Oct. 23, 2007. Here is what 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."

Discussing the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia, he said a critic of such strict gun control would say that a "trigger lock interferes with his efforts at self-defense against criminals. What on Earth does that have to do with the Second Amendment as originally understood?"

Discussing the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia, he said a critic of such strict gun control would say that a "trigger lock interferes with his efforts at self-defense against criminals. What on Earth does that have to do with the Second Amendment as originally understood?"

Mr. Sunstein has been assuring Second Amendment advocates, including key Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, that he strongly believes the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms.

There's no wiggle room in that statement, and Sen. Chambliss dropped his hold on the nomination based on Mr. Sunstein's assurances. But it turns out that the professor has held a certain contempt for the very viewpoint he suddenly claims to espouse.

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."

Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms, including self-defense, is outrageous. This is clearly part of an Obama Gun Attack Plan by somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It makes his personal assurances that he is a Second Amendment supporter completely disingenuous.

The anti-gun Obama White House is hiding Sunstein's extreme view on gun control and will likely continue to inexplicably stand by him.

Is this just another amateurish mistake by an immature White House that is yet to get weaned or part of the Anti-Gun agenda that Obama lied about during the campaign? Presidential candidate, Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms? Not hardly and we've been sounding the alarm for a year and this appointment expands the Obama gun attack plan.



Attorney General Holder Revealed The Obama Gun Attack Plan Lie

Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder revealed the President's plan to seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms and said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own website touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."

We've warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric. Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying.

Lies Prove "CZAR's" Don't Fall Far From the Presidential Tree

Mr. 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."

Mr. Sunstein's overt hostility to the idea that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, including for purposes of self-defense, is not something that should be welcomed from somebody whose job might entail weighing in on the value of anti-gun regulations. It also makes his more recent assurances that he is a Second Amendment stalwart seem rather disingenuous, at the very least.

This sounds just like Obama's friend Van Jones when he flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with reports about him and said "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever." What is this straight out of the Obama White House play book on how to deny your past?