Eric Holder gave a speech about gun violence in 1995 where he expressed his idea for how to curb gun violence. This reveals a key tactic used by the left to repeat, repeat, repeat what they want you to believe until it’s stuck in your brain i.e. brainwashing. Notice how the left often has coordinating and repetitive messaging(see Cass Sunstein below)? They’ve most recently used it to describe President Trump when they called him “mentally unfit”. Remember that? Now we have the left involved in the framing of the narrative with the Florida shooting. They want and have gotten a feeding frenzy of anti-gun, anti-NRA language. Common sense is nowhere to be found right now…that’s how the left works…all emotion, all the time.
FLASHBACK: Eric Holder talks about “brainwashing” kids with anti-gun curriculum in Washington D.C. pic.twitter.com/qsYfmJlRUO
— Based Monitored 🇺🇸☘️ (@BasedMonitored) February 22, 2018
Politifact mentions this video in the context of gun violence in D.C. with school kids. They are missing the bigger picture. This video is a perfect example and a rare look into how the left operates. And we wonder how the Florida teen victims are clueless about our Second Amendment?
“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes,” Holder said. He later added, “We have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – Eric Holder
CASS SUNSTEIN WAS IN CHARGE OF “INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS” IN THE OBAMA YEARS FROM 2009-2012 – He famously believes in “nudging” citizens to shape thought and behavior. Dangerous!
Sunstein suggests that Americans are holding onto the 2A out of “fear”:
A SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS?
He writes about “the only time a State of the Union address was also a fireside chat,” in January 1944, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, only 15 months before his death, spoke to the nation by radio from the White House. To Sunstein, the address “has a strong claim to being the greatest speech of the twentieth century.”
FDR used it to propose a Second Bill of Rights, to redress what he described as the Constitution’s inadequacies. He recommended rights to “a useful and remunerative job”; for “every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies”; to “a decent home”; to “adequate medical care”; to “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment”; and to “a good education.” They “spell security,” the president said: “For unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
Roosevelt could make his proposal, Sunstein explains, because in that era “no one really opposes government intervention.” (The italics are his.) The address came only a few years after the end of the Great Depression, when it was all but universally accepted that “markets and wealth depend on government”—to prevent monopolies, promote economic growth, and preserve the system of free enterprise, but also to create “a floor below which human lives are not supposed to fall.”
To Roosevelt, the Second Bill of Rights was like the Declaration of Independence: “a statement of the fundamental aspirations of the United States,” in Sunstein’s words. The president argued not for a change in the Constitution, but for incorporating the rights he championed in “the nation’s deepest commitments.”
Sunstein’s enduring admiration for the proposed Second Bill of Rights helps bring into focus the overarching concern of his career as a legal scholar: to understand and explain how “the modern regulatory state” has changed America’s “constitutional democracy,” and how to reform the workings of government and society to promote “the central goals of the constitutional system—freedom and welfare.”
He has pursued these aims as a preeminent scholar in constitutional law, administrative law, and environmental law, and in related fields. He has also written about animal rights, gay rights, gun rights, the death penalty, feminist theory, labor law, securities regulation, and an almanac of other topics. The span from his microscopic focus on nudges to his panoramic interest in the constitutional system, with nudges carrying out the moral purposes of the Republic, helps explain why his standing in the legal world of ideas is, more or less, Olympian. Read more: Harvard Magazine