A Quote by Cass Sunstein

We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. — © Cass Sunstein
We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law.
We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now.
Whether hunting is right or wrong, a spiritual experience, or an outlet for the killer instinct, one thing it is not is a sport. Sport is when individuals or teams compete against each other under equal circumstances to determine who is better at a given game or endeavor. Hunting will be a sport when deer, elk, bears, and ducks are... given 12-gauge shotguns. Bet we'd see a lot fewer drunk yahoos (live ones, anyway) in the woods if that happened.
Certain classes of weapons that are strictly military and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self-defense should not be legally sold.
As Americans, we have a long history with firearms. We also have a government built on compromise, so here is the compromise I propose: Ban assault rifles and handguns for everyone except police and military personnel. These weapons are made to kill humans and should be strictly limited. At the same time, allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns. Rifles are for hunting big-game animals, shotguns are for hunting birds; non-automatic versions of these weapons should be available for those with an interest in hunting or target shooting.
Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game.
I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons like the weapons used here [in Fort Worth], yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons.
When should we nudge and when should we shove, I think, it's a political judgment. Obviously in some situations we need shoves, we need laws. Fraud is against the law, murder is against the law, drunk-driving is against the law. We don't need just nudges.
There's more fun in hunting with the handicap of the bow than there is in hunting with the sureness of the gun.
I have a letter from a police inspector, retired after some 30 years in rural Derbyshire, alerting me to the potential impact of a total ban on hunting on relationships between the police and the community in rural areas - a particularly significant consideration in current circumstances. Is it, I ask myself, sensible to divert valuable police time to enforce a ban on hunting when they are under so much pressure from violent crime?
Let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarcy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.
The state should avoid all solicitude for the positive welfare of its citizens, and not proceed a step further than is necessary for their mutual security and their protection against foreign enemies. It should impose restrictions on freedom for no other purpose.
Supreme Court nominees should know without any doubt that their job is not to impose their own personal opinions of what is right and wrong, but to say what the law is, rather than what they personally think the law ought to be.
...the statement, "The purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign," is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
Congress should ban advertising that preys upon children, it should stop subsidizing dead-end jobs, it should pass tougher food safety laws, it should protect American workers from serious harm, it should fight against dangerous concentrations of economic power.
A New York City judge struck down a proposed law to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces. I think Mayor Bloomberg should spend his time trying to improve stuff like education. New York needs a better education system if kids didn't figure out they could get around the 16-ounce soda ban by simply purchasing two 12-ounce sodas.
... in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!