Fair Use excerpt:
"The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us."
Nice turn of phrase.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom
Napolitano is no Conservative. If he were, he would find no Constitutional "right to shoot tyrants" or "right to shoot at them effectively." The Constitution nowhere mentions these alleged "rights." But the Constitution does provide the right to keep and bear arms -- and one reason for that is because arms are a means to fight tyranny. The authors of these words certainly had the Declaration of Independence's right to "alter and abolish" government that has become "destructive of these ends" in mind. A subtle distinction perhaps: but an important one for a judge to recognize, because different people have different ideas about what tyranny is -- and therefore different ideas about who it might be OK to shoot at. Mostly, a judge's job is to put people who want to shoot at government officials because they regard them as "tyrants" in jail or mental institutions.
Napolitano was not fired for messing up that subtle distinction.
If he was fired, he was fired for this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52b_1329796059
because he suggested that Repubicans might be as bad as Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues, and the many other issues he lists, of importance to the people who his message resonates with, which probably includes a great many people on this forum.
The libertarian message is only acceptable on Fox if it serves Republican interests. That is Roger Ailes job. He never stopped doing it.