Media Credit: Chris Gifford
Bob Barr, former congressman, was invited to speak at the College (of New Jersey) on the Second and Fourth Amendments.
Posted on 04/30/2008 9:56:22 AM PDT by neverdem
Media Credit: Chris Gifford
Bob Barr, former congressman, was invited to speak at the College (of New Jersey) on the Second and Fourth Amendments.
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr spoke at the College last week regarding the Second Amendment and the importance of the Bill of Rights to the freedom of American citizens.
Barr, who is currently seeking the Libertarian nomination for president, was brought by the College Republicans.
"Any organization that believes in free debate ought to be commended and participated in by everyone," Barr said. "The point is not if you agree or disagree with the topic or the speaker but if you are interested in hearing a free debate of the issues."
The issues discussed that evening were primarily the current status of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, and the Fourth Amendment, the right of citizens "to be secure in their persons … and effects," according to the Bill of the Rights.
"The Bill of Rights is probably the most magnificent piece of writing set down by the hands of man," Barr said. "It has withstood the test of time … It's very viable and respected, though not by the current administration."
He continued, "If we do not continue to have, or rediscover, an educated citizenry … this document will be rendered meaningless. (The Bill of Rights) requires an educated citizenry, which is something we do not have nowadays."
Another concern to Barr is the current apparent monopoly of the executive branch in the government.
This "unitary executive" theory is appealing to any executive branch, according to Barr.
"Since 9/11, we have had a notion that since there was an attack on the United States, the response to that is conducted by the president as commander-in-chief … who decides the scope, duration and specifics," Barr said.
Should Congress attempt to claim that the president's actions are unconstitutional, the president could claim that "you can't so limit the executive branch," Barr said.
In terms of the Second Amendment, Barr believes that one must pay strict attention to the wording.
"I am of the group of people who have a presumption that the men who wrote these words had a purpose," he said.
The Second Amendment, according to Barr, is essentially about the right of the people.
Being on the board of the National Rife Association, Barr explained the importance of the Second Amendment around the country, particularly in New Jersey, which is very "pro-Second Amendment," he joked, eliciting laughter from the audience.
Barr referenced the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, where the term "assault weapons" was used by pro-gun control politicians regardless of the fact that assault weapons were already unlawful and "by and large, assault weapons are not in the hands of citizens."
As an advocate of the Bill of Rights, it is important to get people to think of the Second Amendment as a reflection of fundamental freedom, according to Barr.
"If we allow ourselves to be drawn into arguing just about guns and ammunition, it's very easy to lose that argument," he said.
Following his discussion, there was a Q-and-A session, where issues of campus safety and modifications to the Second Amendment were brought up. Barr also discussed his reasoning for why there should not be licensing for guns.
Barr argued that while one needs a license to drive a car, there is no inherent right to own a car. Anything is potentially dangerous, he said.
"If they misuse it, it's their responsibility," Barr said, referring to legal gun owners who do not properly and safely handle their guns. "Don't make it harder for the rest of us."
When questioned if it would be wise to allow professors to elect to arm themselves on college campuses, Barr replied that "it is nonsense to go on a campus and give up the right to bear arms."
People have been saved by having firearms, Barr said, and since the Second Amendment is no more and no less important than the others, it should not get more stringent controls added to it.
Click the pic for hi-res
"The Founder's Intent..."
ping
That Bob Barr, what a “kooky wing-nut” Or so I’ve read on here.
Mr. Barr is misinformed about the “unitary executive” theory. All it says is that the entire executive branch is responsible to the President, not that the President gets to dictate to Congress.
However, that said, Barr seems to be a pretty good guy.
There’s a reason the President is Commander-in-Chief.
I believe the Founders Intent was for at least .30 caliber...
.....but I get your point.
It’s noteworthy that the campus Republicans at The College of New Jersey ( which is academically the top public undergraduate college in the USA ) invited a real Republican who’s running as a Libertarian, instead of the Democrat who’s running as the Republican nominee.
To bad they were not armed that way, the revolution would have been much shorter than it really was!:)
The right to defend yourself, family and possessions supercedes the Constitution. A gun is a reasonable means. DC is wrong in disarming ALL its’ citizens EXCEPT the bad guys.
Or the Libertarian(Paul) that was running as a Republican.
It’s isn’t on this issue that he is a “kook.”
“It’s isn’t on this issue that he is a “kook.”
Which issues would those be....or is it his failure to genuflect for the socialism-lite of the GOP?
No, it’s his alignment with the ACLU. For that reason alone, he’s no conservative, regardless of what you correctly point out about the GOP.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
“Barr referenced the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, where the term “assault weapons” was used by pro-gun control politicians regardless of the fact that assault weapons were already unlawful and “by and large, assault weapons are not in the hands of citizens.”
Number one: So-called “Assault Weapons” referenced in the 1994 “Crime Bill” are NOTHING MORE THAN semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles. The real agenda behind it was to introduce the idea that certain kinds of guns are evil, and others are OK (until they get around to banning them too).
This was the process whereby a simple Semi-auto AR15 becomes an evil “assault rifle”, and a bolt-action deer gun with a scope becomes a “High-powered Sniper Rifle”, a lever-action gun becomes a “high-powered repeating rifle.
And as a matter of fact, REAL so-called “Assault rifles” - those that are selective fire (semi AND full-auto) are NOT illegal - they ARE protected by the Second Amendment THAT SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER FIREARM. They ARE however regulated, taxed, and registered. You must pay the $200.00 transfer tax to own and transfer them. But they are NOT illegal. 43 states recogize your right to own them. Finding places to shoot them is tough, but they are out there. And if ALL OF US put just a little effort into finding out the facts about the gun rights battle, we wouldn’t have the problems we have now.
The Founders MEANT what they said; as a matter of fact, they put it into action. They SHOT the people that were coming to disarm them and spent eight long bloody years to defend the basic principles of liberty that the Bill of Rights enumerates.
ANYONE that approaches our right to keep and bear arms and asks for “common-sense legislation”, or uses terms like “assault rifles”, or seeks ANY further restrictions on our right should be suspect and exposed and immediately ejected from office, by any means necessary.
People DIED for this right. It is worth fighting for.
I wonder if it's possible to tear apart an M-16 and reassemble it after it jams in the time it takes for a redcoat to reload his musket?
yes
Nothing Bob Barr does is “front page news.”
LOL! Decisions, decisions. Is it time to remember your "what's the spirit of the bayonet" training? If the extractor retaining pin broke, and all you get is repeated failures to extract, you're SOL!
If you are really fast you can reload a smooth bore(or a rifle with minie balls)4 to a minute. That is, a very experienced shooter can do it that fast, 4 times per minute. In the heat of battle many forgot to cap their muskets(or prime them if using flintlocks)and kept shoving loads down the barrel without actually firing them. I would say an M16 or similar rifle, or a good old Spencer or Henry repeater, would outperform them overall, they wouldn’t all jam at once!
Nice! That’s a keeper.
< right-click, save-as>
>>>>“The Founder’s Intent...”
>>I believe the Founders Intent was for at least .30 caliber...
Fortunately we have Freedom of Religion in this country, so there is room for those on both sides of this very contentious issue of religious doctrine.
“No, it’s his alignment with the ACLU. For that reason alone, he’s no conservative, regardless of what you correctly point out about the GOP.”
You’ve hit on the one point that gives me real pause about Rep. Barr. I just would not go so far as to pronounce him “not a conservative” as a result.
At one time I was both an active Democrat, and a FReeper (see site handle). People in glass houses shouldn’t cast around stones, so I try to refrain from it.
There are also some pragmatic reasons why membership in the ACLU would be a very good idea for conservatives. I think you have to look closer here; for someone who is otherwise overwhelmingly conservative, why the heck would they join up with the ACLU? It just doesn’t jibe. It would be like the head of the Heritage Foundation joining the communist party.
“Nothing Bob Barr does is “front page news.”
Nor is anything that Sen. McCain does. But it still seems to be classified as “front page news” by posters.
Bravo Zulu!!
Why THAT’S crazy talk!!!
Does he CLAIM to be a “conservative”?
I thought he was libertarian.
Feel free to link to them, I host 'em and my bandwidth is yours.
Cool, thanks on the hosting. And yes, I got the hi-res.
The ACLU pretty much IS the Communist Party - or at least the Legal Wing of the DemCom party. Which, at any rate, is why the ACLU was founded - to protect communists on trial for subversion by using the First Amendment.
But hey - if THEY can infiltrate our organizations, we should do the same wherever and whenever we can.
Know your enemy - the better to defeat him.
“Know your enemy - the better to defeat him.”
Exactly.
His strong support of the War on Drugs should disqualify him as a member of the LP, let alone LP presidential candidate.
Leftists dismiss the “founders intent” as irrelevant.
Somehow they have the idea that rights change as society “evolves”.
That’s probably the whole reason right there - the denial of rights given to us by a Creator, or even the existance of a Creator at all.
If rights aren’t God-given, then they are Man-allowed. And when they are Man-allowed, they can be disallowed just as easily.
If he was a conservative, he’d align with the aclJ not the aclU.
The ACLU was founded as a communist front group by communists.
Their agenda is masked as “civil rights” but everything is for the advancement of socialism and the destruction of traditional American values.
“Their agenda is masked as “civil rights” but everything is for the advancement of socialism and the destruction of traditional American values.”
OK. But *why* did a rock solid conservative like Bob Barr join? I think that the explanation that he went off the reservation is too pat.
“If he was a conservative, he’d align with the aclJ not the aclU.”
On the surface, yes. However, there are a lot of reasons why a conservative might decide to join the ACLU.
For example: have you been following what Rush has been up to of late?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.