Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment threatened, Barr warns in law school speech
The Emory Wheel ^ | January 28, 2005 | Chris Megerian

Posted on 01/28/2005 9:31:52 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 01/28/2005 9:31:52 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Is this the same Barr who said he was a conservative and went to work for the ACLU upon being kicked out of congress?
2 posted on 01/28/2005 9:33:30 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Second Amendment will always need to be defended against gun grabbers, now and in perpetuity, and for so long as the Republic exists.


3 posted on 01/28/2005 9:34:09 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Barr pointed out that guns that are classified in the “assault” category, meaning that they are capable of automatic fire, have been illegal since the 1930s.

A fact the leftist media conveniently, and continuously, ignores.
4 posted on 01/28/2005 9:35:17 AM PST by holymoly ("A lot" is TWO words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"audience of about 30 people"?


5 posted on 01/28/2005 9:35:22 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


" An armed society is a polite society" Robert Heinlein


6 posted on 01/28/2005 9:37:51 AM PST by Vaquero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have
for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

Benjamin Franklin


7 posted on 01/28/2005 9:40:18 AM PST by Vaquero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Barr pointed out that guns that are classified in the “assault” category, meaning that they are capable of automatic fire, have been illegal since the 1930s.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! Full auto weapons are NOT illegal in most states. The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) allows any adult who lives in a state where such ownership is legal to buy a full auto gun if they pay a $200 tax, get the permission of a local law enforcement agency, register the gun and go through a background check. I have friends, acquaintances and clients who own full autos. There are something like 200,000 legally-registered full auto guns (called "machine guns" under the NFA, even though most of them are more accurately described as "sub-machineguns"). Barr only diminishes his argument by being inaccurate.

Oh, BTW, since 1934 there has only been 1 documented case of a legally registered machine gun being used in the commission of a crime - and that was by a police officer!

8 posted on 01/28/2005 9:41:00 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Correction to Post #8: any adult who doesn't have a felony conviction and who meets the other criteria.


9 posted on 01/28/2005 9:42:23 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“I understand that it’s important to defend yourself,” she said. “But I wouldn’t want a gun in my house.”

Ahhh, what a wonderful thing consistency in thought is. The second half of her sentence contradicts the first half.

10 posted on 01/28/2005 9:47:30 AM PST by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Barr should know better, being an ex US Attorney, that weapons capable of fully automatic fire are not illegal, rather they are heavily regulated and cannot be transfered with out a federal tax and registration of the owner. Also they cannot be manufactured without a license to do so.
11 posted on 01/28/2005 9:49:39 AM PST by aspiring.hillbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Unfortunately, you can only get ones that were made before 1986. The supply is severely limited, with items running about 10x what they should be. While there techinically isn't a MG ban ("just pay your $200 tax"), in all practicality there is. You can't afford an M16 or AK47 or MP5, and simply cannot get an M4 or P90 or MP7 or anything else made post-'86.

They left just enough legal MGs to obfuscate and deflate any "they're all banned - that's unconstitutional!" arguments.


12 posted on 01/28/2005 9:59:45 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“I understand that it’s important to defend yourself,” she said. “But I wouldn’t want a gun in my house.”

Then, will she "allow" her neighbors to have a guns in their homes? That seems the question.

13 posted on 01/28/2005 10:06:33 AM PST by RAY (They that do right are all heroes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr; aspiring.hillbilly

You are both right. However I would hesitate to condemn Bob Barr too much. He is at least half right. The 200,000 or so NFA registered machine guns are very expensive to acquire. Not that many people can afford one even if they can get their police chiefs to sign off on one. Your average gang banger just can't walk into a gun store and pick one up. There are no NEW machine guns being manufactured which are sold to the general public. For all intents and purposes, machine guns are pretty much illegal. If you tried to convert the Min-14 in your closet to an automatic weapon, you could find yourself in a world of trouble with the BATF.

Could Barr have better explained the situation? Sure.


14 posted on 01/28/2005 10:07:26 AM PST by need_a_screen_name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Without weapons, Barr joked, Americans would be forced to defend themselves with duct tape, an item that former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge encouraged citizens to purchase in case of a terrorist attack.

This is one reason Barr got canned.... The statement is reminiscent of a democrat.... His mustache didn't help either.

15 posted on 01/28/2005 10:07:29 AM PST by cbkaty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly
Maybe the reporter got it wrong - they usually do.
16 posted on 01/28/2005 10:08:38 AM PST by RAY (They that do right are all heroes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
[i]He warned that many people in America and the United Nations “engage in actions to diminish one’s God-given, constitutionally- guaranteed rights.”[/i]

No where in the Bible does it say we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, it doesn't mention the right to bear arms. That being said, I agree with everything else Barr said. We can't let the government gently erode our civil liberties.
17 posted on 01/28/2005 10:09:53 AM PST by Tigerjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Ironic choice of an institution at which to give an important Second Amendment speech.

Emory was the home of Professor Michael Bellisiles, author of the infamous book/study challenging the prevailing wisdaom that gun ownership was common in colonial America. Hiw work was immediately touted by the gun grabbers as proof that the Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee an individual right to bear arms.

When the bona fides of Bellisiles' research came under fire, Emory did the responsible thing and pointed a committee of scholars to investigate his work. The committee concluded that the research supporting the work could not be substantiated, and Bellisiles ultimately resigned in disgrace. The publisher withdrew his book, and Columbia University rescinded a history prize it had awarded to Bellisiles.

The ever-clownish Ninth Circus actually cited the Bellisiles book in its opinion holding that the Second Amendment guaranteed only a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms. It had to very quickly pull the opinion and put out an amended opinion dropping the citation when Bellisiles work was denounced.

18 posted on 01/28/2005 10:10:38 AM PST by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly

US Code Title 18 Section 922(o) bans civilian possession of any made after 1986. The limited supply of pre-'86 ones is wearing out and being overpriced by increasing demand. A new real M16 should cost about $500; you'll pay about $15,000 for a well-worn >20-year-old one.

For most practical purposes, MGs are illegal.


19 posted on 01/28/2005 10:12:43 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tigerjam

"No where in the Bible does it say we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, it doesn't mention the right to bear arms. That being said, I agree with everything else Barr said. We can't let the government gently erode our civil liberties."


This has very little to do with the Bible. He is talking about "natural" rights. Given to us at birth. Google up some pages on natural rights and you will find lots of info on this subject.


20 posted on 01/28/2005 10:13:10 AM PST by need_a_screen_name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson