Bob Barr: Bush administration harder to work with on 2A than klinton's

Bob Barr: Bush administration worse on Second Amendment than Clinton
Ameria in Danger of Becoming a Military State


Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | December 11 2005

Former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr says that there is a danger recent developments describe a trend of America slipping into a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration are doing everything in their power to see that this happens.

During a radio interview with host Alex Jones, Barr outlined where the country is heading.

"Basically, as long as you smile when you demand to see somebody's ID at gunpoint sitting on a bus I guess it's OK for the government, that's sort of the way they operate. It can be a totalitarian type regime."

"I think it's a real danger where we have the military becoming involved in all sorts of domestic matters and we have the government being able to seize very private personal records on people without any suspicion that they've done anything wrong. This is a dramatic turn of events that has accelerated greatly since 9/11."

Barr made comments very similar to those of current Republican Congressman Ron Paul in stating that natural disasters could be used by the government as a pretext to abolish posse comitatus.

"If we have the military involved whenever there's a windstorm, rain or tornado then what we are doing is that we are undermining the entire basis on what our constitutional representative democratic form of government was founded."

Barr said that legislation like the Patriot Act and its imminent re-authorization and expansion were more of a threat to the American way of life than any terrorist attack.

"Even when the leaders in Washington say we're not going to let the terrorists change our way of life, they are implementing policies that do precisely that."

Barr elaborated that the manipulation of fear was a key cornerstone in the government's coup de 'tat on constitutional liberties.

"They're using people's fear of another terrorist attack to move forward with various government programs that the government has wanted to gather and put in place for many many years. They're using the fear which is now driving public policy in this country which is very unfortunate and very un-American. Our leaders are shamelessly playing on that fear to implement and grab power."

Speaking on the topic of the second amendment, Barr said that his position as a board member on the NRA enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

Barr is currently working with the ACLU and others in trying to prevent the sunset clauses of the Patriot Act from being renewed, which could happens as early as this week.



http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/totalitarian_regime_a_danger_repub_congressman.htm
 
ahhhhh! the sky is falling! the sky is falling!








no wait, thats just snow. everythings okay, folks! were just fine up here. with our pro-2nd politicians. and our guns that have working safeties because we can do two things at once, like flick the safety on/off, chew gum and walk, rub our tummys while patting our heads.
 
Would Clinton let his baby the AWB expire? No.
Would Clinton have signed the gun manufacturer protection bill? No.
Would Clinton have nominated two constructionalist judges for the supreme court? No.
 
First four responses and none with any substance.

Alex Jones. :rolleyes:

Dont feed him Spiffy

**chews**

In another forum, we've been discussing how quickly most of the pro gun community will turn on each other and eat their own with personal attacks. It doesn't make logical sense, but as we can see, it persists nonetheless.

Would Clinton have nominated two constructionalist judges for the supreme court? No.
We'll still have to see if Roberts and Alito are total yes men for the government or not. The antis are in a lather about Alito, but it's a little early to be calling either man a "constructionist." Also, it ought to be remembered that Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg was suggested to klinton by alleged republican Orrin Hatch, so the republican leadership has a clear natural tilt against the 2nd amendment from the outset.

The overall problem Bob Barr is highlighting is the fact that bush has taken the republican base for granted since day one.

Remember, bush didn't lift a finger recently when the partial repeal of part of the D.C. gun ban was outrageously stripped out in committee.

Also, the bush admin strangely didn't urge the house to vote on the CLEAN version of the immunity bill (and neither did the NRA :mad: )

The Klinton admin was a tiny bit easer to bargain with because Bill was obsessed and extremely effective with stealing issues from the republicans and in trying to look "moderate" to the country as a whole. Smart people knew it was an act, but nevertheless, the point is, you could force klinton to bargain sometimes.
 
Remember, bush didn't lift a finger recently when the partial repeal of part of the D.C. gun ban was outrageously stripped out in committee.

And what exactly was President Bush supposed to do? Declaire Martial Law, excuss Congress and make a law that Bob Barr approves of by Executive fiat?:confused:
 
Yeah, too bad Clinton isn't still president. I just know he wouldn't have pushed for renewal (and even more strict laws added) of the AWB. And it's just obvious Clinton would have championed the immunity bill, unlike Bush.

Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

roll.gif


First four responses and none with any substance.

If you want replies with substance, it usually helps if the article you post contains some.
 
In another forum, we've been discussing how quickly most of the pro gun community will turn on each other and eat their own with personal attacks. It doesn't make logical sense, but as we can see, it persists nonetheless.

I thought it was more about how your way of posting did more harm than good to you? While not trolling, it does have a 'throw out a controversial topic jsut to argue' feel to it.

Anyways, not much I can say that hasn't been already. To some, not pushing for gun laws is much better than actively campaigning for new gun control laws. To some if you aren't pushing for repeals you are part of the problem. I'm in the former. The author is obviously in the latter.
 
I thought it was more about how your way of posting did more harm than good to you? While not trolling, it does have a 'throw out a controversial topic jsut to argue' feel to it.

Ya think?:eek: :D

WildgladimnottheonlyoneAlaska
 
I thought it was more about how your way of posting did more harm than good to you? While not trolling, it does have a 'throw out a controversial topic jsut to argue' feel to it.
Please explain how any of that justifies personal attacks. Are you FORCED to argue even if you don't want to, or are you mature enough to keep from getting personal? (I know that sounded like a rhetorical question, but I'm seriously wondering) Last time I checked, this forum is loaded with "controversial topics."

WildIhopeitmakesyoufeelbigtopileonsomeonewithoutcontributingtothetopicintheslightestAlaska



And what exactly was President Bush supposed to do? Declaire Martial Law, excuss Congress and make a law that Bob Barr approves of by Executive fiat?

Yea that's EXACTLY what he was supposed to do :rolleyes:
I'm not sure why your are responding to a fact with a list of absurdities (a diversion?). The fact is that the Souder amendment was pulled in committee and the bush admin (which is constantly making it's wishes known to congressional conferees on every other bill) clearly did not care in the slightest.
There's also the possibility that the administration ASKED (albeit quietly) that it be removed. It wouldn't be the first time bush has sacrificed a constitutional principle on the altar of political expediency.

Don't pretend that you don't know that ever since bush was inagurated the first time, 90% of what he asks congress to do THEY DO. Most stuff he asks them to NOT do, guess what, for the most part, they don't.

I completely forgot to mention that the judge who ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to D.C. and that the 2nd amendment is a "collective right" is a BUSH appointee (look it up, it's Reggie Walton if I recall).
 
Let's see...we've got a Republican controlled Congress, a Republican controlled Senate, and a Republican administration.
At what point do you suspect they're going to get to work on this 2nd Amendment thing they claim to care so much about? :rolleyes:
 
it ought to be remembered that Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg was suggested to klinton
Yes, let us remember who nominated Ginsberg and Stevens - Clinton.
We'll still have to see if Roberts and Alito are total yes men for the government or not
We won't have to wait to know that they'll be a million times better then Ginsberg and Stevens.

I note that you ignored my first two points, why is that?
 
Back to the original post. :p I think it is appropriate to recall these words from JAMES MADISON "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.":eek:
Additionall, look for the ostrosizing of BARR by the gwb admin. in the future.:D
 
The fact is that the Souder amendment was pulled in committee and the bush admin (which is constantly making it's wishes known to congressional conferees on every other bill) clearly did not care in the slightest.

Really! And you know this because YOU were present in the Oval Office when President Bush announced to the Congressional negotiators that he didn't care what they did?

Talk about absurd!:rolleyes:

Also, it ought to be remembered that Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg was suggested to klinton by alleged republican Orrin Hatch...

Not quite. When Clinton mentioned Ginsburg to Orin Hatch, Sen. Hatch stated that the Republicans would not object to her nomination. BIG difference. It seems that Republicans, unlike Democrats, believe that when the American people elect a President, that President gets to pick the court nominees HE desires. How novel!
 
Back
Top