Mr. Barr,
As WarOnGuns visitors were recently reminded, based on reporting by Gun Owners of America:
On September 28, 1996, you issued a memo on Congressional letterhead advocating:
The Lautenberg amendment with the Barr language is strong protection for women and children.On October 12, 1996, you sent a letter to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, claiming you "improved" the Lautenberg language so it could not be struck down by the courts, stating:
Under the Lautenberg language -- which was cleared up through my amendatory language that was adopted -- there was no consistent definition of "crime of domestic violence," and therefore the entire provision would have been declared unconstitutional. My language corrected this deficiency by setting forth the common elements of the crime that would apply to everyone.On Mar. 6, 1997, your editorial, "Don't Wink at Violence," was published in USA Today. In it, you wrote:
[Lautenberg] is important and worthwhile legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be reduced.Despite the fact you then voted for Lautenberg as part of an omnibus spending bill, there are those who would like to hear your reasoning. I'm among those.
But I think you need to go one step further. With the exception of your USA Today piece, which can be purchased individually (but not disseminated in total without violating copyright), the other referenced documents aren't accessible to scrutiny.
This issue will not go away, Mr. Barr--you will either address it directly, and explain yourself--or ignore it.
I challenge you to release and post the full text of your memo, your AJC letter, and your USA Today opinion piece, and let gun owners read your words for themselves. And I challenge the Libertarian Party to demand it of you as well.
6 comments:
This morning, true pro-Constitution pro-gun-rights presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke IN A PARK outside the Republican Convention. He will probably not be allocated five minutes DURING the convention or be mentioned at all. Will we who are willing to fight and die for freedom DARE to VOTE for freedom?
The LP has drunk too much pragmatic-flavored kool-aid to say anything against him.
The AJC, dont wait. I have always wondered if he was passing, cause I always saw him as one of us Brothers.
After Leave your comment it should say: "Speak now or forever hold your piece..." :)
Also, Bob Barr is the kind of candidate that wins after the philosophizing idiots repeatedly throw temper tantrums, excluding those who are 90% perfect in their philosophies but who also want to run an effective strategy, thus making their oh-so-perfect selves totally ineffective.
That said, Barr's not bad on gun rights, and he's also not going to be president. If he does well, we'll be able to put a solid libertarian like Wayne Root in office in 2012, because the LP will have ballot access.
Sure, Barr was just another crappy Republican while he was in office, and he was totally inconsistent. He still hasn't surrounded himself with people who really understand the philosophy of freedom, and he himself has oodles to learn. Nonetheless, it makes little sense not to support him this election. Either way, if you vote against him, you're either voting against your own rights, or you're voting for a Party totally compromised by theocratic beliefs (in the case of the Constitution Party).
Oh, bull, anonymous.
What you're giving us is the same pragmatic crap we get from the Republicans on why we must vote for McCain. You're telling us the LP is and should be no different.
And Wayne Root ain't no gun rights prize either. Nicki Fellenzer got the scoop on him some months ago and he was so ignorant on the issue he had to change his position.
"Solid." Good grief, go peddle that to people who haven't been following things.
As long as people like they--and you--represent the principles of the party, you deserve to remain poweless and obscure.
Regarding the alleged Intellectual Property--especially that claimed by an elected public official--consider the following:
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission directly from the copyright owner.
Post a Comment