William Barr: “The Single Most Important Thing We Can Do In Gun Control”
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 11 months ago
(CNSNews.com) – “In 1994, you said that gun control is a dead end,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Attorney General-nominee William Barr at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
“Do you still believe that prudent controls on weapons won’t reduce violent crime?” Feinstein, a staunch gun control advocate, asked him.
“I think that the problem of our time is to get an effective system in place that can keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people,” Barr replied.
That is — should be priority number one. And it’s going to take some hard work. And we need to get on top of the problem. We need to come up with agreed-to standards that are prohibitors of people who are mentally ill. We have to put the resources in to get the system built up the way we did many years ago on the felon records and so forth.
We have to get the system working. And as I say, it’s sort of piecemeal a little bit right now. We need to really get some energy behind it and get it done.
And I also think we need to push along the ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders), so we have these red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check to find out if someone has some mental disturbance. This is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area to stop these massacres from happening in the first place.
Later, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked Barr to update Congress on his view of the Second Amendment.
Barr said that even before the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which upheld the individual right to bear arms, he believed that was so.
“I personally concluded that the Second Amendment creates a personal right under the Constitution,” Barr said.
It’s based on the Lockean notion of the right of self-preservation. It’s tied to that. And I was glad that — to see Heller come out and vindicate that initial view that I had. And so there’s no question under Heller that the right to have weapons is — firearms, is protected under the Second Amendment and is a personal right. At the same time, there’s room for reasonable regulation.
And you know, from my standpoint, what I would look for is — in assessing a regulation is, what’s the burden on law-abiding people? And is it proportionate to whatever benefit in terms of safety and effectiveness will be conferred?
As I said just a moment ago, let’s get down to the real problem we’re confronting, which is keeping these weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. And I think all the rest of this stuff is really essentially rhetoric until we really get that problem dealt with, in terms of regulatory approaches.
Readers are advised to study every word of his testimony. And then do it again. This is very important.
Sessions was probably owned by the deep state in some manner or other, but in any event he was just stolid and dense. He focused his energies on making sure we had huge resources devoted to combatting marijuana. Barr seems much more smarter, and therefore much more dangerous.
As to whether the founders believed they were following the enlightenment and John Locke as opposed to the Apostle Paul and John Calvin, I cannot say. Men much smarter than me – R. J. Rushdoony, C. Gregg Singer and Douglas Kelly – have engaged in detailed debates about that, and I encourage you to read their analyses rather than listen to me. It’s likely based on what I know that there was a sufficient mix of enlightenment thinkers and Calvinists that each side could claim credit for what’s in the constitution, and it was the best compromise they could come up with given the makeup of the group.
As to the actual right to self preservation, I claim, without apology, that neither you nor I have such a right outside of the decrees of God stipulated in the Holy Writ. And it’s there in clear detail, so yes, we have that right. The right of self defense and defense of home and hearth lies in the decrees and therefore in the nature of God. It is ensconced firmly there, not in the second amendment. The constitution is a covenant between men, not a source of anything, much less human rights.
But according to Barr, there’s “room reasonable regulation.” Regulation decided by men, running counter to God’s holy decrees if necessary. And according to Barr, it’s necessary if the benefit to public safety outweighs whatever right a judge or politician says you have.
Red flag laws. Trump likely knew all about Barr’s views before nominating him. Barr will also likely give high priority to finding passage of such laws as constitutional. He’ll put his best lawyers on it. He’ll also work hard to come up with lists of “prohibited persons,” and who knows at this time what a prohibited person will look like?
He defers to community witch doctors deciding the fate of God-given rights based on “mental illness,” when it’s been demonstrated over and over again that mental illness, whatever that is, has nothing whatsoever to do with propensity to violence. So he believes in myths and is willing to use the force of the DoJ to back up his beliefs.
These are dangerous times, and I predict Trump’s nominee will end up being one of the biggest threats to 2A rights in American history if he stays in his position. Obama managed to do virtually nothing to restrict gun rights compared to Trump and his cabinet. All with the approval of the NRA folks in Fairfax, VA.
|
|
On January 17, 2019 at 10:03 pm, BRVTVS said:
To me, Barr is disqualified based on his defense of the government assassin, Lon Horiochi, after Ruby Ridge. That makes him evil. Of course anyone who thinks government agents should have a license to kill would also support gun control. I posted this link before, but I’m sharing it again because I think this is so very fundamental to discerning his deviant character. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/william-barrs-connection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/
On January 17, 2019 at 11:22 pm, Saint Mike said:
Once again, Donald J Trump will be a one term president.
He has done nothing , absolutely nothing to push back against all the gun control madness running rampant in the media, State legislations, etc.
Oh wait, he did ban Bumpstocks . clown.
On January 18, 2019 at 8:42 am, Bram said:
I’m still baffled as to why Trump wants this guy as his AG. In general, not just on gun stuff. He’s been in DC way too long to be trusted on anything.
On January 18, 2019 at 10:15 am, H said:
Bram: Barr wrote an article in favor of Trump’s legal position on Russiagate. And people potentially on Trump’s side have seen how he can’t or won’t protect them from the Deep State, who wants to go to jail for doing the right thing for a weak or ungrateful man?
On January 19, 2019 at 8:00 am, Talktome said:
So, basically anyone acceptable to the political class must be anti liberty. Within the political class, they subdivide on whether you are cool with murdering the unborn or not. All the other hot button issues, they agree on – immigration, 2A infringement, censorship, 2 justice systems, increased taxation, unplayable debt loads, increasing giveaways…
On January 19, 2019 at 8:56 am, SheepDog said:
The politically elite [including Trump] are all trending on infringement of our 2A rights at all levels of government. They will continue to eat away at the 2A with their unconstitutional laws, regulations, and court opinions.
Make no mistake, this will all come down to one determining factor. Will we let them?
On January 19, 2019 at 11:02 am, dad29 said:
Whoever is “advising” Trump on personnel selection should be shot at dawn.
Personnel-selection was also Scott Walker’s principal fault, and it’s one of the reasons (although a minor one) that he lost last year.
On January 19, 2019 at 11:26 am, H said:
dad29: Why ever for? Is there the slightest sign Barr is not fully aligned with Trump’s actual policies in office, which do not include draining the Swamp, and do include a great deal of gun grabbing?
Scott Walker lost all my support when it was revealed he wasn’t lifting a finger to help his supporters who were being persecuted with Gestapo raids and secret courts. Rather like Trump, who doesn’t care about how Antifa et. al. have been literally bloodying his supporters since 2016.
On January 19, 2019 at 12:22 pm, revjen45 said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/william-barrs-connection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/
So it looks like our new AG is a nominee for the Roland Freisler Award for Law in Service to the State. Basically, he believes that the Federal Pigs have the plenary right to kill peons as they see fit.
Not too far out of line with Freisler: i.e. that state sanctioned killings are not, by definition, murder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKiqHpbFz68
On January 19, 2019 at 6:56 pm, Doug said:
The HUGE misunderstanding is that the 2nd does not apply to EVERYONE.
Any who then go on to commit crimes with their arms face first the good people also armed and/or trial for their crime(s)
The regulatory attempts at “prevention”; Prior restraint and pre-emption merely impose restrictions and removal of Right from those who have done no wrong.
There will simply be an ever increasing number whom the “authorities” THINK should not have access to arms.
Any person at large in the Community who cannot be trusted with firearms cannot be trusted with out a keeper or be trusted to be in the community at all.
I reiterate – the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL – except those locked away to protect the community from their PROVED violent criminal proclivities.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum?
On January 19, 2019 at 8:26 pm, Pat Hines said:
@BRVTVS
That is enough for me to attempt to block Barr’s confirmation.
For other commenters, there’s no lack of knowledge or a misunderstanding about the right to self defense with any weapon. The communists, which is what all members of the Gun Confiscation Lobby are, know full well what the Second Amendment protects and who is protected by it. They don’t care. because they want to control us and will have a much harder time doing it with our being armed.
So my answer to them all is NO.
On January 20, 2019 at 6:56 am, DAN III said:
ALCON,
Who defines “mentally ill” ? The BATFE ?
On January 20, 2019 at 11:40 am, revjen45 said:
“Who defines “mentally ill” ? The BATFE ?” (Above)
No. The Mental Health Industry (MHI) charlatans do. They make up new shit as suits them, publish, revise, or delete it in the D&SM and ***VOILA!!*** a brand spankin’ new malady of the mind for them to exploit concomitant to the Progressive agenda. A chimo is not a malignant reprobate who should be flogged and hanged in public, but is afflicted with “age inappropriate affections” or some other such vacuous twaddle. Besides, the soul-wreckage produced as results of embracing the anything goes Weltanschauung of the Progressive agenda just creates more busy work for the MHI. After all, people who don’t cheat on their mates or engage in other such self-destructive conduct don’t perceive the need for the services of mind quacks.
On January 20, 2019 at 8:34 pm, BRVTVS said:
The late Rev. John Stormer devoted a chapter of his 1964 book, None Dare Call it Treason, to the communist plans for using mental health to silence those on the right. It’s a must read, IMHO.