Blog

Townhall

by Bob Barr

What makes a mass shooter capable of emotionless, indiscriminate killing remains largely a mystery. Such a depraved act is not within the normal programming of a human being, not even for most hardened criminals. We may never truly understand all the factors, both physiological and environmental, that turn angry people into mass killers, but there is much we do know and can figure out, if common sense is our guide.

Since the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, the mass shooting phenomenon has been intensively studied by experts in a number of disciplines, from law enforcement to sociology and psychiatry. The research has revealed patterns and understandings that have led to life-saving techniques for responding to mass shootings, such as law enforcement confronting the shooters quickly rather than waiting for a tactical approach, and implementing threat assessment protocols to identify at-risk individuals and get them needed help before reaching a tipping point.

Noticeably absent from this school of research is any evidence of a pattern regarding the firearms used to commit these killings – a point hopelessly lost on Democrats. Rather than attempt to tackle the far more complex cultural and social issues at the root of mass shootings, the answer for Democrats is always more gun control; even when such crimes occur, as often they do, in jurisdictions that already have in place extremely restrictive gun control measures. Democrats’ persistence on gun control as a response to mass killings is not just perplexing, but counterproductive and downright stupid.

With all we do know about mass shootings, there simply is no excuse for Democrats to play dumb when it comes to the irrelevancy of their gun control proposals to the reality of these heinous acts. For example, despite pretending otherwise, Democrats know that universal background checks will not stop mass shooters when there are no “disqualifying” factors present at the time of purchase – as is the case with the vast majority of mass shooters, who obtain their firearms legally.

Another favorite Democrat “solution” that, of course, is a government mandate, are “cooling off” periods. This represents yet another gun-control measure that cannot possibly work to prevent mass shootings, which often are planned over weeks and even months.

Finally, there is the call for an “assault weapon ban” that always follows close on the heels of every mass shooting incident. Arguing that the horrific social malady of mass shootings could be cured by banning certain firearms because of their appearance makes as much sense as claiming that child pornography can be prevented by outlawing certain types of cameras.

The only result of outlawing any particular category of firearms because of their appearance (such as the AR-15 rifle, the most popular sporting rifle in the country) would be to push these killers to use pistols instead, which have proven to be just as deadly.

Democrats know all of these things, but simply do not care because their real goal is to take as many guns out of as many hands as possible, including, of course, those of law-abiding parents, spouses, business owners and others who depend on being able to arm themselves to protect themselves, their families, and their businesses. Such persistence is not just dumb, it is dangerous.

What we do know about mass shootings suggests the biggest factor in limiting their damage is how quickly shooters are confronted, either by police or citizen bystanders. The FBI concluded exactly this after surveying 50 active-shooter incidents from 2016 to 2017. In its report, the Bureau stated that, “the enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

By disarming law-abiding citizens in the name of preventing mass shootings, Democrats are directly contradicting what the FBI suggests needs to happen in order to minimize the carnage, and also could potentially make these tragedies far less common as potential mass killers, being the cowards they are, realize that what they thought to be soft targets are actually anything but.

Republicans need to discard their normal default position on the firearms policy debate, which is conflict avoidance, and call out Democrats for just what they are doing by pressing for gun control as the solution to mass shootings — making the problem worse not better.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

When the sitting president of the United States closets himself and refuses to appear publicly or to personally articulate his policies except when pressured to do so, people notice. When a president of the United States fumbles and mumbles publicly to the degree that what he is saying borders on undecipherable, people notice. When a sitting American president publicly disparages his own country, people notice. When America’s national security policies are delivered as indecisive, weak and apologetic, people notice.

When a U.S. president behaves in such ways, it is not only people in America who notice. Leaders of other nations, including key allies and major adversaries alike, take note also.

Weakness and vacillation may carry a political price domestically for a president, costing him and his political allies votes. More important, however, that same perception of weakness and inconsistency comes with a price abroad, and in terms of national security the price can be far more dangerous.

While President Biden may be comfortable saying little and doing even less, governing as an absentee president places our country in a decidedly uncomfortable posture abroad.

On the world stage, where since the demise of the Soviet Union three decades ago, the United States has reigned as the only true superpower, the absence of leadership is seen as weakness. If you are perceived as weak, you will be challenged accordingly.

As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and many others have understood, a nation’s bargaining power to negotiate with other nations is based as much on how it is perceived by others as on its inherent power. A nation’s posture will be diminished in direct proportion to the degree it is seen as weak or indecisive, even if that weakness is based on its internal policies and priorities more than its actual diplomatic and military policy initiatives.

In the case of the Biden administration, however, the weakness is real, and is being openly telegraphed to at least one of our major adversaries – China.

Just last week, for example, in response to a question posed to Secretary of State Tony Blinken at a public forum, he stated that the United States is “not standing against China.” Now, either the president no longer considers China an adversary of the United States, or he does but is afraid to irritate Beijing by directly intimating such. Either way, the statement is deeply troubling insofar as it telegraphs weakness and hesitancy to the Chinese government.

By any real measure China is an adversary of ours and is openly challenging us on every index according to which national power is measured – geographic, technologic, economic and military.

As politics among nations is practiced in the real world if you do not “stand against” your adversaries, you are considered to have backed away, which most decidedly is not the position from which you want to be dealing with major world powers like China and Russia. Blinken’s timid statement vis-à-vis China followed his defensive posturing at a meeting in Alaska with his Chinese counterpart just a few days earlier. And while not directed at Russia, the weakness the Secretary of State portrayed assuredly was heard by Vladimir Putin, who understands the rules of the game even if Biden does not.

To be lectured at by Chinese officials, as was Blinken in Alaska, should have been met by a rhetorical blast clearly heard not only in Beijing, but also in Pyongyang, Tehran and Moscow. Yet, it was met by silence which, here again, in the international arena will be seen and responded to as weakness.

Already, the regime in Tehran is demanding that the United States, not Iran, must “come back to compliance” with the nuclear deal that Iran itself already had broken. Putin meanwhile is verbally challenging Biden after the U.S. President’s childish and unnecessary statement to a reporter that Putin is a “killer.”

Meanwhile, as our adversaries around the globe are flexing their muscles and challenging the Biden Administration, our Secretary of Defense appears fixated on LGBTQ policies in the ranks of our armed forces.

It is in just such unsettling circumstances that mistakes are made, and, unlike domestic political gaffes, national security blunders and misperceptions often lead to conflict and even war.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

FullMAGnews by Bob Barr In the United States, where the Constitution is — or is supposed to be — the supreme law of the land, two things are true. Police, tasked with upholding the law, have the right to do what is necessary to secure control of a situation in order to protect themselves and others. Equally important, however, is that police officers afford due recognition of and respect for the fundamental, natural right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms at home and outside the home. Balancing these rights and responsibilities is not always easy, especially in times of unrest and, as now, when increasing gun control is placing additional obstacles in the way. Ideally, when these two truths come to a head, the situation is resolved peaceably and without altercation, which is how the vast majority of cases are resolved. Unfortunately, when the situation falls short of this ideal, the result can be injury or death to citizens and at times to police officers themselves. Worse still, such tragic outcomes are increasingly common as gun rights in America are put to the test like never before. For the sake of the nation, the lives of our brave men and women in blue, and the future of gun rights in America, it is imperative that the police and Second Amendment citizens must work together to reverse this unsettling trend. Although Second Amendment conservatives and racial justice activists rarely see eye-to-eye, not least of all because of the outright anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter, recent incidents that have stoked the anger of these groups should also cause conservatives generally to pause and pay attention to what is going on. Behind the click-bait headlines and incessant anti-gun progressive propaganda, the deaths of black citizens like Breonna Taylor, Corey Jones, and Philando Castile highlight the tragic consequences when the give-and-take of Second Amendment rights versus the duties of police becomes unbalanced. Taylor died last March during a botched police raid that unfolded under questionable circumstances as police returned fire to a single shot fired by Taylor’s boyfriend from inside the apartment, who thought their apartment was being broken into and robbed. Jones was a concealed weapons permit holder shot by a plainclothes police officer who approached him from an unmarked vehicle while Jones waited on the side of the road for a tow truck late at night. Castile happened to be driving a vehicle stopped by police and was inexplicably shot by officers after calmly notifying them that he was lawfully carrying a firearm. While these are extreme examples, and all involved questionable police officer conduct that fell short of the overall high standards demanded of law enforcement, they demonstrate what can happen in the absence of sound training and proper respect for citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. To be sure, police officers in general still reflect robust respect for the Second Amendment. However, particularly in more urban areas where far-Left activists have either been elected sheriff or have risen to leadership posts in police departments, results can be very different. This makes sound police training for encounters with armed citizens even more critical; importantly, this training should include focusing on plainly and unambiguously directing citizens how to safely secure their firearms during an encounter. Also, however, citizens must be respectful of, and toward police officers. To this end, there must be immediate and absolute compliance in following their precise instructions. Even if a citizen believes he or she is in the right, the time for protest comes after the situation is de-escalated, not during. When police and citizens treat each other with respect and understanding, there is no reason for violent escalation. However, if ambiguity, disrespect, mistake, or criminal action – by either side – disturbs the critical balance, the outcome can be, as we have recently seen, tragic. Although the radical gun control proposed by Democrats have placed a strain on this relationship, police and Second Amendment citizens need never forget they are natural allies in the fight for public safety and for Second Amendment rights. Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

In 1850, American author Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a novel in which the female protagonist was forced to wear a highly visible “scarlet letter” as a sign that she had committed a terrible sin (adultery). The term has ever since been used as shorthand for publicly stigmatizing someone who has done (or not done) something for which they should be ostracized or punished.

Now, more than 170 years after “The Scarlet Letter” was published, President Joe Biden, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and others are calling for a 21st Century scarlet letter (in this case a “C” for COVID), in the form of an electronic app attesting that the bearer has either received a COVID vaccine or has otherwise been deemed immunized to the virus.

Unlike the “A” that Hawthorne’s protagonist, Hester Prynne, was forced to display, the new-fangled “COVID Passport” works also in reverse, by identifying those who have not been immunized and are therefore to be denied admission to an event or service they might otherwise access.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats’ plan for a COVID ID is glaring.

Just last week, Biden blasted the governor and legislature of Georgia for mandating that absentee voters must show a valid ID in order to receive a ballot. There were other measures included in the legislative package, but the ID requirement caused the loudest howl by Biden and other Democrats who claimed it was “racist” in its intent, and in practice would “suppress” the minority vote.

In a word, requiring a person to show a valid ID in order to obtain a benefit, here an absentee ballot, was, in the view of the President of the United States and many others in his party, “racist,” a reverse scarlet letter if you will.

So much for consistency. What is “racist” one day is not so the next day, depending, of course, on who or which political party is advocating for an identification requirement.

More importantly, there are the privacy concerns that underlie – or certainly should underlie – the use of an electronic tag or “passport” (as advocates for proof of COVID immunity like to call it).

Hester Prynne was forced to display her Scarlet A on her outer clothing. COVID passport advocates are more sophisticated, or cagey, in this regard, and propose to rely on a type of electronic talisman that would be read or discoverable by a government agency or private business serving as a gatekeeper, to deny entry to undesirables. “Undesirables” in this context would be individuals who do not meet the criteria set by the government to be considered COVID-safe.

Not surprisingly, New York appears to be the first state actually to have begun implementing a COVID “passport.” Cuomo has even come up with a cute name for the app – the “Excelsior Pass.” Sounds so impressive there almost certainly will be some New Yorkers who sign up simply to be a member of such a rarefied class of “Excelsior” designees. Cuomo has – with a straight face, even – assured every holder of the pass that their privacy will be protected.

Despite assurances from Empire State officials that people who opt to sign up for the new app will be guaranteed that their personal and medical information that necessarily has to be inputted into the app will be protected, clearly, there is no way this will be the case. In order for the system to work as advertised, there has to be a link between the holder of the app (the “COVID-free” person) and the business he or she wants to access; whether a concert at Madison Square Garden, dinner at a five-star restaurant, or entrance to a government building. There is no way that with such links being accessed every time the Excelsior Pass holder elects to use the app, their privacy can be secured, whether at the point of access or at the database(s) where the information is maintained.

Already, Silicon Valley behemoths, including Microsoft and Oracle, are chomping at the bit to be part of the COVID passport system(s) that the Biden Administration is developing. These and other corporations, such as Walmart, are members of a “Vaccine Credential Initiative” working to ensure that “health information” belonging to users of the apps these companies develop and own, will be “feely and safely accessible.” That pretty much says it all.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

While age may have slowed Jesse Jackson’s political activities (he is nearly 80 years old), the strategy he launched in the early 1980s of using race as a lever to pressure corporations into donating money to causes he championed lives on, with renewed vigor in today’s hyper-partisan political environment. Truly, no sporting event or business is safe from becoming a racial football.

In Georgia, the 85^th Masters Golf Tournament, which has withstood charges of racism and sexism in recent years, now is under attack not for anything it has done (or not done), but simply because the governor of the state in which it is located last week signed legislation making the state’s voting procedures more secure. That act alone was enough to initiate calls by Black Lives Matter groups and others to both boycott and move the venerable tournament out of Augusta, Georgia.

Baseball, which historically was considered America’s apolitical national pastime, now also is in the crosshairs of these same groups for the very same reason. The annual All-Star game, scheduled to be played this summer at the Atlanta Braves stadium in a suburb of the city long considered the “Capitol of the New South,” is being targeted for boycott and transfer to a stadium in another state.

For now, at least, neither batting averages nor handicaps define professional sports in America, only race.

This actually is nothing new since racial activists five years ago discovered that disrespecting the playing of our National Anthem prior to professional sporting events garnered them significant publicity. What is new, however, is the widening scope of activities that now trigger calls for boycotts, and the vehemence that accompanies such demands.

Not only has the recent changes to Georgia’s voting laws spawned demands to move these major sporting events (and movie productions) out of the state, but calls also have been issued by left-wing groups to boycott some of the Peach State’s most iconic products and services, including Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines.

These targeted corporations have themselves done nothing to warrant the ire of BLM or any other civil rights groups; quite the contrary. Coca Cola and Delta, for example, have for years been committed to, and demonstrably instituted the very principles of “diversity and equity” that these activist groups demand. The companies apparently are targeted for boycott simply because they are headquartered in Georgia and are not publicly demanding that the just-passed voting reform legislation be repealed.

The blatantly unfair demand that the new laws be rescinded is not going to be met, at least anytime soon, but the corporations may very well bow to the demands by offering concessions, like increased donations to BLM and clones and to Democrat candidates in the coming 2022 and 2024 election cycles, and perhaps further changes to hiring and promotion practices.

These tactics reflect the 21^st century version of what writers and researchers have called the long-running “intimidation and shakedown tactics” of Jesse Jackson; honed to near-perfection by charging racism in order to secure payments to his self-styled civil rights organization, the “Rainbow Push Coalition” (and other groups with which he has been associated) as far back as the early 1980s. Al Sharpton emulated Jackson’s tactics through his “National Action Network.”

Examined objectively, the legislation recently signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp actually has nothing to do with race. The measures simply tighten procedures to ensure that opportunities for fraud in balloting is minimized to a degree beyond what prevailed in the November 2020 general and January 5^th Senate run-off elections. But the mere fact that the new laws require voters to show an ID before receiving an absentee ballot, now is enough to demand harsh penalties on businesses and sporting events in the state; actions that by some analyses, will wind up harming the very people BLM, for example, claims to champion.

Ultimately, whether such heavy-handed and ill-placed intimidation tactics will succeed in changing the political makeup of the government in Georgia (and in other states being targeted), will be decided by next year’s voters. Voter capitulation to such blatant economic and political extortion would deeply undermine – perhaps for generations — the unique brand of federalism and representative democracy that is one of our nation’s core strengths.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Old English law, transported to the United States centuries ago, holds that “a man’s home is his castle” and may be protected against unwanted entry except in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court of the United States has now taken under advisement a case from Rhode Island that could significantly weaken that protection.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution enshrines the “castle doctrine” as it relates to one’s home, by requiring the police to obtain a warrant before they may lawfully enter that domicile and seize evidence. There are, of course, exceptions to this warrant requirement, and the Rhode Island case, on which the Supreme Court heard arguments just this week, is but the latest in a continuing effort by state police agencies to expand those warrant exceptions.

As with most every case that finds its way to the High Court, this latest one (the facts of which actually occurred six years ago, in August 2015) presents a reasonable, if not persuasive argument for the government — at least on the surface. The local police were called by the wife of the homeowner, one Edward Caniglia, because she was concerned that, following an argument the previous day, he might harm her or himself with one of the two handguns he owned lawfully and kept in their home.

The police came and reportedly told Caniglia they would confiscate his firearms unless he agreed to be taken to a local hospital for a mental evaluation. Based apparently on the officers’ pressure, Mr. Caniglia was transported to a hospital for such an evaluation, which concluded he did not pose any threat. However, while he was away and being evaluated the police decided to enter his house without a warrant and confiscated his handguns and ammunition; refusing for months thereafter to return them.

Lower federal courts upheld the legitimacy of the police actions, and Caniglia appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the nine Justices is whether police are justified in entering a home and seizing a homeowner’s lawfully possessed firearms without first securing a warrant establishing probable cause that such invasive action is necessary, even though, as in Caniglia’s case, the police had more than sufficient time to try and secure a warrant, and there was no evidence any crime had been committed.

The warrant exception on which Rhode Island is basing its case, is a narrowly drawn doctrine that previously had been allowed to permit police to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles in order to protect the public in a “caretaking” capacity after a traffic stop, for example, and not necessarily to look for evidence of a crime. Extending such a vague doctrine to a person’s home is a giant leap and brought together otherwise divergent groups including the ACLU and the American Conservative Union Foundation, which both filed briefs opposing Rhode Island’s broad assertion of warrantless search and seizure power.

This case predates the recent spate of so-called “Red Flag” laws adopted by several states that allow police or private parties to obtain court orders to confiscate a person’s firearms at least temporarily, based on testimony that the person poses an imminent threat of serious harm to themselves or others. However, Caniglia’s case highlights the problems inherent in such “anticipatory” seizures of lawfully owned firearms.

The case also may reveal whether former President Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees – Neil Gorsuch and Bret Kavanaugh – will be willing to stake out a position in support of both the Fourth and Second Amendments. If so, they likely would join with Clarence Thomas, who has long urged his colleagues to stand up for both provisions in the Bill of Rights. The Court’s most recent Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, has not yet participated in a such an important individual liberties case since joining the Court last year, but her record in support of Second Amendment rights is well-known. The fifth vote in such a majority likely would be Justice Sam Alito, who authored the 2010 McDonald opinion which held that the Second Amendment protects not a “collective” right but an individual right to keep and bear arms in all 50 states.

Without at least a five-vote majority, both the Fourth and Second Amendments will emerge far weaker than they are even now.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Democrats are sniffing glue and reading the New York Times again. How else can one explain their reduction of the deeply complex and innately subhuman act of slaughtering eight individuals to a run-of-the-mill “hate” crime, on par with screaming racial slurs at a passerby on the sidewalk? It is an explanation so sophomoric that it borders on irresponsibly stupid.

No act of mass murder is an ordinary crime, whether fueled by anger, passion or psychosis. Intentionally murdering innocent strangers requires a detachment from basic humanity that is not an attribute common to the vast majority of criminals. Comprehending how an individual arrives psychologically at such a dark depth is a key to preventing similar tragedies in the future.

Progress in understanding such horrific criminal behavior, however, grinds to a halt when a key stakeholder refuses to scratch even a micron below the surface of the overt acts. Worse still, in the case of last week’s murders at massage parlors in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, Democrats have displayed actual hostility toward those who delve beneath the surface, when facts and analysis begin to contradict their simplistic narrative. As cultural commentator Jon Stokes recently noted on Twitter, it “isn’t just the incuriosity, but the .  .  .  anti-curiosity” that strikes him as particularly troublesome with the Democrats’ reaction to the Atlanta shootings. “You’re just supposed to say ‘amen’” and move on.

Consider Georgia’s newly elected, far-Left Sen. Raphael Warnock, who clapped back at the FBI last weekend when the agency suggested the Atlanta shooting did not appear to be racially motivated. Warnock’s un-inquisitive explanation for the murders was simply, “we all know hate when we see it.”

Which narrative is more likely to be played endlessly in the mainstream media echo chamber, thus filtering down to a population as lazy as the media when it comes to fact-finding? The one daring to suggest that America suffers from a deep and multi-faceted cultural sickness that generates far too many mass murderers, or the one that immediately goes off on the usual tangents about COVID, former President Donald Trump, and, of course, racism?

In this minimalist world view, police violence occurs because black lives don’t matter; mass shootings happen because of the Second Amendment; and bad schools are the result of insufficient funding. A high school debate club would have its way with congressional Democrats if this were the extent to which they are willing to go in penetrating America’s most troubling social and economic problems.

It does not stop with the quality of debate, either. The so-called “solutions” emerging from this superficial perspective are, and will remain, equally vacuous and counterproductive.

Consider how “defund the police” became a rallying cry of “woke” progressives last year following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Catchy as the slogan may have been with rioters, reframing justice reform behind such an insipid, irrational objective undermined years of coalition building between liberal and conservative stakeholders working for criminal justice reform; a hard-fought process that resulted in Trump signing the historic First Step Act in 2018.

Enacting similar bipartisan legislation today would be impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Democrat leaders assiduously avoid ruffling feathers of the progressive scolds within their ranks whose explanation for virtually every problem we face is “systemic racism.” We will be no closer to finding an answer to mass shootings if Democrats continue their identity politics chest-thumping in response to the Atlanta spa murders.

It is in a sense, understandable for people to seek neat, tidy and superficially logical explanations to illogical and inhuman behavior. Thus, “the shooter hated Asians” as answer to the question of how or why a young man would go on a killing rampage at an Asian spa because of alleged sex and pornography addiction, soothes the craving for simplicity. It is – or certainly should be — the responsibility of those in positions of power and knowledge to look beyond such assumptions, not repeat them mindlessly.

It matters little whether Democrat leaders deep down know this but choose to act contrarily or have dumbed themselves down to such a degree they no longer are able to separate fact from their own spin. Either explanation is equally unproductive and indeed, dangerous.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

For those concerned with becoming a victim of today’s raging “Cancel Culture,” there is a rather simple solution: be born perfect. Actually, be born perfect, live a perfect life, and never run afoul of the unwritten, constantly changing, and haphazardly enforced rules determined by an anonymous committee of self-appointed social media scolds. Or, maybe it is not so simple.

It is easy to make light of the obviously impossible standards liberals have set for acceptable thoughts, speech, and actions; to the point where liberals now are cancelling one another. Nevertheless, beyond this absurdity lies a less obvious and quiescent trait of the Cancel Culture – a depressingly pessimistic view of humanity.

It would be one thing if this gloomy construct were about nothing more than exacting control over the public square; but the movement’s insatiable bloodlust has taken victims who dared make the mistake of putting even just a toe into the spotlight in any forum.

In 2019, Carson King’s ESPN College Game Day sign asking for beer money donations went viral and turned into a million-dollar fundraiser for University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. In today’s toxic and unforgiving culture, this was a mortal sin. Aaron Calvin, at the time a reporter for the Des Moines Register, quickly “discovered” tweets from King from seven years before, when he was just 16 years-old which, when taken out of time and context were considered by some to be “racist.” That was that. King was canceled and publicly humiliated.

In the span of 10 days, King went from anonymous sign guy to million-dollar fundraiser, to “canceled” when, as he puts it, circumstances out of his control “make your life very public.” In a statement on Twitter, King responded to the vicious hero-to-zero Cancel Culture outrage by making the requisite mea culpa, that he “cannot go back and change what [he] posted when [he] was a 16-year-old,” but that he can “apologize and work to improve every day and make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.” Of course, it was too late even for such debasement to afford him cover.

We always knew “woke” scolds were humorless, but what happened to King shows us they also loathe virtually everything that makes humans such amazing creatures – imagination, intellect, vision, even compassion.

Eighteenth Century English poet Alexander Pope wrote, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” Today’s Cancel Culture misses wide on both. Its standard of conduct is based on a ridiculous notion that humans are born into this world as perfect progressive mouthpieces, even though the rules for what is acceptable change with the winds. Furthermore, there is nary a hint of mercy or understanding in the viciousness with which they will make anyone, from celebrity to private citizen, a public example when failing to meet this impossible standard.

No individual remains exactly as they were 10 years prior, much less as a child or young adult. Experience and knowledge gained through the years invariably shapes who we are and how we see the world. It is why as adults we do not eat ice cream for breakfast or still believe in Santa Claus. To be held to belief systems of what is essentially a lifetime ago, is as cruel as it is nonsensical.

What a depressing perspective on humanity this world view presents –seeing people as inflexible, linear beings incapable of change, no matter how awful or wrongheaded one’s behavior or mindset might once have been. If Cancel Culture’s outlook on human development is accurate, then what is the point of engaging in any intellectual exploration, debate, or even politics for that matter, since the objective of all such endeavors is to both learn and to change the minds of the other side? According to Cancel Culture cops this is not possible, so why even try.

With such a warped view of the human condition, it is no wonder that wherever Cancel Culture goes, misery follows; it is all they know. For denizens of this unhappy world, the principle in our Declaration of Independence that we must be free to engage in the “pursuit of Happiness” no longer has meaning.

FullMAGnews

by Bob Barr

For decades conservatives and law enforcement considered each other cultural allies, united in a common appreciation – and respect – for law and order. Today, this relationship is being strained, in some instances to the breaking point, and, as I discuss in a recent white paper published at The Heritage Foundation, the modern era of gun control is much to blame.

That gun control serves as a flashpoint for this rift should not surprise. As reflected in laws and regulatory mandates, gun control requires enforcement, which is a responsibility that by and large falls to the police. By enacting increasingly intrusive gun control measures, liberal politicians are forcing police to take actions that put them at odds, if not on a collision course, with gun owners. This might manifest itself in the enforcement of “extreme risk protection orders” (ERPOs) also known as “Red Flag Laws,” or rounding up newly banned sporting rifles — an increasingly likely possibility if Republicans fail to take seriously signals by many Democrat leaders to do just that.

Results of these pressure points have been a mix of encouragement, and disappointment.

When Virginia Democrats gained total control of the Commonwealth following the 2019 elections, one of their first major acts was introducing sweeping gun control bills in the General Assembly. Extreme as they enacted measures were, ranging from monthly purchase limits to universal background checks, they were less far-reaching than what was initially planned. This was due largely to the backlash from not just citizens, but from county sheriffs as well, who promised to turn their counties into “gun sanctuaries” by refusing to enforce laws that ran afoul of the Second Amendment.

For gun rights, this was a huge win. It demonstrated that when the “law” in “law and order” directly contradicts the most supreme law of the land — the United States Constitution — many local sheriffs could still be reliable allies in protecting gun rights; or, at least, those law enforcement officials occupying positions answerable to citizens, not the bureaucracy (as are most police chiefs). This distinction makes all the difference.

While rural sheriffs have stood bravely on the front line defending the Second Amendment, law enforcement leaders in major cities largely have been comfortably on the other side of the battle. Take, for instance, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who argued for increased “red flag law” powers by questioning whether city officials stood with the gun lobby “or the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day?” Then there is Scott Israel, the former Sheriff of Broward County in Florida, who was in charge during the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Israel has been repeating the time-worn gun-control myth, that more armed citizens would “make the job of law enforcement far more difficult and divert them from the real threat.”

These clearly are not the allies in law enforcement that conservatives want or need. They do, however, reflect a troubling philosophical shift among many law enforcement officials siding not with law-abiding citizens in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, but with left-wing politicians pinning their hopes (and taxpayer dollars) on ever-increasing government control over that fundamental right.

The comments from Acevedo and Israel capture perfectly the complicated dynamic between Second Amendment conservatives and law enforcement.

Whereas the Second Amendment reflects an individual’s natural right to self-defense, police see this as their responsibility, and their responsibility alone. They remain protective of this duty, often to the detriment of Second Amendment rights. In fact, as Acevedo’s hyperbolic blustering suggests, they see guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens as fundamentally dangerous.

This attitude comes with consequence. First, law enforcement leaders are increasingly moving from silently serving in the background of policy debates, into using a very public bully pulpit from which to push greater gun control measures. And, in states that require permit approvals from police officials, some have even abused their role in this process to chill gun rights, simply by “slow-walking” the process.

Secondly, this attitude has resulted in increasingly contentious situations between armed citizens and police, which unfortunately has resulted in unnecessary injury and occasionally death. The real tragedy here is that in American society where the Second Amendment is afforded the due respect its history and fundamental meaning deserve, such confrontations should never occur. More on this to come.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

It was only a matter of time. We knew it was coming – gun control.

Newly installed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has long advocated for limits on the right of citizens to own guns, so has Speaker Nancy Pelosi; and Vice President Kamala Harris always has been a cheerleader for gun control. Who can forget then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in 2020 publicly declaring he might, if elected, make extreme gun control advocate “Beto” O’Rourke his “gun czar.”

The waiting is over. The battle for the Second Amendment is underway in earnest, and the GOP had better be prepared to do serious battle or they (and the American people) will have their constitutional pocket picked clean.

Last week, House Democrats sent two bills to the Senate. Measures that enthrall the gun control crowd, not by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms but by making it significantly harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns for self-defense or other lawful purposes.

Both bills — H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 – come with the time-worn gun control label as “common sense” measures designed solely to close “loopholes” in the National Instant Background Check System. While the “NICS” system has not worked perfectly (what federal program has?), it has served surprisingly well for more than two decades at preventing sales of firearms to individuals prohibited by law from possessing them. Regardless, gun control advocates have been looking for ways to expand it ever since it was first passed by Congress in 1993.

In fact, neither H.R. 8 nor H.R. 1446 are benign “reform” measures.

H.R. 1446, the “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021,” is the more insidious of the pair. While pretending to do nothing more than extend the current legal time period available for the FBI (which administers NICS) to deny a proposed firearm sale from three business days to 10, its actual result would be to extend such time period for up to one month or more. During that time, a lawful applicant might remain defenseless against a stalker, deranged ex-spouse or another threatening individual.

Before NICS was passed in 1993, the Congress recognized that unless there was a strict time limit for gun purchase approvals, federal bureaucrats could “slow walk” applicants indefinitely; thus, the three-business day limit after which a gun retailer could legally complete the gun purchase even if not yet formally okayed by the FBI. However, in the latest move by the House, that bureaucratic “safe harbor” would extend far longer, possibly indefinitely. The result would be to significantly if not fatally undermine the ability of many gun purchasers to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right perhaps when they need it most.

The companion bill passing the House last week, H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” is the Holy Grail of the gun control movement – Universal Background Checks. The intent of this bill, unlike the more opaque H.R. 1446, is clear. It would, with few exceptions (such as some gifts from one spouse to the other spouse) require that private transfers of firearms must fully comply with the same NICS process with which all sales from a licensed gun dealer now must comply.

The blind spot in all this is the “common sense” fact that these new procedures (which had been considered and rejected as overly broad and constitutionally problematic when considered by the Congress 28 years ago) will not stop individuals intent on obtaining and using firearms for unlawful purposes.

Even as the Congress now is fast-tracking the legislative gun control agenda, Biden appears ready to start using executive powers with the same goal in mind. One measure apparently under active consideration would be to return control over lawful export of firearms back to the bureaucratically heavy and liberally minded State Department, and strip the power from the Commerce Department where Trump had set it

All this is but a taste of what is certain to come in the months ahead as Pelosi, Schumer, and Harris busy themselves with directing steps to carry out Biden’s well-known desire to strip law-abiding citizens and businesses of ways by which they are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  If the Republican Party and its representatives in the Congress fail to articulate clearly what such measures will really do, and if they fail to vigorously fight against all such measures, when the dust settles before the 2022 elections, our Second Amendment will emerge as but a skeleton of its intended and former self.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.