Adam Kokesh Very Eloquently Defends Rand Paul

I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Wish I could watch that, good for Adam, I'm sure he does make a great argument for him.
Click to expand...
It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.
 
Sola_Fide said:
I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.
Click to expand...

That's what I get for just trying say something bland and "positive".

For the record...I agree.
 
green73 said:
Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?
Click to expand...
Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)
Click to expand...

Of course it will. Shooting at a drone will be equivalent to shooting at an officer, and lethal force will be employed.

There are so many ways in which this is indefensible. Adam is wrong on this imo, and simply naive.
 
Anti Federalist said:
That's what I get for just trying say something bland and "positive".

For the record...I agree.
Click to expand...
Lmao I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a rant and the majority wasn't directed towards you. My point of the post was pretty much to tell you Adam's argument since you said you were unable to watch it.

Sorry if it came off kind of dickish.

Another thing he said that I disagree with and imagine you do as well is that he is very much pro-drone. He loves the technology. I think the technology is cool in theory, but there are quite a few abuses that can occur. He mentioned being opposed to governments having them to commit violence such as in the Middle East and he was referring to here as well. I think that goes out the window when you give police the authority to use armed drones in the first place. It's undoubtedly going to be abused.

Oh, and Gold Standard's mundane was mentioned. Pretty soon 'mundane' will be in common usage. :D
 
So not being bothered by drones wasting robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store is cool? I'd write it off as a misspeak if I could, but I can't. Won me with the filibuster, lost me with more recent head shake worthy comments. Not a big deal, I am just one person. I can't stand pandering.
 
VoluntaryAmerican said:
Kokesh describing the shenanigans of Rand haters,

"A few knee-jerk reactions that weren't very well thought out."

Yep, sounds about right.
Click to expand...

What about the objections in this thread? Do they seem knee jerk to you? I think they are very legitimate.
 
Sola_Fide said:
Of course it will. Shooting at a drone will be equivalent to shooting at an officer, and lethal force will be employed.

There are so many ways in which this is indefensible. Adam is wrong on this imo, and simply naive.
Click to expand...

Does Adam think he can have a drone for protection? lol
 
kcchiefs6465 said:
Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)
Click to expand...


I can't imagine that it would be. It will probably be limited to situations that involve an imminent threat to human life. I'd hope so, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Dr. Rand Paul Joins Fox News to Talk Tariffs and Kentucky Bourbon
Replies
0
Views
946
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
ProBlue33
Rand Paul to Replace Mitch?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
G
Sen. Rand Paul Calls for Elon Musk to Be Named Speaker of the House
Replies
17
Views
3K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Brian4Liberty
Rand Paul's Airing of Grievances #Festivus2024
Replies
4
Views
9K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand Paul: Trump's tariffs will hurt Americans...
10 11 12
Replies
228
Views
40K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Back
Top