Rand is supporting gun control, I'm done supporting him

Anti Federalist said:
So the Dem bill was a lot of gun control, and the GOP bill was a little gun control.

And both failed.

How easy it would have been to just stand on principle and vote no on both?
Click to expand...

Umm... Maybe because he supports it. There is absolutely nothing unlibertarian about this. Nothing.

I expected it to be sort of bad when I read the thread title, but I can't find anything remotely wrong with it. I would have voted for it. I think it will have minimal impact because this situation is so rare, but it is perfectly reasonable.
 
Krugminator2 said:
Umm... Maybe because he supports it. There is absolutely nothing unlibertarian about this. Nothing.

I expected it to be sort of bad when I read the thread title, but I can't find anything remotely wrong with it. I would have voted for it. I think it will have minimal impact because this situation is so rare, but it is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, he probably does.

Which is why Collins freaked out and so did I.

He supported a vote on gun control.

You Randians are as bad as the Trumpsters when it comes to you fanbois honestly assessing what your man has done.

He voted for gun control.

For the worst possible reasons too.
 
dannno said:
That's a Ron Paul move. This was a Rand Paul move. I honestly don't know which is more effective at preserving our rights.

If we had a lot of representatives looking to preserve our rights, and a higher % of the voting population looking to preserve our rights, then the Ron Paul strategy would probably work best. In our current situation, it's difficult if not impossible to say. All I know is Rand is a smart guy, he is in the know more than I am, and I believe he wants to preserve our rights.
Click to expand...

Brother, I'm having a lousy fucking day, filled with lousy fucking news, from all quarters.

I don't really give a shit anymore.

I know what Ron would have done, and that's all I know or care about at this point.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Uh, yeah, he probably does.

Which is why Collins freaked out and so did I.

He supported a vote on gun control.

You Randians are as bad as the Trumpsters when it comes to you fanbois honestly assessing what your man has done.

He voted for gun control.

For the worst possible reasons too.
Click to expand...

What Rand does is totally irrelevant to how I think about an issue. I could come up with 2 pages of things I disagree with Rand on. I certainly argue against insane arguments and this thread is well into the insane category.

As far as I know, you support tariffs. That is infinitely worse and more unlibertarian than supporting a 3 day wait for people on a terrorist watchlist.
 
Matt Collins said:
I did, and I'm not just some random supporter. I launched Rand's campaign for Senate back in '09
Click to expand...

GUXeoqp.gif


GUXeoqp.gif

GUXeoqp.gif

GUXeoqp.gif


GUXeoqp.gif
 
Krugminator2 said:
What Rand does is totally irrelevant to how I think about an issue. I could come up with 2 pages of things I disagree with Rand on. I certainly argue against insane arguments and this thread is well into the insane category.

As far as I know, you support tariffs. That is infinitely worse and more unlibertarian than supporting a 3 day wait for people on a terrorist watchlist.
Click to expand...

He should listen to his own words:

"We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what is naturally ours, our God-given rights. We have nothing to fear that should cause us to forget or relinquish our rights as free men and women. To thrive, we must believe in ourselves again, and we must never, never trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security." - Rand Paul
 
No liberty is traded. People get due process. The case has to be made and won in court.

The worst part about this is the intolerance of any other sort of view. I am a libertarian and I fundamentally disagree that this is even a compromise. I see it as a mild positive. It won't likely be used but if there is a situation where it can be used I am completely for it.
 
Krugminator2 said:
No liberty is traded. People get due process. The case has to be made and won in court.

The worst part about this is the intolerance of any other sort of view. I am a libertarian and I fundamentally disagree that this is even a compromise. I see it as a mild positive. It won't likely be used but if there is a situation where it can be used I am completely for it.
Click to expand...

That's what the neocons said about The Patriot Act - then they ended up using it almost exclusively on drug dealers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad
pcosmar said:
Why do people need to be processed?
Click to expand...

Here is a real world example.

The Boston Marathan bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, go into purchase weapons. One of them had been investigated by the FBI and not found to have committed any crimes. Proving a crime is difficult. There was still a lot of circumstantial evidence that would make him a higher than likely threat to commit violence.

Is it unreasonable for him to have to wait 3 days to buy a gun if his name gets triggered when he goes into purchase a gun? You have someone who is already suspicious because of a tip from Russian intelligence who attends a mosque with a history of promoting terrorism, who goes into buy a gun. Generating some extra scrutiny is very reasonable. His rights aren't being trampled on.

The effectiveness of this law is another thing. But it is not unconstitutional or unlibertarian.
 
Last edited:
TheTexan said:
No need to be humble Matt, you're not giving yourself enough credit. You didn't just launch Rand's campaign but you also won it, basically single handedly IIRC
Click to expand...
No, I didn't win it, I played a very small part in winning it, but a very big part in launching it. There is a difference.
 
Krugminator2 said:
No liberty is traded. People get due process.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying this after already admitting it isn't true?

Under this bill, people on the list are kept from being able to buy guns for a period of time no matter what.
 
Krugminator2 said:
Here is a real world example.

The Boston Marathan bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, go into purchase weapons. One of them had been investigated by the FBI and not found to have committed any crimes. Proving a crime is difficult. There was still a lot of circumstantial evidence that would make him a higher than likely threat to commit violence.

Is it unreasonable for him to have to wait 3 days to buy a gun if his name gets triggered when he goes into purchase a gun?
Click to expand...
Yes it is unreasonable. You can't deny someone of their rights unless they are convicted of a crime, or unless they are in the process of committing one, or being charged with one.
 
The point about due process is already enough to render this bill illegitimate.

But let's take a step down to a level even more basic than that.

If I want to make a living selling pieces of metal and other substances that are arranged in such a way as to meet the definition of what the government calls guns, I shouldn't even have to tell them I'm doing it. Nor should I have to tell them anything about who I do business with. If I and another party decide to enter into an agreement where I sell them one of my pieces of metal and other materials and they give me money in exchange, that's none of the government's business. I shouldn't have to submit any paperwork or run that person's name (or my own) through some database, or anything. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top