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

fisharmor said:
?????
I'm insinuating rather bluntly that Matt is (as are you, apparently) five years too late for the "Rand has gone over to the dark side" schtick.
Some of us have been pointing out idiotic things he's been doing for that long.
Click to expand...
As mentioned in the OP, despite his sloppy messaging and despite a couple of questionable votes, nothing he has done has really risen to the level of being unconstitutional, until now.



fisharmor said:
he got in front of a camera and endorsed Romney while his dad was still in the fucking race.
Click to expand...
This is false, and you are perpetuating a lie. Ron was no longer seeking the nomination at that time. He had suspended campaigning. This was tightly coordinated.
 
acptulsa said:
Um, a judge does have to sign off on this.

I'm not saying that I approve. The federal government has proven much too fond of inventing 'mental illnesses' lately. But, you know, before you go propagandizing about this, you could at least read your own linked article and find out that much.
Click to expand...
The signature of a judge is not that difficult a thing to obtain.
 
I agree. However, as pointed out above, overreach by judge has been around for a long time now.
 
fisharmor said:
?????
I'm insinuating rather bluntly that Matt is (as are you, apparently) five years too late for the "Rand has gone over to the dark side" schtick.
Some of us have been pointing out idiotic things he's been doing for that long.
It's nice for his cheerleaders finally to start to question some of the dumb $#@! he does, but dayum, guys, he got in front of a camera and endorsed Romney while his dad was still in the $#@!ing race. He singlehandedly killed the Revolution almost exactly four years ago now. Wouldn't that have been something to get upset about? Why all the butthurt now about guns?
Click to expand...

LOL. I raised my concerns back in 2009/2010 when Rand was running for senate. Nobody wanted to listen to me. We had someone running for congress (name escapes me now) who had his own sub-forum killed because he questioned Rand's comments had a subforum on here in 2010 but not in 2012 and was highly criticized for taking on Rand regarding Gitmo. The point that I made then, and I was right, is that once you start compromising it's hard to know when to stop. There's always a rationalization for something.

The "rationalization" for the Cornyn bill is "If we don't do something the Democrats will pass something worse." And....it's not the world's worst rationalization. I mean if we can rationalize away Rand saying back in 2009/2010 that we should have military tribunals for gitmo detainees because if not their testimony taken from torture might be thrown out and that would "be a problem" then.....hell what's worse than that? Seriously? So...I don't care about his "nuanced position" on the civil rights act or voting for sanctions against Iran or signing the Tom Cotton letter or endorsing Mitt Romney when none of us really could tell whether or not Ron was still in the race (come on folks, Ron made several hard to parse statements that could be taken either way), or Rand not deciding to be only one of two GOP senators to vote against the Cornyn bill.

Actually....now that I think about it....this is worse. But only for one reason. At this point it ought to be clear to Rand that this "compromise message" plan won't win him the presidency. It just absolutely positively will not. So why go along with this crap? To get Mitch McConnell to put him on ever better committees? Lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

Note: I edited this post to clarify my mistake that RJ Harris' subforum was removed after he criticized Rand regarding Gitmo. It wasn't removed but he didn't get a 2012 subforum. Don't know if that was because he didn't want one or some other reason. Everything else I stand behind. It was tough for those who were concerned about how much Rand was pandering to teocons in his senate race. I still maintain that he could have won that race without pandering. Now we'll never know.
 
Last edited:
acptulsa said:
All too easy.
Click to expand...

If those that provided probable cause through Oath and affirmation didn't also receive qualified immunity then I suppose there might be a whole lot less Oath and affirmations.
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
LOL. I raised my concerns back in 2009/2010 when Rand was running for senate. Nobody wanted to listen to me. We had someone running for congress (name escapes me now) who had his own sub-forum killed because he questioned Rand's comments on Gitmo. The point that I made then, and I was right, is that once you start compromising it's hard to know when to stop. There's always a rationalization for something.

The "rationalization" for the Cornyn bill is "If we don't do something the Democrats will pass something worse." And....it's not the world's worst rationalization. I mean if we can rationalize away Rand saying back in 2009/2010 that we should have military tribunals for gitmo detainees because if not their testimony taken from torture might be thrown out and that would "be a problem" then.....hell what's worse than that? Seriously? So...I don't care about his "nuanced position" on the civil rights act or voting for sanctions against Iran or signing the Tom Cotton letter or endorsing Mitt Romney when none of us really could tell whether or not Ron was still in the race (come on folks, Ron made several hard to parse statements that could be taken either way), or Rand not deciding to be only one of two GOP senators to vote against the Cornyn bill.

Actually....now that I think about it....this is worse. But only for one reason. At this point it ought to be clear to Rand that this "compromise message" plan won't win him the presidency. It just absolutely positively will not. So why go along with this crap? To get Mitch McConnell to put him on ever better committees? Lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
Click to expand...

I was with you in 2010. I would have been with you in 2009 had I been registered here at that time.
 
One more thing. Rand needs to learn from Donald Trump and respond to attacks with an attack of his own. Rather than compromise he should say "My opponent is supporting radical Islam by not standing up against president Obama. It was the president that he supports that pushed forward insane internal homeland security policies that took Omar off the terrorist watch list. What good is a law against people on the terrorist watch list getting guns if liberals are going to take people off of the watch list for no reason other than political correctness?"

In fact, hell, I'll write the speech for Rand and he can say it in a press conference in front of mayor Gray's headquarters.
 
fisharmor said:
?????
I'm insinuating rather bluntly that Matt is (as are you, apparently) five years too late for the "Rand has gone over to the dark side" schtick.
Click to expand...

OK, now I get you. It was not apparent to my, given the way you expressed it. Probably just me being thick.

As for dark side johnny-come-late, meh... not really. I've questioned Rand's truer nature since the very beginning, given some of the inexplicable things he has said, votes cast, and so forth. But nothing he has done quite cinched it for me. Once again, if the OP is sufficient in its description of the circumstance, the smoking gun may finally be in hand... no pun intended... or perhaps I really did.

Some of us have been pointing out idiotic things he's been doing for that long.
Click to expand...

I've gone short of "idiotic" mainly due to my admitted ignorance of the fuller knowledge surrounding some of the "things". I don't do the personality cult thing and therefore defend nobody even when they begin doing seemingly indefensible things... not even with Ron Paul. I question all apparently fuck-ups and foibles, but rarely go too far into broad conclusions until I feel I have the information at hand to justify it. That is why I have been on the fence with Rand for these years - I have way too much shit to do here on the farm, no money, other problems hovering, and so forth to devote the time to sufficiently observe even a single person, much less the passel who purport to govern me. I'm just not that smart or otherwise capable, I am sorry to report.

It's nice for his cheerleaders finally to start to question some of the dumb shit he does, but dayum, guys, he got in front of a camera and endorsed Romney while his dad was still in the fucking race.
Click to expand...

Never heard this before. See point(s) immediately above.

He singlehandedly killed the Revolution almost exactly four years ago now. Wouldn't that have been something to get upset about? Why all the butthurt now about guns?
Click to expand...

No butthurt here - cannot speak for Collins. I've been wary of Rand since day 1, but have not wanted to make unfair assessments as per the point(s) above. That he is Ron's son probably had something to do with the extra reticence that is absent when I assess some other corrupt dullard for what he is.

The Empire is drowning in its own vomit. Were there not wolves at the gates, I'd welcome the ultimate outcome a bit more enthusiastically. As it stands, I have no idea whether it's worth the effort to start bailing.
 
I was expecting some sort of compromise or some sort of mild sellout to appease voters. And then I was wondering why Lee and Cruz also supported it also. This is a law Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are pushing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with some gun regulations. This is a high burden of proof that will be very hard to clear.

A judge has to sign off that their is probable cause of the weapon being used in a terror attack. That is not an unreasonable restriction
 
Krugminator2 said:
I was expecting some sort of compromise or some sort of mild sellout to appease voters. And then I was wondering why Lee and Cruz also supported it also. This is a law Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are pushing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with some gun regulations. This is a high burden of proof that will be very hard to clear.

A judge has to sign off that their is probable cause of the weapon being used in a terror attack. That is not an unreasonable restriction
Click to expand...
It infringes on the right of law abiding people to keep and bear arms.

You can be denied your rights IF you are given due process, by being convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers.
 
jmdrake said:
LOL. I raised my concerns back in 2009/2010 when Rand was running for senate. Nobody wanted to listen to me. We had someone running for congress (name escapes me now) who had his own sub-forum killed because he questioned Rand's comments on Gitmo. The point that I made then, and I was right, is that once you start compromising it's hard to know when to stop. There's always a rationalization for something.

The "rationalization" for the Cornyn bill is "If we don't do something the Democrats will pass something worse." And....it's not the world's worst rationalization. I mean if we can rationalize away Rand saying back in 2009/2010 that we should have military tribunals for gitmo detainees because if not their testimony taken from torture might be thrown out and that would "be a problem" then.....hell what's worse than that? Seriously? So...I don't care about his "nuanced position" on the civil rights act or voting for sanctions against Iran or signing the Tom Cotton letter or endorsing Mitt Romney when none of us really could tell whether or not Ron was still in the race (come on folks, Ron made several hard to parse statements that could be taken either way), or Rand not deciding to be only one of two GOP senators to vote against the Cornyn bill.

Actually....now that I think about it....this is worse. But only for one reason. At this point it ought to be clear to Rand that this "compromise message" plan won't win him the presidency. It just absolutely positively will not. So why go along with this crap? To get Mitch McConnell to put him on ever better committees? Lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
Click to expand...

Many of us did and were promptly told to STFU.
 
All I can say is, it's an awful bill and position, and that Rand must know this. This is almost certainly another positioning tactic, but for what I don't know (is there a full statement by Rand on the bill?). Does he know the bill will certainly be defeated (as before), and just wants to show he is flexible on the issue to the masses, in order to better dialogue with the gun grabber crowd?

Or does he know this bill will be rolled into a larger one later that he will vote no to, thus this vote gives him a free ride to play politics with? With his presidential bid ended, he may be doing this for the purposes of things going on with his Senatorial re-election. But it certainly jeopardizes his standing with the movement voters, who have looked to Rand's actual voting record (as with Ron) to verify his pro-liberty bonafides, and have tolerated his compromise rhetoric in light of it. This signals that on some issues he has decided to be untethered to principle in either word or deed.
 
Krugminator2 said:
I was expecting some sort of compromise or some sort of mild sellout to appease voters. And then I was wondering why Lee and Cruz also supported it also. This is a law Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are pushing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with some gun regulations. This is a high burden of proof that will be very hard to clear.

A judge has to sign off that their is probable cause of the weapon being used in a terror attack. That is not an unreasonable restriction
Click to expand...

Probable cause? "High burden of proof?" See if any of the "potential threats" in this report apply to you....

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf
 
Matt Collins said:
It infringes on the right of law abiding people to keep and bear arms.

You can be denied your rights IF you are given due process, by being convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers.
Click to expand...

If someone is on an FBI watchlist and then the FBI makes a case to a judge that their is probable cause that the person could use the weapon in terrorist activity and the judge agrees, that is due process. I am surprised this isn't allowed already.
 
Honestly, though, if I had to choose between Trump, Hillary or Johnson I'd still choose Rand in a heartbeat.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
All I can say is, it's an awful bill and position, and that Rand must know this. This is almost certainly another positioning tactic, but for what I don't know (is there a full statement by Rand on the bill?). Does he know the bill will certainly be defeated (as before), and just wants to show he is flexible on the issue to the masses, in order to better dialogue with the gun grabber crowd?

Or does he know this bill will be rolled into a larger one later that he will vote no to, thus this vote gives him a free ride to play politics with? With his presidential bid ended, he may be doing this for the purposes of things going on with his Senatorial re-election. But it certainly jeopardizes his standing with the movement voters, who have looked to Rand's actual voting record (as with Ron) to verify his pro-liberty bonafides, and have tolerated his compromise rhetoric in light of it. This signals that on some issues he has decided to be untethered to principle in either word or deed.
Click to expand...

If you only drink 100% purified water, you will likely die of thirst within a few weeks.

One of Rand's biggest strengths in being able to gain power and sway in congress is not having to depend on purists in the liberty movement for his votes to stay in office.

I wish there were more purists in congress and who voted - but being that we are in such a bad situation, compromising in order to win in the end or have the best outcome is better than dying of thirst.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with the Cornyn Amendment.

...I don't think it's necessary, since the threat of terrorism is vastly overblown, but it's not going to hurt anything either.

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee that everyone has a right to own firearms.

...nor should everyone have the right to own firearms.

People in prison, for instance, can quite justly be denied the right to own firearms.

The issue is due process (as opposed to some bureaucrat at the DHS secretly adding someone to the badboy list).

The Cornyn Amendment provides for due process, and pretty rigorously.
 
acptulsa said:
So, what is your mental illness?

Sorry, guys, but I don't think someone with full-blown schizophrenia needs to be armed. In fact, in light of recent events, I think it's pretty reasonable to ask people to choose between buying guns and filling a prescription for SSRIs.

I don't have the text of this bill in front of me, so I don't know how effectively it prevents the government from denying guns to people based on spurious charges of mental illness. I'm not a fan of opening a Pandora's Box of this sort. I'd rather outlaw SSRIs. And schizophrenia, if only that were possible.

I don't know that I like this bill. I probably don't. But I could sure see the people of Kentucky wanting such a law to be passed.



Well, you know, we used to incarcerate people for various mental illnesses. Now we just fill 'em full of pharmaceuticals and let 'em sleep on the street...
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree here. SSRI drugs, by themselves, don't make people mass murderers. Considering how many millions of people are on them vs. the number of mass murders, SSRI-hysteria is comparable to gun hysteria. Some people respond only to SSRI drugs for depression. I know this. But they're not mass murderers. Most of these people wouldn't hurt a fly. But they have as much right to defend themselves as you or me if attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top