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

[erowe1]

Depends on where the government goes. At one time having a Ron Paul bumper sticker might have achieved that goal. It all comes down to who the Fed is targeting at that particular time.

Exactly.

 

[erowe1]

I love discussion posts about what Rand is doing, I wish there was more activity in that regard (unfortunately only the negative threads get many replies nowadays). I'm not a fan of the look at me I'm no longer supporting Rand type threads. Make the topic about the issue, not about yourself. That's the only complaint I have about this thread.

+rep

 

[unknown]

Ron Paul is my hero and Rand is my guy.

I have defended some of his questionable choices in the past as a way for him to make nice with the establishment.

But I cant agree with nor support his decision to vote in favor of this anti-2A Bill.

Unlike the Trumpanzees and the Hitlery youth, I cant and wont defend my guy when hes in the wrong.

 

[nikcers]

Does holding the right position and supporting the right to keep and bear arms by keeping the law as it is now and not adding any more regulations on buying guns than there are already really make someone unelectable in Kentucky of all places? I mean the no-fly list itself has only been around a few years, and it's not exactly the most popular and successful law itself.

I think Rand could make a big splash, and a very positive one with his constituents, by setting himself apart from the rest of his colleagues and taking a courageous stand on the side of what's right here.

Maybe if the nominee hadn't of attacked his re-election it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is, Trump supporters which are still a large part of republican voters question Rand. It would be completely different if Trump was helping people like Rand Paul get elected but he is doing the opposite.

 

[Krugminator2]

So, just because I communicate with someone that the government calls a member of ISIS (how do they go about determining who is a member of ISIS anyway?), I lose my right to keep and bear arms? It doesn't even matter what the content of that communication is?

The amendment says if there is probable cause that the weapon could be used in terrorism. Then yes, you can't purchase a weapon..

The FBI and a judge are signing off that there is a probable threat of terrorism. This is isn't some crazy abuse of power. This is why we have judges and the FBI. These arguments are why people (me included) think anarchists are bonkers. If the Tsarnaev brothers can't legally get a gun, I don't think government power is going to spiral out of control.

 

[unknown]

The amendment says if there is probable cause that the weapon could be used in terrorism. Then yes, you can't purchase a weapon..

The FBI and a judge are signing off that there is a probable threat of terrorism. This is isn't some crazy abuse of power. This is why we have judges and the FBI. These arguments are why people (me included) think anarchists are bonkers. If the Tsarnaev brothers can't legally get a gun, I don't think government power is going to spiral out of control.

Youre being way too generous despite the lack of due process.

We should be debating the very existence of Stasi type watch lists not whether or not they should be codified into law.

Just a couple of days ago, it was revealed that the DHS thinks that "Right wingers" are just a big a threat as "terrorists".

When the GOP is back in charge, the anti-war protesters ("terrorist sympathizers") will be the enemy of choice.

95% of FISA requests are granted.

No way a liberty minded individual can support "watch lists" let alone pre-emptive placement on a list resulting in a loss of rights to be reviewed in secrecy.

I cant say it better than this Rep so I'll just post the video:

 

[erowe1]

The amendment says if there is probable cause that the weapon could be used in terrorism. Then yes, you can't purchase a weapon..

Does it not also say that you are kept from being able to buy a weapon for a period of time prior to the establishment of probable cause that the weapon would be used in terrorism?

My understanding is that it's like this:
1) My name gets put on the list without probable cause.
2) I try to buy a gun.
3) I am kept from buying that gun because my name is on that list without probable cause for a period of time while the question of whether or not there is probable cause is resolved.
4) Some time later, after I my right to keep and bear arms has already been violated, I am told that they couldn't prove probable cause, and I'm now allowed to buy a gun again.

Did I get that wrong?

 

[Krugminator2]

Youre being way too generous despite the lack of due process.

This isn't restricting gun ownership to someone just on a watchlist.

There is no lack of due process. The case has to be made to a judge that the weapon has a reasonable chance of being used in terrorism. And the judge has to agree.

3) I am kept from buying that gun because my name is on that list without probable cause for a period of time while the question of whether or not there is probable cause is resolved.
4) Some time later, after I my right to keep and bear arms has already been violated, I am told that they couldn't prove probable cause, and I'm now allowed to buy a gun again.

The case has to be made and decided within 3 days. A 3 day wait if you are on a terrorist watchlist is not an example of out of control leviathan.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Youre being way too generous despite the lack of due process.

We should be debating the very existence of Stasi type watch lists not whether or not they should be codified into law.

It's not the existence of watch lists which should be opposed.

If there is going to be any kind of investigative agency, it will necessarily generate lists of people its investigating; how could it not?

And that's fine. The potential problem lies in what happens to people on that list.

As long as nothing happens to them without due process, there's no problem.

95% of FISA requests are granted

The hearings proposed in this amendment are to occur in ordinary courts, not FISA courts.

 

[bierdegarde]

Haven't we learned if you give these Critters an inch they'll take a mile.

 

[erowe1]

This isn't restricting gun ownership to someone just on a watchlist.

It isn't? It's not even delaying it for every single person just on a watchlist?

 

[unknown]

This isn't restricting gun ownership to someone just on a watchlist.

There is no lack of due process. The case has to be made to a judge that the weapon has a reasonable chance of being used in terrorism. And the judge has to agree.

Where is the due process for being placed on a list which shouldnt exist in the first place?

This isnt the DU or Hotair.

These are the Ron Paul forums.

Here we believe in rights and freedom.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm not a fan of the look at me I'm no longer supporting Rand type threads. Make the topic about the issue, not about yourself. That's the only complaint I have about this thread.

I did, and I'm not just some random supporter. I launched Rand's campaign for Senate back in '09.

 

[Matt Collins]

This isn't even half as bad as collins was concerning me about.

No, it's just as bad. The only difference is that the government can arbitrarily deny your your rights for 3 days instead of 7.

Rand is getting attacked by his opponent for letting terrorists have guns. He has to get re elected, otherwise the democrats will definitely take our guns.

Wrong. Rand is in no danger of losing his seat. This was an unnecessary vote for him to take.

Now he will be on record saying he voted to stop terrorists from getting guns, and still fight to stop the democrats (the real terrorists) from taking our guns. If you want to campaign for him and combat that narrative go ahead, but he is going to do everything he can to combat that narrative -

If his opposition were smart they would run very targeted ads to gun owners in KY explaining how Rand sold them out by voting for this unconstitutional nonsense. That could seriously hurt him in the general election where projected Republican turnout is already worrisome.

 

[erowe1]

The case has to be made and decided within 3 days. A 3 day wait if you are on a terrorist watchlist is not an example of out of control leviathan.

So you do admit, then, that there is a violation of peoples' right to keep and bear arms without due process, and that this law would restrict gun ownership (by delaying purchase of guns) for people just for being on a watch list?

 

[erowe1]

I did, and I'm not just some random supporter. I launched Rand's campaign for Senate back in '09.

No you didn't.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Does it not also say that you are kept from being able to buy a weapon for a period of time prior to the establishment of probable cause that the weapon would be used in terrorism?

My understanding is that it's like this:
1) My name gets put on the list without probable cause.
2) I try to buy a gun.
3) I am kept from buying that gun because my name is on that list without probable cause for a period of time while the question of whether or not there is probable cause is resolved.
4) Some time later, after I my right to keep and bear arms has already been violated, I am told that they couldn't prove probable cause, and I'm now allowed to buy a gun again.

Did I get that wrong?

That's right, there's a 3 day waiting period.

Q. Is it ever justifiable to arrest people before there's been any kind of hearing?

Say there's been a robbery, and you're walking in the vicinity shortly afterward, and you happen to closely resemble the robber.

Can the police arrest you first, and then take you to a hearing to sort things out, or is that unjust?

 

[erowe1]

Notice how Collins didn't approve of Rudeman's attempt to make this thread about Rand instead of Collins.

 

[erowe1]

That's right

Good. That's what I thought. Some of your earlier remarks made it sound like you thought I was misrepresenting how bad this law is.

I would be much more comfortable with this law if the benefit of the doubt were given to me as a gun purchaser during that 3-day period, rather than the government. I should not be prevented from buying a gun until after the establishment of probable cause that I shouldn't. Until then, no infringement of my rights should be permitted.

 

[unknown]

It's not the existence of watch lists which should be opposed.

If there is going to be any kind of investigative agency, it will necessarily generate lists of people its investigating; how could it not?

And that's fine. The potential problem lies in what happens to people on that list.

As long as nothing happens to them without due process, there's no problem.

The hearings proposed in this amendment are to occur in ordinary courts, not FISA courts.

I wont agree that watch lists should exist, which is different from an investigation.

If they are investigating someone then they should prove their case one way or the other and move on.

The no fly list (with 47,000+ people) has a presumption of guilt as does the political dissident, I mean "terrorist", watch list (with 1.5 million+ people).

It affects how people can and cant travel. I doubt thats all they are being used for.

Let alone the citizen kill list.

Actual due process has to occur prior to being labeled as guilty.