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

r3volution 3.0 said:
What do you mean?

The FBI should only investigate people after a crime's been committed?

There should be no effort to uncover criminal plots before they're carried out?

If so, why? Whose rights are being violated?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

Are you really telling me you are in favor of putting people under government surveillance and investigation because "maybe they might be up to something"?

Seriously?

Like I said before, you people have lost your minds.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Of course not.

Are you really telling me you are in favor of putting people under government surveillance and investigation because "maybe they might be up to something"?

Seriously?

Like I said before, you people have lost your minds.
Click to expand...

...not sure what you're saying.

Either you think it's okay for the government to investigate people who seem like they might be plotting a crime or you don't.

Which is it?
 
Anti Federalist said:
Of course not.

Are you really telling me you are in favor of putting people under government surveillance and investigation because "maybe they might be up to something"?

Seriously?

Like I said before, you people have lost your minds.
Click to expand...

Rep.

I may be a tyrant on social and religious issues by the standards of many here, but when it comes to things like this I'm 100% in agreement with you. Not cool. Doubly so when you consider the kind of people that are in power. But I wouldn't even trust a righteous man with that kind of arbitrary power.
 
The "FBI" shouldn't even exist. If police need to exist at all (which I may or may not agree with depending on how "police" are defined) they should certainly at the least be local.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Of course it's not "OK".

Sheesh, I am amazed I even have to make that statement.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a strange position, certainly not the libertarian position.

There's absolutely nothing unlibertarian about investigating would-be criminals before they're able to carry out their criminal plans.

No one's rights are violated.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
...not sure what you're saying.

Either you think it's okay for the government to investigate people who seem like they might be plotting a crime or you don't.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of anti-free trade nonsense from some of the same people who think this amendment is a great infringement. Somehow restricting commerce is something good government is supposed to do. Government interfering in the basic human right of trade is A OK.

But investigating leads and foiling terrorist plots is bad. Apparently it is best to just let nature take its course and let people murder instead of investigating suspicious behavior. Tariffs = good. Restricting sales of guns to people a judge agrees have a reasonable probability of using them in a act of terrorism= bad. .Make sense- if you are on angel dust.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Well, that's a strange position, certainly not the libertarian position.

There's absolutely nothing unlibertarian about investigating would-be criminals before they're able to carry out their criminal plans.

No one's rights are violated.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Anyone can be made to "seem" like they are planning to commit a crime. You can't get any more " unlibertarian".
 
Origanalist said:
Bullshit. Anyone can be made to "seem" like they are planning to commit a crime. You can't get any more " unlibertarian".
Click to expand...

FBI gets tip that Bob Loblaw is talking about shooting up a church.

So, FBI sends agent to sit in a van outside Bob's house and observe his comings and going.

Other agents interview his associates, check public records for suspicious activity, etc.

If they find enough evidence to show probable cause, they get a wire tap warrant from a judge.

If and when this investigation turns up proof of Bob's guilt, he's arrested and a prosecution begins.

Now, explain to me how Bob's rights were violated?
 
The problem is that warrants are rarely involved, and that its the FBI (Federal police shouldn't be a thing, or the Federal government period)
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Well, that's a strange position, certainly not the libertarian position.

There's absolutely nothing unlibertarian about investigating would-be criminals before they're able to carry out their criminal plans.

No one's rights are violated.
Click to expand...

Holy shit...

Yeah speak for yourself about how there is nothing "unlibertarian" about that.

Tell me, how do you define "would be criminal"?
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
FBI gets tip that Bob Loblaw is talking about shooting up a church.

So, FBI sends agent to sit in a van outside Bob's house and observe his comings and going.

Other agents interview his associates, check public records for suspicious activity, etc.

If they find enough evidence to show probable cause, they get a wire tap warrant from a judge.

If and when this investigation turns up proof of Bob's guilt, he's arrested and a prosecution begins.

Now, explain to me how Bob's rights were violated?
Click to expand...

All that takes place to get put on the "watch list"?

Bullshit and you know it.

You guys are as bad as the Trumpsters.

Admit it, Rand stepped on his dick on this one.
 
Anti Federalist said:
All that takes place to get put on the "watch list"?
Click to expand...

You claimed that it was unjust to investigate people suspected of plotting crimes.

Bob's story is an illustration of what such an investigation entails, to show that there's nothing unjust about it at all.

It has nothing to do with the watchlist.

As for the watchlist, however, I would assume that the standard of evidence is quite low.

But so what? Being put on a list of suspects is not a violation of your rights.

...there is no libertarian right to not have your name written on a piece of paper headed "bad guys."

As I've said about half a dozen times already, what matters is what if anything is done to the people on the list.

And, as should be clear at this point, I'm opposed to doing anything to them without due process.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top