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

Origanalist said:
In my mind it is also a no-brainer. Period. Yes it violates rights, you're being spied on...
Click to expand...

Scenario A. Police receive tip that Bob shot Jones, so they open an investigation: parking outside his house, doing interviews, etc.

Scenario B. Police receive tip that Bob is planning to shoot Jones, so they open an investigation: parking outside his house, doing interviews, etc.

I'm not seeing any difference.

Why is Bob's "right to privacy" being violated in B but not in A?
 
Krugminator2 said:
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...

Yes, they really shouldn't be letting extremists have weapons. By extremist, I mean muslim extremists, anti government extremists, anarchists, right wing extremists, etc.
 
I think all people who buy a gun should have to sign an affidavit that they love America and will only use the gun for legitimate sporting purpose like hunting & olympic target shooting.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Scenario A. Police receive tip that Bob shot Jones, so they open an investigation: parking outside his house, doing interviews, etc.

Scenario B. Police receive tip that Bob is planning to shoot Jones, so they open an investigation: parking outside his house, doing interviews, etc.

I'm not seeing any difference.

Why is Bob's "right to privacy" being violated in B but not in A?
Click to expand...

I have already explained this. Please provide some examples of pre crime investigations of people "paying off".
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
I don't think you have.



I'm not going to bother to do that.

But surely you can't believe that no police investigation ever prevented a real crime?
Click to expand...

"I'm not going to bother to do that."

LOLOL

And I have already stated that any minuscule amount of prevention achieved in no way justifies the power granted to the State, but I guess you missed that.

But hey, if it just saves one life what's a few liberties lost, right?
 
Last edited:
There was this one time in college where we were playing music real loud and about to start smoking weed

Then we heard the copknock and stfu and the guy with the weed took off he was like fuck this im out of here
 
TheTexan said:
There was this one time in college where we were playing music real loud and about to start smoking weed

Then we heard the copknock and stfu and the guy with the weed took off he was like fuck this im out of here
Click to expand...

They should have shown up when you were about to play the music real loud if they were on their game.
 
TheTexan said:
There was this one time in college where we were playing music real loud and about to start smoking weed

Then we heard the copknock and stfu and the guy with the weed took off he was like fuck this im out of here
Click to expand...

How far did you get?
 
Matt Collins said:
As one of the 3 guys that Rand asked to launch his campaign for Senate in 2009, I can no longer support him.
Click to expand...


Gee - I can't believe he forgot to call you and ask you how he should vote. Since you're done supporting him, and Ron Paul is retired, will you go away now?
 
Origanalist said:
"I'm not going to bother to do that."

LOLOL
Click to expand...

Just google "police uncover plot..." or similar formulations and you'll find plenty of examples.

Now, naturally, most of what the police do is totally useless, but that's a function of the kinds of "crimes" they investigate.

...not of the alleged futility of investigation as such.

And I have already stated that any minuscule amount of prevention achieved in no way justifies the power granted to the State, but I guess you missed that.

But hey, if it just saves one life what's a few liberties lost, right?
Click to expand...

That's the point I keep pressing: what liberties?

I'm not seeing how anyone's losing any liberties.

You do not have a right to not have a guy sit in a van up the street from your house.

You do not have a right to not have a guy ask your neighbors questions about you.

You don't even have a right to be secure in your property against searches and seizures if there's probable cause to search/seize your property.
 
angelatc said:
Gee - I can't believe he forgot to call you and ask you how he should vote. Since you're done supporting him, and Ron Paul is retired, will you go away now?
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the heartbreak when Rand finds out that his biggest supporter and advisor has turned on him.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
You do not have a right to not have a guy sit in a van up the street from your house.

You do not have a right to not have a guy ask your neighbors questions about you.

You don't even have a right to be secure in your property against searches and seizures if there's probable cause to search/seize your property.
Click to expand...

He also has the right to vote against any measures that provide the budget for the above.

Cops are under funded as it is but I believe with your and my support we can help get them the funds they need, so they can investigate everyone who they think was maybe thinking about a crime

If we do this right I think we can reduce the # of times that people think about doing a crime by at least 30% I think

It should only cost maybe 2-3% increase in taxes to do this effectively which I think you and I both agree is a good use of our neighbors' money
 
Last edited:
Just google "police uncover plot" or similar formulations and you'll find plenty of examples.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The onus is on you to provide the examples. What you are doing is advocating for the police state. So I don't have the right to not have government agents sitting up the street surveilling me and asking my neighbors questions about me thereby sullying my reputation and causing suspicion from those around me and no right to not have my property confiscated by the State because "reasonable suspicion".
Dude, you're on the wrong forum. You should be posting on Police 1.
 
Danke said:
Can you imagine the heartbreak when Rand finds out that his biggest supporter and advisor has turned on him.
Click to expand...

What Matt posted doesn't make sense. The Democrats wanted the watch list restrictions, but they largely all voted against this. Rand Paul voted for it. So it doesn't seem that this was what Matt claims it is.

If the GOP had voted to restrict guns to people on watch lists, the Dems would have won what they wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top