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

Matt Collins

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
As one of the 3 guys that Rand asked to launch his campaign for Senate in 2009, I can no longer support him.

While he is the best Senator in the Senate, I demand someone who fights for my basic rights 100% of the time, not 98% of the time. Selling out on this issue is unacceptable.

At hand is the Cornyn proposal which would allow the government to delay any firearms sale for 7 days and at the end of 7 days actually prohibit that sale if a judge signs off on the prohibition. That is a fundamental violation of the 2nd Amendment. Rand already voted for this in December but it did not pass (Lee and Cruz voted for it too surprisingly). I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but in this video below he says he plans to vote for it again later today.
I have defended Rand many times in the past even when his messaging was sloppy or on the rare occasion that he cast a questionable vote. But this is a line crossed that I cannot defend and will not condone.

He will continue to do really great things in the Senate but after this vote I can no longer consider him a 100% pro-liberty candidate and will not advocate for him as such. I wish this were not the case.

VIDEO AT LINK:
http://www.wtvq.com/2016/06/17/sen-rand-paul-talks-gun-control-responds-to-gray-comments/
 
So, Jim Gray is criticizing him from one side, and his old buddy Collins is criticizing him from the other.

Sounds like he's doing something right.
 
Not often that Teh Collinz and I agree...but he's right.

This sets an absurdly dangerous precedent: that government can keep secret lists of people, and based on being on one of those lists, abridge fundamental rights, is a huge leap forward in tyranny.

I know how his father would have voted on this trash.
 
Without a trial and a conviction no one should be denied their 2nd amendment right. And then, and only then, should they be denied for only the prescribed length of time that they are considered a threat and incarcerated. If they are not considered enough of a threat to be incarcerated then they should not be denied the right to bear arms.
 
Matt Collins said:
I demand someone who fights for my basic rights 100% of the time, not 98% of the time. Selling out on this issue is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

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.

phill4paul said:
Without a trial and a conviction no one should be denied their 2nd amendment right. And then, and only then, should they be denied for only the prescribed length of time that they are considered a threat and incarcerated. If they are not considered enough of a threat to be incarcerated then they should not be denied the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

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...
 
acptulsa said:
So, Jim Gray is criticizing him from one side, and his old buddy Collins is criticizing him from the other.

Sounds like he's doing something right.
Click to expand...

fisharmor said:
Welcome to 2011, Matt.
Click to expand...

Neither of you are making any sense.

If what Matt has written is correct, Rand Paul has gone over to the dark side. Or are you able to spin this in some plausible way that makes it stink less like a skunk's boothole and more like a rose? If you have it, I'd like to see it.
 
acptulsa said:
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...

Some with violent mental illness need to be incarcerated if they act on their impulses.
 
osan said:
Neither of you are making any sense.

If what Matt has written is correct, Rand Paul has gone over to the dark side. Or are you able to spin this in some plausible way that makes it stink less like a skunk's boothole and more like a rose? If you have it, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

?????
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 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. 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?
 
Not that any of this would have stopped the Orlando shooter, who was fully licensed and vetted by the government and on his way to becoming a cop.

Nor would it have reduced the body count, since I maintain, if the truth ever comes out, it will be determined that many of the people who died, did so at the hands of cops storming the building.
 
acptulsa said:
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...

Ignatz Semmelweis was a physician who died from injuries he sustained while in an institution.
He was put there after a nervous breakdown he had, which was the result of the medical establishment not heeding his advice to wash their hands after handling cadavers. Semmelweis had reduced the number of casualties from childbed fever to ZERO through hand washing, and his friends had him institutionalized and subsequently beaten to death for it.

Ah, the good old days. If only we could treat the mentally disturbed the way we used to.....
 
acptulsa said:
I could sure see the people of Kentucky wanting such a law to be passed.
Click to expand...

I can too. I can see 90% of the country wanting it. Too bad. Nobody, not even in conjunction with a vast majority of their compatriots, has a right to make up laws that violate others' rights and impose them on other people.
 
Matt Collins said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But it has to be done through due process, in a court of law, not through an arbitrary list.

So? It's not a democracy.
Click to expand...

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.
 
acptulsa said:
So, what is your mental illness?
Click to expand...

??? What does this even mean?

Sorry, guys, but I don't think someone with full-blown schizophrenia needs to be armed.
Click to expand...

And who are you or anyone else to determine this? The clear implication is that so-called "schizophrenics" have no rights - certainly no RKBA. How do you establish this absence? Please do not respond with "schizophrenia" because that fails in triplicate. Upon what principled and properly reasoned basis do you assert that schizos have no RKBA?

Extending the question to its broadest conclusion, upon what basis is anyone who has been determined to be "mentally ill" denied any of their rights? Who determines mental illness and how do they prove that such illness even exists, much less that anyone is so afflicted. Before you go on to list the "science", I will direct you to the work of Dr. Thomas Szasz titled "The Myth Of Mental Illness". Very illuminating. IMO people should read it prior to giving any opinions on matters such as this.

That aside, I reiterate: who gets to determine who is crazy? By what non-arbitrary authority do they make such determinations?

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.
Click to expand...

I understand where the sentiment may be coming from, but emotion is rarely if ever a good arbiter of opinion, particularly regarding such matters.

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.
Click to expand...

Are you onioning us? We have, at the very least, the past 200 years of human political history to testify to the point you make. There is no effective restraint for "government", save a well armed and reticent but willing population who abide no abrasion of their rights.

I'm not a fan of opening a Pandora's Box of this sort.
Click to expand...

And yet, your words thus far would leave is thinking otherwise. What is going on?

I could sure see the people of Kentucky wanting such a law to be passed.
Click to expand...

You deem them particularly stoopid and corrupt?
 
osan said:
??? What does this even mean?

And yet, your words thus far would leave is thinking otherwise. What is going on?
Click to expand...

Primarily, I saw Collins playing Paul Harvey--again--and thought I'd toss in The Rest of the Story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top