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

O the irony...

There is no irony. It is Bayesian probability. A string of behaviors that correlate with criminal activity indicate a higher than normal likelihood of criminal activity.

Filtering out old ladies in Nebraska and including people who attend radical Mosques and who Russian intelligence thinks could be linked to terrorism makes sense to put on a watchlist. It doesn't mean they are guilty of anything. It just means that there is a higher than normal probability of them getting involved in terrorism. And purchasing weapons is another data point.
 
Here is a real world example.

The Boston Marathan bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, go into purchase weapons. One of them had been investigated by the FBI and not found to have committed any crimes. Proving a crime is difficult. There was still a lot of circumstantial evidence that would make him a higher than likely threat to commit violence.

Is it unreasonable for him to have to wait 3 days to buy a gun if his name gets triggered when he goes into purchase a gun? You have someone who is already suspicious because of a tip from Russian intelligence who attends a mosque with a history of promoting terrorism, who goes into buy a gun. Generating some extra scrutiny is very reasonable. His rights aren't being trampled on.

The effectiveness of this law is another thing. But it is not unconstitutional or unlibertarian.

The test you should apply shouldn't be how this would affect someone whom we know now to have been a terrorist. It should be how it would affect an innocent person.

Yes. Making me wait 3 days to buy a gun when I am not guilty of anything and not going to use that gun to commit a crime is unreasonable and wrong. As is making me and the person I buy it from inform the government that we're making that exchange at all.
 
There is no irony. It is Bayesian probability. A string of behaviors that correlate with criminal activity indicate a higher than normal likelihood of criminal activity.

Filtering out old ladies in Nebraska and including people who attend radical Mosques and who Russian intelligence thinks could be linked to terrorism makes sense to put on a watchlist. It doesn't mean they are guilty of anything. It just means that there is a higher than normal probability of them getting involved in terrorism. And purchasing weapons is another data point.

Are you just making this all up? Or is any of this in the law we're actually talking about?
 
Why do you keep saying this after already admitting it isn't true?

Under this bill, people on the list are kept from being able to buy guns for a period of time no matter what.

It's not a violation of due process. I am not an anarchist or a nihilist.

There is nothing that says you have to get a gun 1 sec after you want to buy it. It is a pointless cartoon debate. It is the equivalent to debating whether an individual should be able to own nuclear weapons. Hint: In case you are on the fence the answer is no. An individual shouldn't be able to own nukes.
 
It's not a violation of due process.

Stopping me from buying a gun simply because someone in the executive branch put my name on a list is a violation of due process. Saying you're not an anarchist doesn't change that.
 
It's not a violation of due process. I am not an anarchist or a nihilist.

There is nothing that says you have to get a gun 1 sec after you want to buy it. It is a pointless cartoon debate. It is the equivalent to debating whether an individual should be able to own nuclear weapons. Hint: In case you are on the fence the answer is no. An individual shouldn't be able to own nukes.

Well. I think it comes down to a fear of Government-over-Man.

Jefferson had shared some thoughts on that during the Kentucky Resolutions. Wuh hah happen wuh..."In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" - Thomas Jefferson

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798




Here is a practical guide for better understanding the philosophy of fear of Government-over-Man. Which is really easy to just copy pasta...taken from the book [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Twelve Basic American Principles[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976 - http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html [/FONT]



The Principle

1. A main principle of the traditional American philosophy is expressed in the phrase: fear of Government-over-Man.

Cause of Fear

2. This fear is due to the ever-present, never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government which are conducive to "love of power and proneness to abuse it," as Washington's Farewell Address warned. This means public officials' human weaknesses, especially as aggravated by the corresponding weaknesses among the self-governing people themselves. It is a truism that government's power needs only to exist to be feared--to be dominant, over the fear-ridden, without ever needing to be exercised aggressively.

Man--Good and Evil, Mixed

3. This philosophy asserts that human nature is a mixture of good and evil, of strength and weakness, and is not perfectible during life on earth. There is "a portion of virtue and honor among Mankind" and the better side of Man, the Individual, can be strengthened and made more dependable through spiritual growth. The resulting moral development is conducive to sound conduct, in keeping with conscience in the light of a personal moral code based upon religious-moral considerations. Yet history teaches that the previously mentioned weaknesses of human nature provide just cause for never-ceasing fear of Government-over-Man.

Government Like a Fire

4. Americans of the period 1776-1787 firmly believed in the soundness of the accepted maxim that "government is like a fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master;" that, to be useful, it must be strictly controlled for safety against its getting out of hand and doing great harm. Through the generations, the people have considered that this maxim expresses one of history's most profoundly important lessons for Free Man. This maxim is based upon the knowledge that, in last analysis, government is force and must be feared and controlled accordingly. The great fear in 1787-1788 of the new, central government under the proposed Constitution was evidenced by the fact that the State Ratifying Conventions proposed scores of amendments, designed chiefly to keep under more rigid control what they considered to be this potential monster of power so dangerous to their liberties: the central, or Federal, government.


The Views of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

5. This fear was of abuse by government of power granted to it by the people, as well as of usurpation by it of power denied or prohibited to it by them, through the Constitution, to the injury if not doom of their liberties--of the God-given, unalienable rights of The Individual. Jefferson merely voiced the lesson of history--well known to, and accepted by, his fellow Americans--when he stated, in the "Diffusion of Knowledge" Bill in 1779, in the Virginia legislature:

". . . experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . ."


Jefferson also expressed this traditional, American viewpoint in his famous writing known as the Kentucky Resolutions, as adopted in 1798 by the Kentucky legislature, in these words in part:

". . . it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."


These Kentucky Resolutions are closely akin to the contemporaneous Virginia Resolutions of 1798 adopted soon afterward by the Virginia legislature--written mainly by Madison who was, as usual, in close touch with Jefferson in this period. Both sets of resolutions were protests against what were considered and denounced as abuses and usurpations of power by the Federal government--chiefly through the Alien and Sedition Laws adopted by Congress in 1798. Such protests by a State legislature were in keeping with the remedies available to the States in such a situation - remedies contemplated by The Framers as being within the constitutional system--as discussed, for example, by Madison in 1788 in The Federalist number 46. The Sedition Act was designed to restrict freedom of speech and of the Press so as to stifle criticism of Federal officials and therefore grossly violated the Constitution; and it was opposed, for example, by John Marshall, as a member of Congress, and by Alexander Hamilton--the latter stating: "Let us not establish a tyranny." (These laws soon disappeared from the statute books, due to their widespread unpopularity which the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions had helped initially to foster.)


Precedents for Other States' Protests Such As The Hartford Convention Resolutions

6. These 1798 protests by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures were not the first such development in the life of the Republic. A predecessor resolution of protest, for example, had been adopted by the Virginia legislature in 1790: the "Protest and Remonstrance" against the assumption by the Federal government of the war-incurred debts of the States, as being unconstitutional. This protest set a precedent for the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions. They, in turn, set precedents for similar resolutions of protest adopted by various States--in New England, the North, the Mid-west as well as in the South--during the following decades when they considered themselves to be victimized, potentially or actually, by either abuses or usurpations of power by the Federal government; such developments being the subject of comment, for example, by former President John Quincy Adams in his celebrated "Jubilee" address of April 30, 1839. (Some of these later resolutions even relied on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 as a precedent.) An example is the set of resolutions adopted in 1815, during the war with England, by the Hartford Convention--representing Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire--protesting against what were considered to be Federal usurpations, potential or actual, regarding use of the States' Militia in war operations and other national defense matters.


The View of Patrick Henry

7. In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of adequate limits on the central government's power, lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weaknesses among its officials, saying:

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." [Click here to read entire speech ]



The American People's View Also Expressed in the Pittsfield Petition of 1776

8. These quoted sentiments were accepted as maxims by American leaders in general and by the American people as a whole in that generation of Free Men--free in spirit and willing to fight and die for their Freedom from Government-over-Man. This acceptance is illustrated by the below-quoted words of the Pittsfield, Massachusetts, town-meeting petition of a decade earlier, in May, 1776. It was penned by the Reverend Thomas Allen, ardent friend of American Independence and of Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man. It stated why Massachusetts needed a new, basic law of the people, a Constitution to be adopted by the people only, in part as follows:


"That knowing the strong bias of human nature to tyranny and despotism, we have nothing else in view but to provide for posterity against the wanton exercise of power, which cannot otherwise be done than by the formation of a fundamental constitution."


This petition reflected the sentiments of the frontier, "backwoods" people of Berkshire County, led by this patriot as head of "The Berkshire Constitutionalists," over a decade before the 1787 Federal Convention framed the United States Constitution. These were truly the sentiments of the American people at large. They are in harmony with the later phrasing of this idea as follows in The Federalist (number 55, by Madison):

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence."



Never-changing Weaknesses of Human Nature Create Never-changing Need for Safeguards

9. The never-changing need for, and value of, constitutional safeguards against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public servants--as contemplated, and as provided for, by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution in 1787-1788 and by those who proposed, framed and adopted the first ten Amendments (including the Bill of Rights made applicable against the Federal, or central, government only)--are due to the never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government and among the self-governing people. These weaknesses never change; therefore the need for these safeguards can never change.

The Conclusion

10. Fear of Government-over-Man was the dominant fear in that day of uncompromisingly individualistic Americans--Free Men, ever jealous of the safety of Individual Liberty, of the security of their God-given, unalienable rights against violation by government.
 
Last edited:
It's not a violation of due process. I am not an anarchist or a nihilist.

There is nothing that says you have to get a gun 1 sec after you want to buy it. It is a pointless cartoon debate. It is the equivalent to debating whether an individual should be able to own nuclear weapons. Hint: In case you are on the fence the answer is no. An individual shouldn't be able to own nukes.

Why not?

What makes government so majestic and moral that it can?

What is government but a group of individuals?
 
Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"


"Just Powers" Defined

This philosophy asserts that the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from them, only the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government may sensibly be entrusted in order to serve their purposes without endangering their rights--their liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute the "just powers" of government, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity--time without end.


"Limited" - a Key Word

"Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. ( the first eight Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)


Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.


The Founders' Warnings

As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."


Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, Is Obedience to God (Because your rights don't come from usurpers and tyrants...they don't come from men. They come from God. Naturally.)

It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal.

A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'" (Emphasis added.) They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees--thus acting lawlessly--thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants.

The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty--duty to God--to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage. This is in keeping with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part, for example, in 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposals for amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in part as follows:


". . . that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."


Applied to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that--in resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits on their powers imposed by the "supreme Law of the Land"--the people and governments of the States are opposing Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are acting in defense of the people's God-given, unalienable rights and the States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.
 
Last edited:
Why not?

What makes government so majestic and moral that it can?

What is government but a group of individuals?


Good point. Let Ted Kacyzinski's get nukes If they haven't broken any laws then why not? And if they use a nuke, then we'll prosecute. It all makes perfect sense. Part of Minneapolis might be missing, but, you know, freedom.
 
Good point. Let Ted Kacyzinski's get nukes If they haven't broken any laws then why not? And if they use a nuke, then we'll prosecute. It all makes perfect sense. Part of Minneapolis might be missing, but, you know, freedom.

The only people who have used nukes to kill people, are people in government.
 
Good point. Let Ted Kacyzinski's get nukes If they haven't broken any laws then why not? And if they use a nuke, then we'll prosecute. It all makes perfect sense. Part of Minneapolis might be missing, but, you know, freedom.

The only people who have used nukes to kill people, are people in government.
 
Let Ted Kacyzinski's get nukes If they haven't broken any laws then why not? And if they use a nuke, then we'll prosecute. It all makes perfect sense. Part of Minneapolis might be missing, but, you know, freedom.

Arguments from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision) are 2 things. 1 - They're warning signs that suggest deception. And, 2 - They're irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those sugar pills, versus poison pill. I think Rand voted for this as a sugar pill/poison pill. Isn't the amendment specifically adding another loophole, and they are trying to get rid of loopholes so they can rubber stamp stuff like this? So that would make this antithetical to the people who want to take guns away, so it wont pass. Also its a placebo because it wouldn't really make us any safer, but would make people feel safer if their senator voted to make sure terrorists don't have guns? I entirely reject the premise of the argument, but unless people are going to think for themselves then Rand needs to counter any argument against his re-election.
 
Every Dem voted against it. Every Republican (Sessions, Lee Cruz, Rand, Rubio, Sasse, etc) voted for it except for people who often vote with the Dems like Susan Collins and Mark Kirk.

It was also endorsed by the NRA.

So, political cover for the GOP. They knew it wouldn't pass.

Reasons to vote against: Symbolic stand against gun purchase ban lists, make brownie points with hard-core libertarians.

Reason to vote for: They can say they tried to do something to stop terrorists, supported due process, did not side with Democrats in voting against it, brownie points with NRA and McConnell.
 
No liberty is traded. People get due process. The case has to be made and won in court.

The worst part about this is the intolerance of any other sort of view. I am a libertarian and I fundamentally disagree that this is even a compromise. I see it as a mild positive. It won't likely be used but if there is a situation where it can be used I am completely for it.

"due process" HAHAHAHAHA....this is a joke,right?
 
No liberty is traded. People get due process. The case has to be made and won in court.

The worst part about this is the intolerance of any other sort of view. I am a libertarian and I fundamentally disagree that this is even a compromise. I see it as a mild positive. It won't likely be used but if there is a situation where it can be used I am completely for it.

The problem is this. In some states it is legal for individuals to buy from other individuals without notifying the government. We know how government works. Once the foot is in the door it is easy to say "Well, the American people gave us a mandate to deny guns based on a no-fly list, therefore all gun sales must now go through a licensed arms dealer." Do not tell me that this scenario would be a stretch, that is how we slide down a slope towards gun control. First it has to be covered in goose shit.
 
If someone on a watchlist wants a firearm they are going to get one either illegally or make their own. How about the ones already in their reach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printed_firearms

How about pressure cookers and box cutter knives? Chemistry books? The internet? The library, book store? There are plenty of materials and resources out there to block people on the watch list from. Its like the border. People attack the symptoms and not the disease.
 
The question isn't whether the legislation is good or bad. As with everything in democratic politics, the question is one of strategy. I can't say whether it's bad or not without knowing the opinion demographics of Kentucky.

The real, real question is this: Why is Rand seemingly afraid of actually losing to Jim Gray? I've been getting the feeling that this upcoming race is rattling him more than it should. If he doesn't win in a landslide after a cakewalk of a campaign, then we're in a lot of trouble.
 
I've been a huge rand backer and cheerleader and everything has made sense and fit....until now.

This is ridiculous, and he knows it. Go look on his facebook page...no mentions of the bill, his vote, etc. He's hiding it because he knows it was bad.
 
I've been a huge rand backer and cheerleader and everything has made sense and fit....until now.

This is ridiculous, and he knows it. Go look on his facebook page...no mentions of the bill, his vote, etc. He's hiding it because he knows it was bad.

Are Ted Cruz and Mike Lee bragging about voting for it on Facebook? No reason for any of the GOP to brag about it. It's purely meant to be used for them and the NRA to say they did something, and the Democrats are the ones who blocked it.
 
Back
Top