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

[Jesse James]

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.

well said.

 

[twomp]

Yes, you have to dig for it a bit, it's not readily obvious. Drake did post it a few posts above. Sorry if I made it confusing, it wasn't meant to be (blame Congress, heh)

What is ironic is that when Rand Paul "plays along to get along," you Collins were ALL over these forums talking down to people like they were idiots, saying things like "Rand Paul is playing chess, you political novices are playing checkers." Now that he has done it again but this time to an issue that you care about, all of a sudden it's the END OF THE WORLD!! Other issues that matter to other people "like the Iran sanctions" are inconsequential but this issue matters more to you so it should to EVERYONE else. Hypocrite much?

I know. Consistency is hard for you along with critical thinking skills that you accuse others of not having.

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

Well he just got his ass handed to him in a very publicly and embarrassing way in Iowa, which should not have happened. I guarantee you that he is still sore from that and will be for a very long time, perhaps decades. So he doesn't want to repeat that experience.

But also, there is some legitimate concern that lots of Republicans will sit this one out because they don't like Trump. If that happens, then downballot races will suffer.

 

[Matt Collins]

What is ironic is that when Rand Paul "plays along to get along," you Collins were ALL over these forums talking down to people like they were idiots, saying things like "Rand Paul is playing chess, you political novices are playing checkers." Now that he has done it again but this time to an issue that you care about, all of a sudden it's the END OF THE WORLD!!

Incorrect. In the past almost everything questionable he said or did was pretty much inconsequential. His messaging and rhetoric were wrong, but at the end of the day you could count on him to vote correctly. That just changed.

 

[Rad]

Incorrect. In the past almost everything questionable he said or did was pretty much inconsequential. His messaging and rhetoric were wrong, but at the end of the day you could count on him to vote correctly. That just changed.

This bill is a big deal but a war that costs trillions of dollars of money and hundreds of thousands of lives is not? How is hyping up threats and making up threats inconsequential? He gladly played politics on war: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/paul-endorses-military-action-against-iran/

War came home and the threat of homegrown terrorism is a lucrative boogie man and a great alibi to disarm the American people. Its been a growing specter since 9/11. The whole list is a ridiculous sham intended to behaviorally condition Americans to the police state as the new normal. The problem is the FBI's bureaucracy. They knew about the boston bombers, they knew about this guy but the hire ups or lack of resources prevented them from keeping a closer eye on them. It has nothing to do with civil liberties. Many attacks including 9/11 could have been prevented. It was the bureaucracy that failed and the list and the TSA is a liberty violating scam.

 

[erowe1]

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.

What keeps individuals from owning nukes isn't that it's against the law.

The problem with nukes isn't that they might get used by private citizens. It's that they might get used by politicians. Nukes wouldn't even exist if not for the demand that exists for them by states.

And let's take kaczinski. The reason you picked that example is because of crimes he has already committed and we can judge him after the fact. But before committing any of thm or conspiring to commit any crimes, why should he have lost his right to keep and bear arms?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well he just got his ass handed to him in a very publicly and embarrassing way in Iowa, which should not have happened. I guarantee you that he is still sore from that and will be for a very long time, perhaps decades. So he doesn't want to repeat that experience.

That was all his fault. He was utterly unable to read the writing on the wall and adjust his campaign accordingly. I really should finally get around to writing that "Why Rand lost" thread...

But also, there is some legitimate concern that lots of Republicans will sit this one out because they don't like Trump. If that happens, then downballot races will suffer.

I doubt that would effect Rand. Some people might not vote for President, but I doubt too many just wouldn't vote at all. If Rand doesn't demolish a gay, pro-gun control liberal in Kentucky, then the entire movement needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Anything other than a resounding victory is a failure.

 

[presence]

If I feel threatened today I don't need a gun next week.

 

[phill4paul]

If I feel threatened today I don't need a gun next week.

The one time you may need a gun and not have it may be the last.

 

[Brett85]

I don't see any problem with this amendment. The language in the amendment is correct. It requires that anyone on the no fly list be given due process before they're forbidden from buying a gun.

 

[phill4paul]

I don't see any problem with this amendment. The language in the amendment is correct. It requires that anyone on the no fly list be given due process before they're forbidden from buying a gun.

Shouldn't someone be given due process before they are put on the no-fly list?

 

[Brett85]

Shouldn't someone be given due process before they are put on the no-fly list?

Probably so, but this amendment was at least a slight step in the right direction since it at least requires due process before someone on the no fly list is prevented from buying a gun. It was an alternative to the Democratic proposal of simply banning everyone on the no fly list from buying guns with no due process at all. I don't have a problem with Rand taking a pragmatic approach and supporting the bill that was a far better alternative than the Democratic bill.

 

[phill4paul]

Probably so, but this amendment was at least a slight step in the right direction since it at least requires due process before someone on the no fly list is prevented from buying a gun. It was an alternative to the Democratic proposal of simply banning everyone on the no fly list from buying guns with no due process at all. I don't have a problem with Rand taking a pragmatic approach and supporting the bill that was a far better alternative than the Democratic bill.

Sure, it was an alternative. Choose mayo or mustard your shit sandwich. The wrong direction is still the wrong direction. There is nothing good here. The fucking no-fly list should be burned on a pyre as un-Constitutional. That approach should end the discussion. But, the fucking GOP loved them some "no-fly" list because, Muslim terrorists. So they screwed the pooch from the get go and gave the Dems the ammunition they need to put a foot in the door for gun control.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't have a problem with Rand taking a pragmatic approach and supporting the bill that was a far better alternative than the Democratic bill.

And that is exactly how we came to live in a tyrannical super state, under more surveillance than East Germans.

By being pragmatic and "reasonable".

 

[Matt Collins]

And that is exactly how we came to live in a tyrannical super state, under more surveillance than East Germans.

By being pragmatic and "reasonable".

One can be pragmatic and reasonable without violating one's principles. It's very hard to do, but it can happen. Rand violated principle here though. But your broader point is taken... every compromise gets us one step away from where we want to be.

 

[Matt Collins]

This bill is a big deal but a war that costs trillions of dollars of money and hundreds of thousands of lives is not? How is hyping up threats and making up threats inconsequential?

Running his mouth is not the same as casting a vote. I don't care what he says as much as what he does.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't have a problem with Rand taking a pragmatic approach and supporting the bill that was a far better alternative than the Democratic bill.

I do.

NO.. It was a Gun control Bill... The answer is NO.

The only guns that NEED MORE control, are those in the hands of the Government. (Police and military)

Every gun fired in Orlando was fired by a government agent.

 

[Krugminator2]

Shouldn't someone be given due process before they are put on the no-fly list?

Yeah. And that is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with this debate. I am not even sure the no-fly list is what they are using for this amendment.

Should the government be able to compile lists based what they define suspicious as it relates to terrorism? Yes. They can and should. It is Constitutional, libertarian, and smart. No one's rights are violated just by compiling a list.

 

[phill4paul]

Yeah. And that is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with this debate. I am not even sure the no-fly list is what they are using for this amendment.

Should the government be able to compile lists based what they define suspicious as it relates to terrorism? Yes. They can and should. It is Constitutional, libertarian, and smart. No one's rights are violated just by compiling a list.

Read this: http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

Then let me know your thoughts.

 

[Brett85]

People are so mad about Rand over this fairly meaningless vote, but yet Ron actually said in an interview that he would support gun control if he thought that it would reduce violence. Certainly not a very libertarian statement. No one's perfect.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/06/22/watch-ron-paul-says-im-gun-control-turns/

And since I am the one that's very much in favor of non-aggression or violence, I would be for it if I thought it would reduce the violence, but it will not, and therefore I will defend the Second Amendment.