Rand Paul Statement on Domestic Drone Use

[Christian Liberty]

Its not the MSM that's the problem here, its Rand's own stupidity.

 

[July]

There are certain limited situations where a police officer should be allowed to kill with a gun, namely, if the cop or someone else is actually being threatened with legal force. I think individuals should be allowed to kill in defense of property, but not cops, because that would amount effectively to trial free execution.

I don't apply those to drones, not because they're "High tech" but because collateral damage.

That's what the statement says though-- that they shouldn't be used in normal crime, but maybe in certain extraordinary circumstances where there is imminent lethal danger. Not all drones are large or shoot missiles, etc.

I think it's important to focus on the moral principle, not the technology of it. This is about self defense versus preemptive aggression. If the same Constitutional rules that apply to guns and other weapons also apply to drones, then what difference does the technology itself make? If it's morally justified to use a gun in self defense, then why not a small drone? Assuming it is indeed actual self defense in an immediate danger situation.

 

[klamath]

How can they? Rand Paul is doing it to himself.



There are certain limited situations where a police officer should be allowed to kill with a gun, namely, if the cop or someone else is actually being threatened with legal force. I think individuals should be allowed to kill in defense of property, but not cops, because that would amount effectively to trial free execution.

I don't apply those to drones, not because they're "High tech" but because collateral damage.

Apparently. Rand Paul is becomming a disappointment to me. You've watched me, I really wanted to support him. I really did. he's destroying himself, and making a mockery of his father's supporters.


No, I'm really not. I've been genuinely depressed since I read that Rand said this. Genuinely. I really was a pretty hard supporter a day ago. Not the "He's his father but an undercover agent" type of supporter, but clearly a "He's the best he's got and I'll try to convince someone of that any chance I get" type of supporter.

Rand betrayed me. Thanks a lot. Stop pretending to be Rand Gingrich...

You are showing the same ignorance of weaponry as Ron Paul did.
A drone is a platform. Many different kinds of weapons or equipment can be mounted on them. If you are really worried about collateral killing then a drone can very well reduce it in those situations where you think a cop is justified in making a kill. One shot from a drone shooting straight down, using a gyro stablized rifle is one hell of a lot safer than a scared shaking cop shooting with a backdrop of potential innocent bystanders in a horizontal plane.

 

[TheTyke]

Rand's position on this is disgusting and wrong. Drones should NEVER be used to kill people... Guns can be pinpointed, and its much easier to ascertain whether there's a real threat when you are physically present with a gun, so there's clearly no valid comparison between that.

This does not make logical sense, and is a key example of how bizarre arguments can get when we allow the media to whip us into a frenzy. Technology is not evil in itself, it's how it's used. It reminds me of arguing that "assault weapons" should be banned. They spray bullets, look scary, and are dangerous "new" technology after all. Not all drones use hellfire missiles, check out this video where a drone is able to ID targets as closely as a human, and fire with pinpoint accuracy. It's NOT different than a gun. Take these situations:

1) An armed robber is shooting people in a bank.
2) A plane is being flown into a building.
3) An armed robber shoots people in a gas station, then exits the building still brandishing his weapon at people.

Would you honestly object to deadly force being used in any of those situations? What difference is there between a gun or a precision drone? Should they be allowed to continue killing until a human can get there?

Rand's point throughout the entire filibuster was that suspects not engaged in violence (ie. emailing at a cafe) should not be assassinated without due process, and that the administration's definition of "imminent" was being distorted to allow cases like that. He was also against actions without a warrant, or spying "just to see what we can find" (ala DNA collection without a court order.) He repeatedly stated that people engaged in violence were legitimate targets. Asserting otherwise makes no sense.

Unbelievable that after all these years, we still take our cues from the media. They tell us he's changed his story, by golly a bunch of us will believe it and argue with our allies till we're blue in the face.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

It looks like some people are just looking for reasons to dislike/hate Rand.

ding ding *winner*

 

[Rudeman]

How can they? Rand Paul is doing it to himself.



There are certain limited situations where a police officer should be allowed to kill with a gun, namely, if the cop or someone else is actually being threatened with legal force. I think individuals should be allowed to kill in defense of property, but not cops, because that would amount effectively to trial free execution.

I don't apply those to drones, not because they're "High tech" but because collateral damage.


Apparently. Rand Paul is becomming a disappointment to me. You've watched me, I really wanted to support him. I really did. he's destroying himself, and making a mockery of his father's supporters.


No, I'm really not. I've been genuinely depressed since I read that Rand said this. Genuinely. I really was a pretty hard supporter a day ago. Not the "He's his father but an undercover agent" type of supporter, but clearly a "He's the best he's got and I'll try to convince someone of that any chance I get" type of supporter.

Rand betrayed me. Thanks a lot. Stop pretending to be Rand Gingrich...

Rand's position hasn't changed, he gained a lot of fanfare saying the same things. Now all of a sudden it becomes an issue, now he's betrayed you? Either you are easily swayed or you haven't been paying attention. I really don't see why this became a big issue since it's the same position he took during the filibuster.

And really you and others should stop with the hyperbole, Rand is not Gingrich and he isn't Marco Rubio. That's just plain stupid.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yep, and there are too many people who fell for it. I thought the liberty movement was smarter than to fall for MSM tricks and propaganda .... sometimes I wonder

We suffer from the same backstabbing, scheming, ideologues, political neophytes, and general naivete as any other group.

 

[Matt Collins]

We suffer from the same backstabbing, scheming, ideologues, political neophytes, and general naivete as any other group.

How disappointing.

 

[beaven]

I like Rand. He moves us in the right direction. But misstatements like this only confirm my belief that our future is more in leaders like Amash.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How disappointing.

Not really. It's to be expected from populist type movements who actively engage n00bs to get into political action.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I think the problem is coming from the fact that most of us didn't know he thought it was okay to kill someone coming out of a liquor store just because they have a gun and a measly $50. I'm really not sure what to make of that statement, but I really hope he didn't mean it's okay to summarily execute someone suspected of theft.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yep, and there are too many people who fell for it. I thought the liberty movement was smarter than to fall for MSM tricks and propaganda .... sometimes I wonder

Matt, I really don't think this has anything to do with media manipulation. If anything, the media was merely reporting on our reactions to the Cavuto clip. This has to do with principle at a very deep level.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This does not make logical sense, and is a key example of how bizarre arguments can get when we allow the media to whip us into a frenzy. Technology is not evil in itself, it's how it's used. It reminds me of arguing that "assault weapons" should be banned. They spray bullets, look scary, and are dangerous "new" technology after all. Not all drones use hellfire missiles, check out this video where a drone is able to ID targets as closely as a human, and fire with pinpoint accuracy. It's NOT different than a gun. Take these situations:

1) An armed robber is shooting people in a bank.
2) A plane is being flown into a building.
3) An armed robber shoots people in a gas station, then exits the building still brandishing his weapon at people.

Would you honestly object to deadly force being used in any of those situations? What difference is there between a gun or a precision drone? Should they be allowed to continue killing until a human can get there?

Rand's point throughout the entire filibuster was that suspects not engaged in violence (ie. emailing at a cafe) should not be assassinated without due process, and that the administration's definition of "imminent" was being distorted to allow cases like that. He was also against actions without a warrant, or spying "just to see what we can find" (ala DNA collection without a court order.) He repeatedly stated that people engaged in violence were legitimate targets. Asserting otherwise makes no sense.

Unbelievable that after all these years, we still take our cues from the media. They tell us he's changed his story, by golly a bunch of us will believe it and argue with our allies till we're blue in the face.

You really don't see the difference between a gun and a drone? Srsly? If you have to pretend that these two are at all comparable, you've made such a ridiculously bad, fallacious argument here that there's no point debating you.

 

[Matt Collins]

I think the problem is coming from the fact that most of us didn't know he thought it was okay to kill someone coming out of a liquor store just because they have a gun and a measly $50. I'm really not sure what to make of that statement, but I really hope he didn't mean it's okay to summarily execute someone suspected of theft.

If someone is brandishing lethal force and committing an act of aggression, fighting them with lethal force is acceptable, so long as other avenues have been exhausted (if possible).

 

[tsai3904]

I think the problem is coming from the fact that most of us didn't know he thought it was okay to kill someone coming out of a liquor store just because they have a gun and a measly $50. I'm really not sure what to make of that statement, but I really hope he didn't mean it's okay to summarily execute someone suspected of theft.

Do you think Rand would support a summary execution of someone suspected of theft just because he's holding a gun?

Given his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, his opposition of indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, FISA, CISPA, etc, couldn't it just be possible that he either misspoke or didn't fully clarify his remarks?

Even McCain or Graham wouldn't advocate for killing a suspected thief just because they're holding a gun and yet some people here (not you) think Rand supports this position?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If someone is brandishing lethal force and committing an act of aggression, fighting them with lethal force is acceptable, so long as other avenues have been exhausted (if possible).

Like the North Hollywood bank robbery in the 90's.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If someone is brandishing lethal force and committing an act of aggression, fighting them with lethal force is acceptable, so long as other avenues have been exhausted (if possible).

The implication, however, is that walking out of a liquor store with a gun and a little cash is evidence enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that you are committing an act of aggression. I can't imagine any situation in which anyone beside the police would just happen to be flying a drone in the area when they spot a guy walking out of a liquor store with a gun. Furthermore, I can only imagine the police immediately thinking this is grounds to blow the guy's head off. Rand didn't say "so long as other avenues have been exhausted" like you did. This to me is troubling because it really does take the policy a step further into saying that a mere suspect retreating from a possible crime scene can be summarily executed. As many here have noted, it's not THAT strange for someone to walk out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 and not be stealing anything.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Do you think Rand would support a summary execution of someone suspected of theft just because he's holding a gun?

Given his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, his opposition of indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, FISA, CISPA, etc, couldn't it just be possible that he either misspoke or didn't fully clarify his remarks?

Even McCain or Graham wouldn't advocate for killing a suspected thief just because they're holding a gun and yet some people here (not you) think Rand supports this position?

He hasn't clarified that specific statement yet. Until I'm given a reason to believe he meant something other than what he said, I'm going to have to go with what he said, and I don't really like it. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably still vote for the guy, but I just feel the spirit being drained out of the Ron Paul movement.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The implication, however, is that walking out of a liquor store with a gun and a little cash is evidence enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that you are committing an act of aggression. I can't imagine any situation in which anyone beside the police would just happen to be flying a drone in the area when they spot a guy walking out of a liquor store with a gun. Furthermore, I can only imagine the police immediately thinking this is grounds to blow the guy's head off. Rand didn't say "so long as other avenues have been exhausted" like you did. This to me is troubling because it really does take the policy a step further into saying that a mere suspect retreating from a possible crime scene can be summarily executed. As many here have noted, it's not THAT strange for someone to walk out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 and not be stealing anything.

It wasn't a great example, and Rand is in media 24/7 so cut the guy a little slack. He's going to misspeak occasionally. I think many understand Rand meant an active shooter, which is exactly what he stated in the 13 hour filibuster.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It wasn't a great example, and Rand is in media 24/7 so cut the guy a little slack. He's going to misspeak occasionally. I think many understand Rand meant an active shooter, which is exactly what he stated in the 13 hour filibuster.

I'm willing to cut him some slack. I just don't know if others will.