3 votes

Rand Paul Gets Cutesy on Drones

Earlier today Rand Paul made some comments about the government’s use of drones that had his lackey media director Jack Hunter racing to his Macbook Air to defend him. The comments came during an interview on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto. For those that like context, the conversation relating to the comments in question are below.

The offending comment in question was when Paul seemed to express that it would be just fine if a drone were to take out a man suspected of robbing a liquor store or “carrying a gun”. Paul says,

Here’s the distinction, Neil — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.

Paul is correct to make the important distinction that the discussion about drones is not necessarily about the technology itself but about the way that technology is used by government. Drones could have excellent use in the private sector. For example, a rancher could use drones to help keep an eye on his cattle and watch for any breach in his fences. It is true that the technology of drones, in and of itself, is not evil.

What is worrisome about Paul’s further statements is the suggestion that a suspect in a crime, or at least one doing something as horrible as “carrying a gun”, should ever be killed by police or government agents at all. Anyone suspected of a crime should be treated as “innocent until proven guilty” – even if they are carrying a gun. Remember that whole “2nd Amendment” thing?

Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree with Rand. If you're

I agree with Rand. If you're swinging a gun around in the act of comitting a crime, you're warned to drop the weapon if possible, I don't care if a sharpshooter, a drone gun, or a police officer takes you out. If my personal property is searched without a warrant with any kind of electronic device and I am charged with a crime, all that evidence is invalid and will be thrown out in court.

"Swinging a gun around"

I guess I missed that part of his comment. He never mentioned anything of the sort.

Of course, I don't see *any* reason law enforcement should be firing Hellfire missiles in civilian areas...(I'm opposed to the "non-civilian" bombings overseas as well, but trying to keep somewhat on topic..."

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

They can see into your home and

HEAR you too! They can use keyword monitoring until you have spoken a given number or quality of keywords, then your image and audio will pop up onto a actual human monitored screen. They are known to tune into exciting acts.

I ☁ you not.

One more reason to NOT Stand

One more reason to NOT Stand With Rand!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Actually, the technology

Actually, the technology could be useful. I think people are taking what he is saying out of context.

How is

How is "I don't care if a drone kills him or a police man kills him" out of context ? He is clearly not talking about private use.

As I said in the article, drone technology could indeed be useful in private hands. In the State's hands, it can only infringe on freedoms, and "killing off suspects is about as slippery as a slope can get.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Was he saying that he

Was he saying that he supports a police officer or a drone killing a suspect? I took it as him saying that he "doesn't care" as meaning "it makes no difference" if it were a officer or a drone (used by an officer).

I'm pretty sure he has made it clear in his past statements and his filibustering of such that he's all for our justice system and would not support the killings of American citizens without due process.

Watch the video

He does not seen to be saying that; but rather defending the State's use of drones for taking out "someone"(a suspect)

If he simply misspoke then hopefully the criticism will force him to clarify his position.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

He could have more clear

He could have more clear about being ok with shooting someone with a gun. I am sure he meant if they were waving a gun while committing a crime and therefore threatening innocent peoples lives, not just walking down the road with a gun.

And that's the problem

Rand is often unclear. In his statements and his positions. It's not just with this, he constantly tries to spin and be careful with his words so as not to offend anyone, but it just ends up confusing everyone.

I don't think Rand IS a neocon, but I do think he's trying to please that crowd and walking a fine line doing it, but it's causing more problems than it is helping him...and definitely more than it is helping the cause of liberty.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Police using Drones

You are ok with the police shooting an American Citizen with a drone?

Yeah, that was disturbing.

Yeah, that was disturbing.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

down with deadly drones

Nailed it

With regard to drones he should be making the clear distinction between public and private use. Drones could have endless helpful uses in the private sector, the potential abuse is introduced when the State takes control.