16 votes

Daily Paul/Rand bashing Front Page on the Drudge in RED Members quoted

Here is the interview and Rands spoken words in full.


Below is link to the story Drudge linked:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

say what?

a constitutional police department?
where is that in the const?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Wait a minute...

Who says that police drones are going to be different than military drones? Rand clearly said he doesn't care who shoots the robber, an officer, or a drone. If the drone is capable of shooting a robbery suspect who stole $50 dollars, then it is MILITARIZED. Who says we have to deal with this technology? Just because a new technology is introduced, that doesn't mean it's use on innocent civilians is automatically constitutional. Let's face reality, drones ARE going to be weaponized, the government is going to start using them to attack "criminals", they are going to be misused, there will be innocent victims, and we can expect a future not much different from what folks in Pakistan are dealing with. They're going to cram this down our throats just like they're forced Obamacare on us, just like they're forcing gun control on us. I'm glad you don't see any problem with this, I hope you don't become collateral damage.

Learn what militarized means.

If having a weapon makes something militarized, then I'm militarized. It's ridiculous. Cops carry guns; there is no objective difference between a cop with a 9mm sub-gun and a drone with that same sub-gun killing an active shooter.

And yes, "military-grade" (a meaningless term, BTW) weapons are indeed necessary in dealing with modern criminals. Most murderers generally use tiny guns; active shooters don't.

Let me spell it out: this is not assassination, this is a tactical situation Rand is referring to - a firefight. I have no issue with the idea of a new weapons platform; it's been inevitable for a while.

deacon's picture

so would we

as a nation of people with a 2nd amendment be able to use them armed drones for protection?
you know seeing it takes a fed stamp to own an auto anything
but the cops and mil do not have to worry about that

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Yes, we should.

Anyone who's known me for any amount of time knows that I'm that guy who manages to out-pro-gun most pro-gun people, mainly because my view of "arms" extends to rocket launchers and tanks.

deacon's picture

nice !!!

i am of the same mindset,i believe we can own whatever we want
without exceptions. I want a hummer with a turret and maybe an
armored troop carrier (grocery getter)Got to think small at the moment space is limited

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Again, there's the rule of

Again, there's the rule of law. That's why Florida just became the first state to make rules. Helicopters are weapons of the military, but are constrained by the constitution.

deacon's picture

rule of law?

how can that be applied to the average american,and still
align itself with the laws of the const?
the way i read it,them laws apply to our servants and not the people

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I live in Florida...

Not that it matters, but I live in Florida, and I know the specifics of that bill. It does place some prohibitions on the use of drones by local authorities. However, section 4a clearly authorizes the Department of Homeland security to use drones in Florida in anyway it sees fit, even if it violates the 4th amendment. So effectively, this bill does absolutely nothing to prohibit the kind of drone use that I'm concerned about. If a terror attack such as what happened in Boston happened here, there is nothing in this bill that would prevent the DHS from using weaponized drones to annihilate the suspect. I am sorry, but you can't do careful police work from a drone, you shouldn't be allowed to use drones to attack a criminal on the ground... this is unacceptable. If you won't stand against this, I guess I need to find another forum where people will.

P.S. Rick Scott said he'd sign the bill if it made it to his desk, but that was before the Boston bombing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him change his mind now. Rick Scott is a real piece of work...

Of course but you don't see what's wrong with knee jerk

responses without stopping to listen to what rand said exactly??? He said nothing about "Drone Strikes" being ok. YOUR mind did that. He said that he saw no problem with in a hot pursuit situation like a robbery that the police could use a drone for surveillance purposes much like we use helicopters today. But, he qualified this view saying that he didn't want them using drones to fly over peoples houses to spy on them. He never said bombing people was ok. YOu just equate drones with dropping bombs.

Rand was stressing trial by jury. Now why would he do that if he thought you could just take out a robber by drone. GET REAL and get some comprehension.

Drones are a tool much like guns. Just like we don't want the government misusing guns against civilians we also don't want drones, or tanks or anything else to be misused against people.

Rand said...

"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."

Rand is suggesting ARMED DRONES that can SHOOT YOU flying over your town. Executing $50 thieves. WAKE UP! If we militarize the police one day they will declare war on us...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

See my above post.

Learn what militarization actually is. Drones - even drones with guns - are not inherently evil, being merely a weapon. Even the hated Predators have legitimate use as air support in combat.

I always thought it was the assassinations we had issues with, but it appears that drones themselves are regarded as evil. Why?

ease of use and lack of risk

The assignations wouldn't be as frequent with out a drone, because it takes any and all danger out of one side of the operation. Take away the drones and the assignations plummet.

The same sort of thing can be applied to a 9 mm on a police drone. Cops shoot too many people wrongfully now and few people are dumb enough too shoot back at the cops today because they will gladly pump you full of holes a retribution. Why should the police have such an advantage? You give people in power more powerful tools it will be abused and there will be no turning back.

If you are going to take someones life you have to be damn sure he deserves it. I don't think an HD camera is good enough validation and there will be alot of oops it looked like him on the monitor quotes in the future. Right now the cops will claim they shot someone because he had a gun only to find out later it was a remote control for the TV. Now they have a new one...He was carry'n a pressure cooker. When its up to a camera feed they are going to say he had a gun I saw it on the monitor and the only thing on the guy will be his iphone.

Debbie's picture

Shame on Drudge.

Not that any of us are readers, but . . . not cool.


This is just what the

This is just what the establishment wants. Divide an conquer. For lack of any alternative, I am going to stick with Rand.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein


I think we need to cut Rand some slack. If we keep doing this to him, he will never win and we will end up with another maniac for 8 more years. And I don't know if America can even hold up that long. I am worried about these next 3 years.

The criticism of Rand for those comments...

...is totally groundless. The people criticizing him either (a) didn't listen to what he actually said, or (b) never understood the drone issue to begin with (it's not about drones, it's about how they're used).

See my comment:


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No... this IS about drones.

I don't know when this happened. I don't know where I was... when the hell did the use of militarized drones in American skies become totally acceptable... to Ron Paul supporters no less!!! I feel like I've just entered the twilight zone.

This is just a taste of whats to come

Judging by the way he jumped at this opportunity, Drudge has obviously been eager to knock Rand down a peg. Drudge is showing his true colors here, and now we know what to expect from him come 2016.

I never

Trusted Drudge. A lot of Establishment Repubs go there.

I call it the FudgeReport...

And the RomneyReport...after I saw how he treated Dr. Paul...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

I agree Matt did nothing for

I agree Matt did nothing for Ron Paul.... He covered him a bit more than the MSM but never showed the full stadiums. He ran just enough of Ron Paul to attempt to stay creditable.

Exactly. Just wait patiently for what can best be described as

a gaffe. Then pounce.

Yes, what Rand said was insensitive and not well thought out. Wow. One misstatement out of 4000. On live TV where you know the clock is ticking and you're trying to throw out a metaphor and relate to a wide audience with a common mental picture to try to bring home a point on an enormously complicated issue.

On the plus side, my pressure cooker thread is getting hits from this so...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Maybe, if Rand didn't have

Maybe, if Rand didn't have the added complication of delivering a "tailored message" for a specific audience to remember and just stuck to the principled message of liberty it would go something like this, " ... and every one of those word rang true and glowed like burning coal pouring off of every page like it was written in my soul from me to youuuu..." Tangled up in Blue -Bob Dylan

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I don't get Drudge's priorities...

I mean, here I go ahead and break the story about a congressional bill to regulate pressure cooker temps, diameters, shapes and colors, and he decides to link to some NON-STORY instead?

OMG there's 22 down-votes on DP and that equals a red-link on top of Drudgereport.com?

Never realized how much true power (love power) we really have here...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Drudge is Gossip

He reports on things of particular subject. He wants you to react. Neither way which matters to him as long as it gets a reaction.

Interesting subjects I might add.

I stand with Rand.

I stand with Rand.

Rand is SILENT so is the glass half full or half empty assholes?

You all assume the best with Ron, the glass is always half full.

Rand does a 13 hour filibuster and has successfully overcapitalized on these issues. Yet when he fails to speak up half of you assume he is against us.

Rand has a right and a responsibility to keep silent on certain things.

Why don't you all go BASH Mike Lee or your own senators instead of just focusing on Rand.

Rand has accomplished more for us in his first three years in the US Senate than Ron Paul did in his first three years in congress. Be patient folks, and if you have nothing nice to say, well, just shut the hell up if you can't prove your sh t ideas.

deacon's picture

shut up?

if you have nothing nice to say "shut up"
your statement goes hand in hand with what you said
so shut up

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence


I do I constantly call my reps and email them but I never get a reply in email and phone calls seem like a waste. I know Rand is actually listening to the people.