16 votes

Rand Paul: I'm Against The Abuse Of The Bill Of Rights, Not Any Technology - Hannity 4/25/2013



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I see

No problem using Technology in a good way. I totally understand the ones that are against that idea. I see where you are coming from. If let them have them, eventually some one will use it in a bad way. I think that we live in a world where we don't trust authority & our government. If we trusted our Government, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. As of now, I think Drones should only be used for War and guarding our borders? I see no problem with that. Do you think differently?
We need a huge change. We first need Reps who actually support the people. We can't just turn America into how Ron Paul sees it one day. This will take time. It could be a very long time until we see it the way we like it. A President is only in power for 4 years too, maybe 8 if re-elected. Even if we elected Rand in 2016, he could lose in the next election. Then, it could change right back to the way it is now. We got a long way to go! And their is a chance that we lose. This is much bigger than just getting some one in Office.

I'm sorry but this has been a

I'm sorry but this has been a painful misstep to watch, just my opinion...

Ugh

This is just opening up the door, once we all accept "constitutional use" of drones in our skies, it's just a short step to unconstitutional use. Let's get real here, if there are drones flying around over your house, how do you know if they're violating your constitutional rights? You won't see them when they're at altitude, even if you see one how will you know if it's spying on you, or if it's weaponized? I don't see any reason to have robotic, killing, flying machines in our skies. It's not ok, it's not constitutional because there is no way for us to know if our constitutional rights are being violated or not. I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of spy drones being flown over my property. There is absolutely NO USE for domestic use of weaponized drones. This is America!!! We're supposed to be the "land of the free". I'm not misunderstanding what Rand Paul is saying, he's not misspeaking. I know exactly what he's saying, and I don't agree.

Care to make an argument with

Care to make an argument with your downvotes? The slippery slope argument IS a fallacy.

The right of the people to

The right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Drones are arms. Period. End of story. Debate is treason.

I understand there are a lot of people with small minds around here who cannot comprehend the difference between drones and unconstitutional drones. But that's ok. You don't need to understand. The right to bear arms is not a debatable issue in the United States of America.

Debate is treason?

Debate is treason??!?!? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard in my whole life. If your premise is valid, then the second amendment should also allow me to own nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure you're aware what the penalty is for treason. Do you want to come impose that on me? You f***ing fascist.

By the way, I'm not talking about the private use of drones. You and I can't afford a f***ing predator drone!!! The US government can afford thousands of them, with big missiles and nuclear weapons. Neither you or I will EVER EVER EVER be able to own one of these drones. And lets remember, a drone isn't a weapon. It's a fucking remote controlled airplane with weapons attached. Designed to be used to kill little folk like you and me. We will not be piloting these things, some NWO stooge in Virgina will be piloting it from a bunker... INTO THE SIDE OF SOMEONES HOUSE!!!

Yes, you can constitutionally

Yes, you can constitutionally own nuclear weapons. No, I'm not fascist, and that makes absolutely no sense given what side of the argument you are taking. I could have been more clear regarding treason. You are free to debate anything you want. But if you step over that line and try to enforce your fascist ideas, then you will be guilty of treason.

Whether or not we can afford it really shouldn't have any impact on this discussion. Moreover, assuming that the cost won't go down massively is pretty naive.

You are making the EXACT same argument as people who want to ban "assault weapons". EXACTLY. You can't have it both ways. If you want to trade freedom for a false sense of security, go ahead, but do not force me to or indeed, you will be 100% treasonous.

My point with that is simply, despite your debate, you are wrong, and you lose the argument, because it says so in completely certain terms in our Constitution. If you do not agree with our Constitution, MOVE. You do not get to change it, no matter how strongly you feel. Trading away liberty for safety is stupid.

substitute

"This is just opening up the door, once we all accept "constitutional use" of guns in our country, it's just a short step to unconstitutional use. Let's get real here, if there are people with guns walking around your house, how do you know if they're violating your constitutional rights? You won't see them when they're concealed under a coat, even if you see one how will you know it's legal and the person carrying it isn't a criminal? I don't see any reason to have fully automatic, scary killing machines on our streets. It's not ok, it's not constitutional because there is no way for us to know if our constitutional rights are being violated or not. I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of people carrying guns. There is absolutely NO USE for domestic use of military style assault weapons. This is America!!! We're supposed to be the "land of the free". I'm not misunderstanding what Rand Paul is saying, he's not misspeaking. I know exactly what he's saying, and I don't agree."

That pretty much sums up any retort i might have made.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Apples and Oranges

Ok, I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, but while I appreciate your perspective, and admire the way you worded it... I think you're missing the point. Obviously I support the right of an American citizen to own any gun they want. However, a weaponized drone is very different from an AR-15 or even an AK47... it's a remotely controlled killing machine. If I have an AR-15 and I want to kill you I have to approach you physically pull the trigger to do any damage. How do you not understand that flying an automated airplane packed with ordinance that could accidentally fall out of the sky and blow up your house, is a completely different animal. The gun dates back to 1400, the predator drone dates to 1994.

Hey, remember this story? Next time it could be your house!

http://technorati.com/technology/article/police-surveillance...

I really do understand your concerns and I concur with them.

However, this is not about spying, it's not about damage, it's not about the power. This is about the freedom to possess said technology. That freedom is protected. That is within the limitations of the Constitution of course. You can't fly over other people's houses or invade their privacy.

If you want to ban GOVERNMENT use of said technology. That is a separate debate. I do wish your argument would focus more on that, or it appears exactly as an anti gun argument.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I always

Thought of it like this. The Patriot Act is just another document admitting what they were doing to you for so long. They were probably tapping phones 20 years before we even knew about it. lol. I mean it sounds crazy but if they want to use a drone, they will. How the heck are you going to know if they are or not? They go up so high, you can't see it. Just like phones...they will tap your phone when ever they want. You will never know. It is only When they get caught, they pass it in as law. lol

This is my point entirely

They are already using drones in our skies, and regardless of what some people think, IT IS ORWELLIAN. I'm not saying the technology is bad, I'm saying, look at what they are doing with it. I've heard a lot of personal attacks at what I'm saying, but I've yet to hear ANYONE tell me WHY it is constitutional for the American government to carry out targeted attacks on it's citizens. Even if we're talking about a murder suspect, I insist there is no constitutional use of a targeted attack on an American citizen by a drone.

I know this one guy is saying the second amendment guarantees the citizens right to own nuclear weapons and anthrax and shit... but even if that's true. I don't think the constitution authorizes the use of remotely fired military hellfire missiles on american citizens. This is ludicrous.

No dude, didn't you hear?

They had a drinking and driving problem so they banned booze, it worked really really well.

"Obviously I support the

"Obviously I support the right of an American citizen to own any gun they want. However, a weaponized drone is very different from an AR-15"

The only thing obvious is that you do NOT support the right to bear arms.

A piece of technology is NEVER a "stepping stone" to violating rights. You violate rights when you violate rights. End of story. Banning a weapon isn't a stepping stone to violating rights. It is a violation of rights, full stop.

How is this not a black and white issue for people around here? You CANNOT ban arms. PERIOD.

Ok...

So you think people should own nuclear weapons? Dude, you can act like Mr. Libertarian, and act like I'm a fascist... but the bottom line is deep down you know that once the US Government gets a blank check to fly drones in our skies, they're going to abuse every last one of them. They're going to spy on innocent people, they're going to kill innocent people, and they're not going to follow the constitution.

Call me a "liberal" or whatever, but I will NEVER support the US government using weaponized drones against it's citizens... and if you think they won't use them against us, then what the HELL is wrong with you???

They use AR-15s against us

They use AR-15s against us too. There is no consistency to your logic. Yes, of somoeone wants a nuke, it should be legal, because laws will COMPLETELY OBVIOUSLY not stop them.

lol

I have to laugh, otherwise I'd have a stroke. This isn't about American citizens having drones and using them against other American citizens. This is about the US government using weapons of war on it's own people. Trust me, I don't approve of jack booted thugs with M-16's on our streets either. The Posse Comitatus act should prevent them from doing that, but it isn't. That same act should prevent the military from flying weaponized drones on missions in our country too, but it won't. If your logic was going to have continuity then we should live in a completely lawless society and there should be NO limitations placed on the GOVERNMENT. Remember dude, the Constitution gives the CITIZENS rights, not the government. Look as I stated before, neither of us will ever be able to afford a PREDATOR DRONE. A predator drone costs 17 Million dollars. You let me know when you get the cash for that... meanwhile the US government is taking our hard earned tax dollars and building THOUSANDS of these damn things to use against us. If you can't get that through your head, it's hopeless.

So your entire argument rests

So your entire argument rests on the theory that no American has ever possessed more than $17 million.

Seems sound.

Seriously though... your argument is "the government will not obey a law not to spy on people so we need to make a law not to let them use cameras". Really? REALLY?

This is not about cameras

The government already has spy satellites that can read the head of a penny in your back yard. This is about the federal government using weaponized drones to fire on US Citizens. THAT IS NOT OK. The second amendment DOES NOT protect the right of the GOVERNMENT to shoot at it's citizens with a robotic missile launcher. Sure there is a very small minority of Americans who COULD afford a weaponized drone but you're totally bypassing reality. The American government WILL NEVER let you own a predator drone with hellfire missiles, NEVER. I know you want the second amendment to allow that, and maybe it does/should. But the United States government will NEVER let you do that. Meanwhile, they ARE building lots of drones with hellfire missiles, and they will start using them to annihilate undesirable citizens. I am in no way suggesting that the citizen should be limited in what weapons they can own, I AM suggesting that we the people should draw a "red line" at the United States carrying out targeted attacks on it's citizens.

I have and always will be

I have and always will be Pro-Paul. Ron & Rand.