Adam Kokesh Very Eloquently Defends Rand Paul

[KingNothing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQJMdTVshk&feature=youtu.be&a

[matt0611]

Even Adam, who is usually very critical of Rand, gets it. Wow.

I'm very disappointed with libertarians and even many people on this forum for jumping on Rand like this.

[TaftFan]

Even Adam, who is usually very critical of Rand, gets it. Wow.

I'm very disappointed with libertarians and even many people on this forum for jumping on Rand like this.

They hate Rand. They will say they don't but they want an excuse to take him down. It kills them that Ron Paul didn't win but Rand might.

[Anti Federalist]

Wish I could watch that, good for Adam, I'm sure he does make a great argument for him.

[alucard13mmfmj]

..

[Kotin]

This video definitely is a good one..

[Sola_Fide]

I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wish I could watch that, good for Adam, I'm sure he does make a great argument for him.
It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.

[green73]

I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?

[Anti Federalist]

It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.

That's what I get for just trying say something bland and "positive".

For the record...I agree.

[kcchiefs6465]

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?
Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)

[Sola_Fide]

Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)

Of course it will. Shooting at a drone will be equivalent to shooting at an officer, and lethal force will be employed.

There are so many ways in which this is indefensible. Adam is wrong on this imo, and simply naive.

[kcchiefs6465]

That's what I get for just trying say something bland and "positive".

For the record...I agree.
Lmao I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a rant and the majority wasn't directed towards you. My point of the post was pretty much to tell you Adam's argument since you said you were unable to watch it.

Sorry if it came off kind of dickish.

Another thing he said that I disagree with and imagine you do as well is that he is very much pro-drone. He loves the technology. I think the technology is cool in theory, but there are quite a few abuses that can occur. He mentioned being opposed to governments having them to commit violence such as in the Middle East and he was referring to here as well. I think that goes out the window when you give police the authority to use armed drones in the first place. It's undoubtedly going to be abused.

Oh, and Gold Standard's mundane was mentioned. Pretty soon 'mundane' will be in common usage. :D

[bolil]

So not being bothered by drones wasting robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store is cool? I'd write it off as a misspeak if I could, but I can't. Won me with the filibuster, lost me with more recent head shake worthy comments. Not a big deal, I am just one person. I can't stand pandering.

[tsai3904]

So not being bothered by drones wasting robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store is cool?

Who's ok with killing robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Kokesh describing the shenanigans of Rand haters,

"A few knee-jerk reactions that weren't very well thought out."

Yep, sounds about right.

[Sola_Fide]

Kokesh describing the shenanigans of Rand haters,

"A few knee-jerk reactions that weren't very well thought out."

Yep, sounds about right.

What about the objections in this thread? Do they seem knee jerk to you? I think they are very legitimate.

[KingNothing]

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?


They already do consider "imminent" - The use of force continuum should apply to drones, no?

[jim49er]

Of course it will. Shooting at a drone will be equivalent to shooting at an officer, and lethal force will be employed.

There are so many ways in which this is indefensible. Adam is wrong on this imo, and simply naive.

Does Adam think he can have a drone for protection? lol

[KingNothing]

Hopefully not Obama's definition. Or Holder's definition.

And FFS, I pray to God it is not raising a weapon towards their drone. (which it probably will be)


I can't imagine that it would be. It will probably be limited to situations that involve an imminent threat to human life. I'd hope so, anyway.

[Christian Liberty]

My take on the business thing, if you want to require your employees to drink Miller products and not Budweiser ones, even when they aren't working, if that's in the contract, that's legit. But there's no way they should be allowed to spy on you with drones.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

What about the objections in this thread? Do they seem knee jerk to you? I think they are very legitimate.



I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.
I agree with this. And as a matter of fact, so does Rand, if you take him at his word when he said he does not want the Feds funding local police to use drones.



So not being bothered by drones wasting robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store is cool? I'd write it off as a misspeak if I could, but I can't. Won me with the filibuster, lost me with more recent head shake worthy comments. Not a big deal, I am just one person. I can't stand pandering.

This is just dumb knee-jerk reaction.

[green73]

They already do consider "imminent" - The use of force continuum should apply to drones, no?

You must not read this forum too much, for you'd have a picture how immaculate cops are with applying the use of force continuum. Here's an example: "Justified": Uniformed Invaders Shoot a Man 16 Times in his Bed. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400913-Cops-shoot-unarmed-man-in-bed-16-TIMES

No, I don't want these geniuses in charge of armed drones.

[kcchiefs6465]

You must not read this forum too much, for you'd have a picture how immaculate cops are with applying the use of force continuum. Here's an example: "Justified": Uniformed Invaders Shoot a Man 16 Times in his Bed. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400913-Cops-shoot-unarmed-man-in-bed-16-TIMES

No, I don't want these geniuses in charge of armed drones.
But if they had a stabilized platform to aim from, everyone would be safer./logic fail

Kokesh did make some good points and I liked his last minute but that is seriously the weakest argument I could imagine.

[bolil]

I agree with this. And as a matter of fact, so does Rand, if you take him at his word when he said he does not want the Feds funding local police to use drones.




This is just dumb knee-jerk reaction.
so its a dumb knee-jerk reaction when it involves your savior? But when Obama shows his colors and is called on it... what is it then?

Also the vote to back an Israeli offensive. Not good.

[KingNothing]

You must not read this forum too much, for you'd have a picture how immaculate cops are with applying the use of force continuum. Here's an example: "Justified": Uniformed Invaders Shoot a Man 16 Times in his Bed. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400913-Cops-shoot-unarmed-man-in-bed-16-TIMES

No, I don't want these geniuses in charge of armed drones.

Well, I'm of the belief that most of the harm cops cause is due to their own sometimes irrational fear for their own safety. Removing them from as much physical harm as possible should, I think, serve to decrease their aggressive and deadly behavior.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand Paul might be the best option we've got but he's still disappointing me of late.

@Sola_Fide- Are you backing Rand ATM?

[torchbearer]

this was a bullshit freak-out. you can then make statements that its important for you to be vigilant... and that is fine. but if you are freaking over this interview- I hope to god, you are not the person i'm beside in the fox hole. kiss my ass goodbye.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

so its a dumb knee-jerk reaction when it involves your savior? But when Obama shows his colors and is called on it... what is it then?

Also the vote to back an Israeli offensive. Not good.

No.

It's dumb because you are still going by the first statement Rand made on Cavuto. He has clarified himself on multiple media appearances and released a statement.

It's knee-jerk because you clearly only supported Rand based on small actions he makes, and not the issues the man represents as an entirety and the fate of the nation.

[Christian Liberty]

this was a bullshit freak-out. you can then make statements that its important for you to be vigilant... and that is fine. but if you are freaking over this interview- I hope to god, you are not the person i'm beside in the fox hole. kiss my ass goodbye.

What did your comment about the fox hole have to do with the rest of this?

I'm not "Freaking out". I'm disappointed. Rand apparently has an unhealthy degree of faith in the government, or is pretending to for the sake of those who do. I hope its the latter, but its impossible to tell for sure.

[bolil]

No.

It's dumb because you are still going by the first statement Rand made on Cavuto. He has clarified himself on multiple media appearances and released a statement.

It's knee-jerk because you clearly only supported Rand based on small actions he makes, and not the issues the man represents as an entirety and the fate of the nation.

Lost me at fate of the nation. A, shall we say, dumb phrase. Yeah, like I said, the vote to back an Israeli offensive is not a small action.

[torchbearer]

What did your comment about the fox hole have to do with the rest of this?

I'm not "Freaking out". I'm disappointed. Rand apparently has an unhealthy degree of faith in the government, or is pretending to for the sake of those who do. I hope its the latter, but its impossible to tell for sure.

the first part is about depending on someone to hold it together when shit gets tough... people who freak out over the little things can't be trusted to handle the big things. basically a summary. i don't want to be by someone who's emotions and fear and stirred so easily. i'd rather by in a fox hole with someone who has seen a couple of decades of battle and knows how to be handle themselves.

i keep reminding myself i'm surrounded by political neophytes.. as a way to excuse the behavior... but it doesn't work. i expect everyone to have the long view of the war against tyranny.

[KingNothing]

Rand apparently has an unhealthy degree of faith in the government, or is pretending to for the sake of those who do. I hope its the latter, but its impossible to tell for sure.

I have no idea how you come away thinking this.

He is not a guy who jumped onto the scene and said "RIP IT ALL DOWN! AND DON'T EVEN START OVER!" he said "let's just stop doing the terrible things and do what we can to get government out of the way." He's never once tried to pass himself off as something that he isn't. And what he IS, is the best significant politician in America.


And I say this as an anarchist! He's the closest that we can get right now to my ideal, so I support him.

[green73]

this was a bullshit freak-out. you can then make statements that its important for you to be vigilant... and that is fine. but if you are freaking over this interview- I hope to god, you are not the person i'm beside in the fox hole. kiss my ass goodbye.

I don't want to be in a foxhole next to you when a drone is zeroed in.

[bolil]

the first part is about depending on someone to hold it together when shit gets tough... people who freak out over the little things can't be trusted to handle the big things. basically a summary. i don't want to be by someone who's emotions and fear and stirred so easily. i'd rather by in a fox hole with someone who has seen a couple of decades of battle and knows how to be handle themselves.

i keep reminding myself i'm surrounded by political neophytes.. as a way to excuse the behavior... but it doesn't work. i expect everyone to have the long view of the war against tyranny.

A couple decades of battle? You are speaking metaphorically? Expect everyone? Sounds like a tyrannical disposition.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand Paul might be the best option we've got but he's still disappointing me of late.

@Sola_Fide- Are you backing Rand ATM?

Yes. I probably will vote for Rand and I might (possibly) even be motivated to spend time and money helping him win, although that motivation is waning.

Adam is right in this video that Rand is not a libertarian, and libertarians shouldnt freak out when Rand takes an anti-liberty position. Rand is a principled conservative, not a libertarian. There is no need to freak out about this...we all understand this. But my thinking is that if Rand does not get pushed to be more principled from our side, then he isn't going to get it anywhere. And if Rand thinks the Ron Paul independents are automatically going to vote for him and campaign for him, he is wrong. And without the Ron Paul independents, he cannot beat Hillary.

[torchbearer]

I don't want to be in a foxhole next to you when a drone is zeroed in. my coworkers say the same thing.. but then i remind them- that drone missile will be coming at any time. you can't avoid it.. really. so why fear it.
so, just say no to fear. if you are using fear to rally people- you are a tyrant.

[KingNothing]

i expect everyone to have the long view of the war against tyranny.


As do I. Remember what it was like around here when Ron's campaign was winding down and the usual suspects were shouting "I don't know if we'll even make it to 2014, let alone 2016!" -- it was annoying, immature, and silly. We have to change minds and win elections, and we need to continue doing those things for as long as humans exist. It is our duty, and it is our only hope. And because of that, we WILL win. We have no alternative.

[torchbearer]

A couple decades of battle? You are speaking metaphorically? Expect everyone? Sounds like a tyrannical disposition. i'm not talking about a metaphorical battle. i'm talking about a real battle that also includes violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA9Upk0rU3k

fortunately, i was with people that could hold it together.

[green73]

my coworkers say the same thing.. but then i remind them- that drone missile will be coming at any time. you can't avoid it.. really. so why fear it.
so, just say no to fear. if you are using fear to rally people- you are a tyrant.

So in your longterm view of the fight against tyranny let's just concede now that the gov't (fed and local) can use drones against the citizens?

[torchbearer]

As do I. Remember what it was like around here when Ron's campaign was winding down and the usual suspects were shouting "I don't know if we'll even make it to 2014, let alone 2016!" -- it was annoying, immature, and silly. We have to change minds and win elections, and we need to continue doing those things for as long as humans exist. It is our duty, and it is our only hope. And because of that, we WILL win. We have no alternative.

there are many here who have not arrived at that point in their journey. and get this- because most of their first experience with politics in ron paul- they put everything to a purity test. had they been activist for clark, browne, ruwart, badnarik- they'd know that no one is perfect, but these were good men/women. each one of them could be torn apart by the vultures on this forum.

[torchbearer]

So in your longterm view of the fight against tyranny let's just concede now that the gov't (fed and local) can use drones against the citizens?
you are focusing on one fired shot, and not the war at large.

[KingNothing]

Yes. I probably will vote for Rand and I might (possibly) even be motivated to spend time and money helping him win, although that motivation is waning.

Adam is right in this video that Rand is not a libertarian, and libertarians shouldnt freak out when Rand takes an anti-liberty position. Rand is a principled conservative, not a libertarian. There is no need to freak out about this...we all understand this. But my thinking is that if Rand does not get pushed to be more principled from our side, then he isn't going to get it anywhere. And if Rand thinks the Ron Paul independents are automatically going to vote for him and campaign for him, he is wrong. And without the Ron Paul independents, he cannot beat Hillary.


It is VERY important to have purists who hold a politician's feet to the fire. And it can't be people like Sean Hannity who sheepishly said "oh, hey now, Dubya and Congress, stop spending so much money! I'll still DEFINITELY vote for you, but c'mon. Please spend a little bit less." That sort of half-hearted objection accomplishes nothing. Now, I would hope that people would criticize Rand for supporting sanctions on Iran. That is totally justified. But when I see people so eager to pounce on what amounts to a poorly-worded sentence, I have to question what their motives are, especially if they claim to be part of our movement.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?

Exactly. It'll be imminent for a few months, a few years, then you'll see regular bank robbers getting blown away by drones. I thought Adam was an anarchist. An anarchist and a Libertarian are not the same thing. And I thought Adam Kokesh hated Rand after he endorsed Romney.

[KingNothing]

So in your longterm view of the fight against tyranny let's just concede now that the gov't (fed and local) can use drones against the citizens?


"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Lmao I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a rant and the majority wasn't directed towards you. My point of the post was pretty much to tell you Adam's argument since you said you were unable to watch it.

Sorry if it came off kind of dickish.

Another thing he said that I disagree with and imagine you do as well is that he is very much pro-drone. He loves the technology. I think the technology is cool in theory, but there are quite a few abuses that can occur. He mentioned being opposed to governments having them to commit violence such as in the Middle East and he was referring to here as well. I think that goes out the window when you give police the authority to use armed drones in the first place. It's undoubtedly going to be abused.

Oh, and Gold Standard's mundane was mentioned. Pretty soon 'mundane' will be in common usage. :D

Right, if you give the authority for government to use drones, you give the authority for government to use drones to commit violence because they do it in other countries, why the fuck not can't they do it here, once they are allowed to use them. Slippery slope.

[green73]

you are focusing on one fired shot, and not the war at large.

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won!

[KingNothing]

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won!

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?

[kcchiefs6465]

"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.
Incrementalism works. How do you think we got to this point? They will keep expanding and expanding the situations in which they use them in. They will be used in traffic enforcement. They will be used in everyday life. Data bases of who has a license or insurance will be compiled. If your registration is expired. They will be used as revenue creators to buy more drone. Some will be armed. The operators will occasionally make mistakes and people will be killed by them.

Three felonies a day? You better hope not. Private prisons don't fill themselves and drones will play a key role in that objective. This police state is outrageous as is. Why would you ever consider they need more?

[torchbearer]

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?
don't bother with hypotheticals. dude wants ron paul in all things, nothing will change that. he is ruined.

[bolil]

i'm not talking about a metaphorical battle. i'm talking about a real battle that also includes violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA9Upk0rU3k

fortunately, i was with people that could hold it together.

Yeah, I'd post vids of my battles. They happened on pavement, luckily I am as fast as I am and can keep afoot. If you want only people with decades of battle experience I don't know what to tell you, maybe some gang bangers have that.

[torchbearer]

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won! whatever it takes to get you over your freak-out. just like the freak-outs before. you will feel foolish later.

[torchbearer]

Yeah, I'd post vids of my battles. They happened on pavement, luckily I am as fast as I am and can keep afoot. If you want only people with decades of battle experience I don't know what to tell you, maybe some gang bangers have that.

ever hear Ron mention the Remnant?
we are here, and we are the ones leading in this state. thank god.
there was a real fight for liberty, long before such thoughts even entered your brain. i know its hard to believe, but true.

[green73]

"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.

Wait now. Are you dismissing that Rand said it's ok for drones to kill citizens?

The sad thing about this debate is that we were only recently fighting against them using them for surveillance. Now, that's a given. Fucking incrementalism, it so easily steamrolls even the liberty movement.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Incrementalism works. How do you think we got to this point? They will keep expanding and expanding the situations in which they use them in. They will be used in traffic enforcement. They will be used in everyday life. Data bases of who has a license or insurance will be compiled. If your registration is expired. They will be used as revenue creators to buy more drone. Some will be armed. The operators will occasionally make mistakes and people will be killed by them.

Three felonies a day? You better hope not. Private prisons don't fill themselves and drones will play a key role in that objective. This police state is outrageous as is. Why would you ever consider they need more?

Bravo. I'm completely baffled people don't understand this. Adam Kokesh of all people. But maybe he doesn't realize he isn't going to get his own predator drone to use to protect himself.

[BlackTerrel]

Even Adam, who is usually very critical of Rand, gets it. Wow.

I'm very disappointed with libertarians and even many people on this forum for jumping on Rand like this.

There are people who are looking for any excuse to attack Rand - it happens every time he says something that isn't 1000% in line with their view of the world.

[QueenB4Liberty]

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?

Oh yeah, that's a great excuse. Maybe they weren't just testing to see if people would like and tolerate martial law. Maybe they want people to up and ask for them to start using drones to control Americans so cops don't have to. Damn.

[green73]

whatever it takes to get you over your freak-out. just like the freak-outs before. you will feel foolish later.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wkm7WXUW1qihztbo1_250.gif

[torchbearer]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wkm7WXUW1qihztbo1_250.gif

take it from an old bump on a log, you will feel foolish later.

[kcchiefs6465]

There are people who are looking for any excuse to attack Rand - it happens every time he says something that isn't 1000% in line with their view of the world.
FWIW, I am not attacking Rand Paul. I am attacking the notion that drones ever need to be in the hands of the police.

I don't see how my position isn't clear and rational. Even obvious. I have given countless examples of abuses that will be perpetrated by them.

[Christian Liberty]

Frankly, I don't even believe the guy in Boston actually did it.

[KingNothing]

Oh yeah, that's a great excuse. Maybe they weren't just testing to see if people would like and tolerate martial law. Maybe they want people to up and ask for them to start using drones to control Americans so cops don't have to. Damn.

It has absolutely nothing to do with controlling Americans, it has to do with stopping people from lobbing MORE grenades at anyone else.

[schiffheadbaby]

take it from an old bump on a log, you will feel foolish later.

Can I buy a drone to defend myself against the government? Guessing Rand might say no

[KingNothing]

Frankly, I don't even believe the guy in Boston actually did it.


Oh, OK then. It was probably the government. They did 9/11!! Operation Northwood!

[green73]

don't bother with hypotheticals. dude wants ron paul in all things, nothing will change that. he is ruined.

LOL!

[torchbearer]

Can I buy a drone to defend myself against the government? Guessing Rand might say no you can buy a drone right now.

$400
http://compare.ebay.com/like/190732276985?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

[KingNothing]

Incrementalism works. How do you think we got to this point?

And yet, people don't want to institute it on our side.

[green73]

take it from an old bump on a log, you will feel foolish later.

I'm convinced!

[torchbearer]

LOL!
I'm not even joking on that one. Ron was the exception, not the rule. if Ron is all a person knows- then they have a distorted view of reality.

[KingNothing]

Can I buy a drone to defend myself against the government? Guessing Rand might say no

You can buy as many drones as you'd like, for now.

[torchbearer]

I'm convinced!

I'm not going to convince you, it will just happen in time. all you have to do is wait. no more effort on your part is required.

[green73]

Can I buy a drone to defend myself against the government? Guessing Rand might say no

Now there's a question.

[kcchiefs6465]

It has absolutely nothing to do with controlling Americans, it has to do with stopping people from lobbing MORE grenades at anyone else.
The man who was carjacked should have taken the suspect's head off. They go inside to the convenience store to buy something, how nice of them! Take your position around the side of the store and as soon as they walk out blindside them and leave their body where it falls. I was hoping an honest gunowner would have stopped this in its tracks. From what it sounds like, MA doesn't much care for honest gunowners.

I wonder what the next tragedy will have people cheering for? Incrementalism means just that. They are opportunists. (at best) For the love of God can we quit falling for the old tricks? DHS, TSA, when will it end and people say enough is enough?

[green73]

I'm not going to convince you, it will just happen in time. all you have to do is wait. no more effort on your part is required.

I sooo TRUST you.

[green73]

You can buy as many drones as you'd like, for now.

Where does a citizen buy a predator?

[QueenB4Liberty]

And yet, people don't want to institute it on our side.

You missed the point. He's saying the government will tell you they are only using drones to kill the bad guys, for now. But it won't stay that way. I'd assume anyone on this message board would know this and knowing this alone should put everyone who likes liberty on the side of not allowing the government to have drones to control/kill Americans for any reason because they know how things progress.

[kcchiefs6465]

And yet, people don't want to institute it on our side.
The wrong direction with the case of drones. Many people against some of his policies have stated that they would still vote for Rand. He is walking on egg shells with me. Hard to say if in three years I'd vote for him.

ETA: Domestic drones, though I oppose using drones in any aggressive conflict.

[torchbearer]

I sooo TRUST you. trust is not required. in fact, you didn't even have to read my post. your foolishness will become apparent. the only thing required for that to happen was you being a fool right now.

[green73]

if Ron is all a person knows- then they have a distorted view of reality.

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much.

[torchbearer]

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much. that is true. two different men, with two different objectives. maybe you are starting on a path of understanding.

[green73]

trust is not required. in fact, you didn't even have to read my post. your foolishness will become apparent. the only thing required for that to happen was you being a fool right now.

You feel it in your gut, do you?

http://dev.brackets.io/preso/contribute/assets/thumbs-up-chuck.gif

[torchbearer]

You feel it in your gut, do you?

http://dev.brackets.io/preso/contribute/assets/thumbs-up-chuck.gif

more like a history repeating itself kinda feeling. Witnessed a similar cycle in the LALP.

[green73]

that is true. two different men, with two different objectives. maybe you are starting on a path of understanding.

I get it it. Rand is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

Where Ron wanted them to see, Rand just wants their vote.

I'm all for it!

But what if he loses? What will have been gained--and what lost?

[KingNothing]

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much.

And one was a "gadfly" and the other is a potential front-runner for his party's presidential nomination.

To be certain, the front-runner could not have been in that position had the gadfly not existed, but the gadfly serves no purpose if he does not ultimately beget a serious political clout.

[KingNothing]

I get it it. Rand is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

Where Ron wanted them to see, Rand just wants their vote.

I'm all for it!

But what if he loses? What will have been gained--and what lost?


We don't lose anything so long as we don't give up. I can't imagine you, or anyone here for that matter, ever throwing in the towel.

[AuH20]

There are people who are looking for any excuse to attack Rand - it happens every time he says something that isn't 1000% in line with their view of the world.

It starts with a foundational distrust of him. That's largely the wellspring. So when these extremely hypothetical discussions elicit a response that conflicts with that very narrow world view, he's suddenly Mephistopheles. Look, I don't agree with some of Rand's philosophy on illegal immigration nor his lack of emphasis on the Federal Reserve, but I understand that he's clearly in my corner, thanks to his past words, deeds and bloodline.

[fr33]

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much.

Now surely you realized this long before now. Why continue to kick your feet and pout about it?

Rand is a different method. With Ron I noticed from our numbers we have a long way to go with that method...

[torchbearer]

i would say its a growing pain of a huge influx of young politicos who have only teethed on one person. they haven't even seen the whole menu- on their first visit to the diner- they pick the best thing on the menu. that is the standard by which they have created as the expected.. the normal.
now, when they try everything else on the menu- they are disappointed.
then someone who has been eating there for years, have seen a full spectrum of meals from the menu will say- that one meal, it is the best. but it was only made once. i'm sorry it was the first time you ate here, i'm sorry, really. but nothing else on this menu will be like that meal- exactly. there are plenty of great meals on this menu. and yes, you can complain about something about each one them, but they are still great meals.

the long view has a different perspective. the youngling has a misrepresentation of the reality before him.

[Christian Liberty]

@AuH- Why should I care who his dad is? Since when does having the best candidate America has ever had as a father say anything about you? Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed at Rand for the drone thing but I'm generally supportive of him. I'm still going to vote for him. But who his dad is really doesn't matter.

[torchbearer]

I wish, in some ways, that adam and i had a discussion on this matter. he actually was sitting next to me at some of our trainings in minnesota. he didn't know who I was- but i knew who he was, at that time, the only thing he had done was speaking very passionately at an event or two.

[AuH20]

@AuH- Why should I care who his dad is? Since when does having the best candidate America has ever had as a father say anything about you? Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed at Rand for the drone thing but I'm generally supportive of him. I'm still going to vote for him. But who his dad is really doesn't matter.

It's not so much his dad in terms of DNA as the environment that he was raised in. There is a connection there. Rand's path of enlightenment is directly connected to that of the father.

[green73]

And one was a "gadfly" and the other is a potential front-runner for his party's presidential nomination.

To be certain, the front-runner could not have been in that position had the gadfly not existed, but the gadfly serves no purpose if he does not ultimately beget a serious political clout.

Here's a theory. They (the Establishment) have got a guy, the heir apparent to the enormously problematic Ron Paul movement, who really wants the ring. They are happy to call him front runner, as long as he shuts up about the Fed, and ameliorates the message on many other fronts as well.

"Gadfly". Fuck off for using Establishment-speak against RP.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow.

[green73]

Now surely you realized this long before now. Why continue to kick your feet and pout about it?

Rand is a different method. With Ron I noticed from our numbers we have a long way to go with that method...

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up.

[AuH20]

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up.

Actually, Rand is better at dispersing those ideas into clutched ears. Granted it's not 100% of the manifesto but it's a good share.

[torchbearer]

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up. Ron is pushing the ideas, Rand is pushing for the seat of power. Two different people. I know it gets confusing because their names are similar.

[green73]

Actually, Rand is better at dispersing those ideas into clutched ears. Granted it's not 100% of the manifesto but it's a good share.

Really? Rand is dispersing ideas? I don't see it. I see mealymouthed pandering, and an Establishment happy that it's the new message of the movement.

WSJ:

To be a more credible figure than his libertarian father, a three-time presidential contender, Sen. Paul said, he must "appeal to a larger group of voters." For example, he hasn't called for eliminating the Federal Reserve or instituting the gold standard, his father's pet projects.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428891366971864.html.

Yeah, let's just have him dispersing whatever makes the Establishment happy for the next 3 1/2 years. During a time when Americans desperately need to wake the fuck up.

[jmdrake]

A couple of points.

1) As I've said before, Rand didn't need to make up a hypothetical here. He had the perfect one. I'm not a big drone fan. But when I heard about how the Chechen brothers had the police pinned down with automatic fire and IEDs to the point where one police officer who tried to drive towards them had his vehicle disabled I thought "If there was ever a time to use a drone, this is it." Yeah, sure. I still have my doubts about the "official story". But assuming that at the very least the firefight happened as described, then had I been an officer in that position I at least would have liked a surveilance drone. This ain't ladies getting mistaken for Chris Dorner and being shot at. This is someone actively throwing explosives at other people and shooting off automatic fire in a neighborhood. If that's not an imminent threat than what is? Again, if you're going to take the position "Never use a drone in any circumstances" that's one thing. But Rand didn't take that position, so why hold him to it now?

2) On the civilian use of drones, just because a technology is legal doesn't mean every use of it is legal. Is it legal for me to use my legal assault rifle to shoot onto your property? If someone's flying a drone over your property, as far as I'm concerned you have a right to shoot it down. A boss certainly has no right to gather intelligence by flying a drone over your property.

Of course people can spy on you with high res cameras without needing drones.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295510-World-s-first-111-Gigapixel-image&highlight=gigapixel


It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.

[torchbearer]

A couple of points.

1) As I've said before, Rand didn't need to make up a hypothetical here. he used the same hypothetical in his filibuster several times. the jerry doyle show covered that. jerry had his staff review the 13 hours to confirm.

[Anti Federalist]

They already do consider "imminent" - The use of force continuum should apply to drones, no?

That right there is precisely what my concern is and why the opposition must be complete, total and unequivocal.

The Circular Force Continuum in place right now, says that a cop has the right to light you up, if there is any threat to his safety, real, perceived or imagined.

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

Otherwise you might as well give it up now, because whatever tiny opening you allow now for theses god damned infernal machines, will be a mile wide chasm in 20 years.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who's ok with killing robbery suspects coming out of a liquor store?

That is the real issue, isn't it? The poor wording during Rand's interview was too vague to answer that question. It leaves an opening for assumptions.

I understand what Rand meant. And Adam's major point is that we all should have understood what Rand meant, and not over-reacted to a poorly worded sentence or a bad scenario. Rand doesn't want the Police to fire hellfire missiles from drones in the US. His point is that there are scenarios where lethal force is (legally and appropriately) used by the Police, and the technology used to accomplish that is a moot point. It doesn't matter.

But the use of the term "imminent threat", and the scenario of "liquor store robber with gun" are not detailed or specific enough.

I am personally opposed to the use of the term "imminent threat". It is intertwined with "pre-emptive strike", and both are terms that are often used by people who have too much taste for violence, war and killing. It is about attacking (initiating force against) someone because you believe that they might be a threat. There is no proof. And the more paranoid the person making that decision, the more dangerous for everyone involved. Decisions about use of lethal force should not be based on predictions of the future, sometimes by paranoid people. It is an attempt to put the fiction of Minority Report into practice. It is dangerous and error prone by design.

It should be clear that suspected burglars and robbers are not executed on sight by the Police. That would be both illegal and immoral. There has to be much more to the scenario.

What terminology and scenario would be better? "Active shooter" is more specific, and a better choice. It is a person who has and is currently engaged in lethal aggression, and lethal force is an option to stop them (but not mandatory). Common sense should apply. And using helicopters or drones for surveillance during hot pursuit or active searches should not be surprising to anyone.

Yes, the wording of the live and time constrained interview could have been better, but we should know what Rand meant.

[jim49er]

That right there is precisely what my concern is and why the opposition must be complete, total and unequivocal.

The Circular Force Continuum in place right now, says that a cop has the right to light you up, if there is any threat to his safety, real, perceived or imagined.

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

Otherwise you might as well give it up now, because whatever tiny opening you allow now for theses god damned infernal machines, will be a mile wide chasm in 20 years.

This

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

[Sola_Fide]

This

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

I third that. Not only that, federal police forces should not exist. If you support federal police forces, how can you say you support freedom?

[kcchiefs6465]

A couple of points.

1) As I've said before, Rand didn't need to make up a hypothetical here. He had the perfect one. I'm not a big drone fan. But when I heard about how the Chechen brothers had the police pinned down with automatic fire and IEDs to the point where one police officer who tried to drive towards them had his vehicle disabled I thought "If there was ever a time to use a drone, this is it." Yeah, sure. I still have my doubts about the "official story". But assuming that at the very least the firefight happened as described, then had I been an officer in that position I at least would have liked a surveilance drone. This ain't ladies getting mistaken for Chris Dorner and being shot at. This is someone actively throwing explosives at other people and shooting off automatic fire in a neighborhood. If that's not an imminent threat than what is? Again, if you're going to take the position "Never use a drone in any circumstances" that's one thing. But Rand didn't take that position, so why hold him to it now?

I don't know. I believe that fire fight happened generally as portrayed in the media. I've seen the picture of where the explosive went off and the witnesses seem honest with nothing to gain from lying. All that said, I still can't find myself approving of the use of drones over American soil by the police. Boston Marathon was a tragedy and an anomoly. It isn't as if these situations occur daily. For every department to want one or get one is completely unwarranted. (and that was the door that was opened just by allowing them for surveillance) There are small time police departments who have drones now. As the technology becomes cheaper and more advanced, much like the APCs have, they will become common place for a PD to have one or many. Personally I would have liked to have seen the carjacking victim put an end to it then and there. There are reports that he escaped (I believe the affadavit states this, IIRC) when the suspects both went inside the store. That would have been a fine time to hide and ambush the suspects walking out. (had he been armed) It would have saved some lives and a lot of money. Drones being used whatsoever is a slippery slope. I don't see a scenario where the authorities would need the authority to operate them. The abuses of them will surely outweigh the one off time some crazy is on the run and is endangering the public in the same way as the two Boston bombing suspects were. I just don't see it.



2) On the civilian use of drones, just because a technology is legal doesn't mean every use of it is legal. Is it legal for me to use my legal assault rifle to shoot onto your property? If someone's flying a drone over your property, as far as I'm concerned you have a right to shoot it down. A boss certainly has no right to gather intelligence by flying a drone over your property.

Of course people can spy on you with high res cameras without needing drones.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295510-World-s-first-111-Gigapixel-image&highlight=gigapixel
I am not sure what recourse is available. Specifically, how would you determine whose drone it was or what entity was surveilling you? I believe that property rights extend to the airspace above your property. But if someone is flying just outside of your property lines video taping you or your family, and you couldn't find out who was even flying it, how would you file an injunction with the courts to make it stop? Shooting it down will have consequences. You at shooting at a trajectory that could possibly kill someone on the other end and plus the destruction of government property, (if it was, though I don't know a way you could determine before you shot it down) improperly discharging a firearm.. if they wanted to run wild, inducing panic, or any other of the laws they can think up. (depending on who you annoyed by destroying their drone) I would very much like for some of my concerns to be addressed by Congress or the FAA. I truly think they should suspend their permits until we know the broader implications of drones. For weather and things of that nature, possibly an autonomous pizza being flown to you, I mean that is cool. I just have some concerns that I think are being overlooked.

For police though, after seeing their track records with other investigative techniques or apparatuses and the abuses they have done, they don't need them. The hundred thousand dollar cameras on their helicopters suffice just fine. And I truly am steadfast in my position that they never be armed. I could maybe come around to the idea of drones as there are many good uses, but I will not ever be content with an armed police or SWAT drone or even them using drones in general. A little fly drone (I'm sure you are aware, but for those reading who may think I'm paranoid; They are developing them) comes up and records your conversation, maybe it's out of context, maybe not. The information they find could be slipped to a confidential informant. He could attest to it. They get a warrant and raid your home. Especially with this out of control war on drugs, allowing these things is simply asking for trouble.

I apologize for how long this was. I get a couple beers in me and my supposed to be short replies turn into pages. I do think we have the same concerns? I don't think I am that ignorant on drones that my concerns are paranoid or unwarranted. Seems the politicians don't even want to raise the questions I've asked. I am not taking a shot at Rand Paul with that. I liked his filibuster and generally agree with him. I respectfully disagree with him and Kokesh that police should have drones.

[kcchiefs6465]

Holy shit I need to work on being concise.

[QueenB4Liberty]

This

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

This is what I've been saying all along.

[torchbearer]

Holy shit I need to work on being concise.
a technical writing course could help. if you've ever read a manual. it is very concise.

[kcchiefs6465]

a technical writing course could help. if you've ever read a manual. it is very concise.
Me not drinking would really help lol. After rereading it it isn't that bad. I expected it to be all over the place because I usually forget a point or two that I was trying to make. Meh, Fuck it. Check it out. It voices a lot of concerns some people here, who generally like Rand Paul, have with his stance.

I bet that instead of quoting any of the other things I've said, some rat of a journalist will fly by and cherry pick my, "Me not drinking would really help," quote. Tsk Tsk. If it weren't for Ben Swann and a few others I'd dare say that journalism is dead.

[jim49er]

Rand and Adam should be ashamed that they would even allow the thought of a liftoff of a armed drone, let alone kill US citizens for any reason.

[fr33]

People made the same arguments against firearms. They were "unfair" and "cowardice" at the time. New technology doesn't go away.

All this time the Ron and Rand Paul camps should have been campaigning against police departments. It makes more sense than drones.

But the fact is police departments exist.

If the marathon bombers were shooting and throwing explosives at the police, as was reported, then the police were justified in shooting back and killing the older brother like they did. If you have an imagination, you can envision a scenario where using a drone is justified as well.

[jtstellar]

nukes will never go away either.. arguing against the technology itself is futile.. just focus on the due process part

to me it seems like there are only 2 libertarian camps.. not-so-bright ones versus normal people.

[bolil]

People made the same arguments against firearms. They were "unfair" and "cowardice" at the time. New technology doesn't go away.

All this time the Ron and Rand Paul camps should have been campaigning against police departments. It makes more sense than drones.

But the fact is police departments exist.

If the marathon bombers were shooting and throwing explosives at the police, as was reported, then the police were justified in shooting back and killing the older brother like they did. If you have an imagination, you can envision a scenario where using a drone is justified as well.

Ahhh, but to use a drone there must BE a drone. So, in case of an imaginary scenario drones should be airborne 24/7- Everywhere. A weaponless drone will not affect a situation so not only should they be everywhere, but they should be armed. Missiles on a drone are not much good if they cannot be targeted, and drones don't have eyes, so not only should there be a weaponized drone everywhere but it should be surveying constantly.

[kcchiefs6465]

nukes will never go away either.. arguing against the technology itself is futile.. just focus on the due process part

to me it seems like there are only 2 libertarian camps.. retards versus normal people. some people seem to be in full reputation damage control mode after their stupidity is put on parade under full public view
Retard versus normal huh? Perhaps you'd wish to respond to any of my longer posts in this thread with possible solutions? (and please... don't you goddamn dare say 'probable cause') I'll stop you in your tracks on that one; Might want to look into what the FBI and police call 'Stingray', FLIR images of supposed marijuana grow house heat signatures, (that aren't) and the 3,000 or so lost FBI GPS trackers.

I'll wait.

[kcchiefs6465]

And for what it's worth I am not quite arguing against the technology. Police shouldn't have nukes (as an example that was used here) as much as they shouldn't have drones.

I don't agree with nuclear warheads or armed drones being used in an aggressive war.


On another note:

I should start another thread on the cost of upgrading the B61 nuclear bombs. Off of the top of my head, I can say it is a fucking ridiculous amount of money.

[jtstellar]

Retard versus normal huh? Perhaps you'd wish to respond to any of my longer posts in this thread with possible solutions? (and please... don't you goddamn dare say 'probable cause') I'll stop you in your tracks on that one; Might want to look into what the FBI and police call 'Stingray', FLIR images of supposed marijuana grow house heat signatures, (that aren't) and the 3,000 or so lost FBI GPS trackers.

I'll wait.

i received a warning.. apparently i'm not allowed to call people retards.. i have edited out the quote

i think a good 80% of reddit users might be banned here instantly

[kcchiefs6465]

ETA: Fuck it.

You aren't as informed as you think.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I feel a machine being used to track someone down and take him out is a slippery slope. Using a drone instead of a helicopter to follow a criminal... that might be ok, but a weaponized drone no. What if it is hacked by a criminal? How long will it be until drones are used to pepper crop spray protesters?

[PaulConventionWV]

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?

Nobody said anything about the government deciding what imminent is. You and I both have a definition of imminent in which we believe it would be appropriate to kill someone without a trial, in instances of self-defense. That's what imminent means. If private parties want to use drones, then they should have the right to do so. Drones are not solely the property of the government. They can and probably will be weaponized in different ways (not just Hellfire missiles) and if they are used to defend someone's property, so be it. Nothing about that violates any Constitutional or natural right.

[PaulConventionWV]

Of course it will. Shooting at a drone will be equivalent to shooting at an officer, and lethal force will be employed.

There are so many ways in which this is indefensible. Adam is wrong on this imo, and simply naive.

In order to understand where supporters of Rand are coming from on this one, you have to look past the police state into an age where drones are traded and owned privately in a time where precision weaponry on drones is commonplace and not just police officers use them. There may come a time when this is reality and we have to be able to accept that. They can be used for good or evil, just like any gun, and we have to realize that the drone itself is not the problem. Shooting at a police drone may get you killed, but nobody's trying to support that. I don't even believe police should exist and I'm still not opposed to drones being used in the future by anyone who has the means to get one and a good reason to use it.

[green73]

Nobody said anything about the government deciding what imminent is. You and I both have a definition of imminent in which we believe it would be appropriate to kill someone without a trial, in instances of self-defense. That's what imminent means. If private parties want to use drones, then they should have the right to do so. Drones are not solely the property of the government. They can and probably will be weaponized in different ways (not just Hellfire missiles) and if they are used to defend someone's property, so be it. Nothing about that violates any Constitutional or natural right.


It will be left to the subjectivity of the donut eaters, and they will operate with impunity as they do in everything else.

I can't believe that as we are arguing against the burgeoning police state there are people here ok with this. I wonder had John McCain said what Rand did if these same people would be as ok with it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Really? Rand is dispersing ideas? I don't see it. I see mealymouthed pandering, and an Establishment happy that it's the new message of the movement.

WSJ:

To be a more credible figure than his libertarian father, a three-time presidential contender, Sen. Paul said, he must "appeal to a larger group of voters." For example, he hasn't called for eliminating the Federal Reserve or instituting the gold standard, his father's pet projects.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428891366971864.html.

Yeah, let's just have him dispersing whatever makes the Establishment happy for the next 3 1/2 years. During a time when Americans desperately need to wake the fuck up.

Rand disperses a lot of the same ideas you and I hold. But now that you think he's establishment, you just dismiss everything he has to say since the ideas he is dispersing that you do like don't matter because of the ideas you would have worded differently.

See how much the media attacks him come 2015, and you'll see that he's not establishment. That's my litmus test for any politician. If they're not establishment and they're anti-establishment, they're okay in my book.

[PaulConventionWV]

That right there is precisely what my concern is and why the opposition must be complete, total and unequivocal.

The Circular Force Continuum in place right now, says that a cop has the right to light you up, if there is any threat to his safety, real, perceived or imagined.

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

Otherwise you might as well give it up now, because whatever tiny opening you allow now for theses god damned infernal machines, will be a mile wide chasm in 20 years.

If you think about it, though, drones take away many of the excuses that cops use to shoot people. Not that I think cops should have drones. I don't even think they should exist.

[PaulConventionWV]

This

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.
No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

So do you support a government ban of any and all drones for private use?

[PaulConventionWV]

I third that. Not only that, federal police forces should not exist. If you support federal police forces, how can you say you support freedom?

I don't believe the police should exist, and I still don't see drones used for private purposes as a problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

Holy shit I need to work on being concise.

Yeah. tl;dr

[PaulConventionWV]

nukes will never go away either.. arguing against the technology itself is futile.. just focus on the due process part

to me it seems like there are only 2 libertarian camps.. not-so-bright ones versus normal people.

To me, people who say "NO DRONES EVER!" are like a combination of the Prohibitionists from the 1920s and a gun-grabber. Their ideas are outdated and yet they are so vocal and ardent about it, but what they fail to realize is that you can never get rid of the technology once it's been created. They are hypocrites in the sense that they automatically associate drones with unconstitutional and illegal activity, and yet they never consider that these are the same arguments used against guns.

[PierzStyx]

I think it is bizarre to say we'd rather have drones shooting criminals than officers, especially in the tyrannical environment in which we live. Id rather that ALL drones be (at the very least) de-weaponized until we can get the implications of them figured out with regard to civil liberties. It is nuts to give our police state a free pass on weaponized drones to kill Americans.

I agree that they need to be de-weaponized until we can figure everything out legal standing wise. But philosophically there isn't much difference between a drone and a gun. Both are weapons used to kill people. Any argument made in defense of guns I think can be made for drones. They aren't going away. The demons are out of Pandora's box. We need to figure out how to use them correctly.

[PaulConventionWV]

It will be left to the subjectivity of the donut eaters, and they will operate with impunity as they do in everything else.

I can't believe that as we are arguing against the burgeoning police state there are people here ok with this. I wonder had John McCain said what Rand did if these same people would be as ok with it.

But John McCain didn't say it. He won't. I am completely against the police state, but at least I have the common sense to separate the drones from the users of the drones, just like with guns. The guns are not the problem. If people want to buy a drone, they should be able to. The technology is going to be there whether we like it or not. Nobody's saying the donut eaters should have any say in this. Like I've said, I don't believe the police should exist, yet I'm not opposed to new technology like so many people here who think you can ban the use of drones and maybe it will go away. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. These are the same arguments used against guns and we are here thinking we can suppress drone technology because we automatically associate it with an out-of-control government, which doesn't have to be the case.

[PierzStyx]

But John McCain didn't say it. He won't. I am completely against the police state, but at least I have the common sense to separate the drones from the users of the drones, just like with guns. The guns are not the problem. If people want to buy a drone, they should be able to. The technology is going to be there whether we like it or not. Nobody's saying the donut eaters should have any say in this. Like I've said, I don't believe the police should exist, yet I'm not opposed to new technology like so many people here who think you can ban the use of drones and maybe it will go away. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. These are the same arguments used against guns and we are here thinking we can suppress drone technology because we automatically associate it with an out-of-control government, which doesn't have to be the case.

This. In fact you can own a drone right now. The tech already exists in civilian settings. Maybe not military robotic grade, but still there. Mounting a bomb on a remote controlled device with a camera is not hard to do.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't believe the police should exist, and I still don't see drones used for private purposes as a problem.

Exactly. I don't want to put regulations on the people, I want to put regulations on the government.

[69360]

The best defense of Rand that Kokesh could make would be to shut up and go hide under a rock for the next few years.

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree that they need to be de-weaponized until we can figure everything out legal standing wise. But philosophically there isn't much difference between a drone and a gun. Both are weapons used to kill people. Any argument made in defense of guns I think can be made for drones. They aren't going away. The demons are out of Pandora's box. We need to figure out how to use them correctly.

I see a weaponized drone as being similar to a sniper rifle at great distance. Are you sure you are seeing what you think you see and sure that person in the crosshairs is the "enemy" that poses an "imminent" threat. I'm for De-escalation whenever possible and that can't happen at that great of a distance.

edit: Collateral damage video. Can I shoot?

[PaulConventionWV]

Exactly. I don't want to put regulations on the people, I want to put regulations on the government.

Me too. That's what we should be focussing instead of using blanket statements like "DRONES R BAD!"

[jmdrake]

I don't know. I believe that fire fight happened generally as portrayed in the media. I've seen the picture of where the explosive went off and the witnesses seem honest with nothing to gain from lying. All that said, I still can't find myself approving of the use of drones over American soil by the police. Boston Marathon was a tragedy and an anomoly. It isn't as if these situations occur daily. For every department to want one or get one is completely unwarranted. (and that was the door that was opened just by allowing them for surveillance) There are small time police departments who have drones now. As the technology becomes cheaper and more advanced, much like the APCs have, they will become common place for a PD to have one or many. Personally I would have liked to have seen the carjacking victim put an end to it then and there. There are reports that he escaped (I believe the affadavit states this, IIRC) when the suspects both went inside the store. That would have been a fine time to hide and ambush the suspects walking out. (had he been armed) It would have saved some lives and a lot of money. Drones being used whatsoever is a slippery slope. I don't see a scenario where the authorities would need the authority to operate them. The abuses of them will surely outweigh the one off time some crazy is on the run and is endangering the public in the same way as the two Boston bombing suspects were. I just don't see it.

Okay. Let's take your hypothetical armed carjacking victim. One scared guy most likely armed with a handgun versus two well armed guys with automatic weapons and explosives and one likely with paramilitary training? I don't think that would have ended well. Now if the scared carjacking victim had an armed drone....;)

You are right. These scenarios are few and far between. And they don't justify a "drone state." But if I had been in that situation and pinned down by automatic fire, I would have liked to at least had a surveillance drone, even if I had to run over to the local Hobby Lobby or Radio Shack and cobble one together.



I am not sure what recourse is available. Specifically, how would you determine whose drone it was or what entity was surveilling you? I believe that property rights extend to the airspace above your property. But if someone is flying just outside of your property lines video taping you or your family, and you couldn't find out who was even flying it, how would you file an injunction with the courts to make it stop? Shooting it down will have consequences. You at shooting at a trajectory that could possibly kill someone on the other end and plus the destruction of government property, (if it was, though I don't know a way you could determine before you shot it down) improperly discharging a firearm.. if they wanted to run wild, inducing panic, or any other of the laws they can think up. (depending on who you annoyed by destroying their drone) I would very much like for some of my concerns to be addressed by Congress or the FAA. I truly think they should suspend their permits until we know the broader implications of drones. For weather and things of that nature, possibly an autonomous pizza being flown to you, I mean that is cool. I just have some concerns that I think are being overlooked.


I was responding to the idea that your boss could use drone collected information against you. In that case, you simply use the law against him. It is impossible to completely prevent being spied on by drone or be telescope or be very powerful digital camera legally mounted on a rooftop. The best you can do is to go after such a person if/when they distribute images that are a clear violation of your privacy.

Really, are people on a libertarian forum contemplating making drones themselves illegal to own? If drones are outlawed, won't only outlaws have guns? I know you're not saying that, but that's what comes from trying to solve and unsolvable problem. The civilian drone genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to put her back in.



For police though, after seeing their track records with other investigative techniques or apparatuses and the abuses they have done, they don't need them. The hundred thousand dollar cameras on their helicopters suffice just fine. And I truly am steadfast in my position that they never be armed. I could maybe come around to the idea of drones as there are many good uses, but I will not ever be content with an armed police or SWAT drone or even them using drones in general. A little fly drone (I'm sure you are aware, but for those reading who may think I'm paranoid; They are developing them) comes up and records your conversation, maybe it's out of context, maybe not. The information they find could be slipped to a confidential informant. He could attest to it. They get a warrant and raid your home. Especially with this out of control war on drugs, allowing these things is simply asking for trouble.


Maybe a police chopper could have dealt with the Boston bombers when they were in the police standoff. One certainly seemed helpful in catching the one in the boat.



I apologize for how long this was. I get a couple beers in me and my supposed to be short replies turn into pages. I do think we have the same concerns? I don't think I am that ignorant on drones that my concerns are paranoid or unwarranted. Seems the politicians don't even want to raise the questions I've asked. I am not taking a shot at Rand Paul with that. I liked his filibuster and generally agree with him. I respectfully disagree with him and Kokesh that police should have drones.

Don't worry about the length. It's a complex issue.

[CPUd]

I think Rand lacked the foresight when he gave the hypothetical situation. They won't be using a drone to hit a person running out of a liquor store with a gun, they will be using a drone to hit a drone coming out of a liquor store.

[Sola_Fide]

What if a guy runs out of a drone store with a liquor bottle? Do the police throw cash at him?

[Christian Liberty]

What if a guy runs out of a drone store with a liquor bottle? Do the police throw cash at him?

LOL! +1 for awesome...