Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,588 Senior Member
    I can't read the article without signing it but I could see the headline

    Et Tu Brute?
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,580 Senior Member
    I hate to say I told you so, but even Rand says it's not OK for the Executive office, but OK for a local police outfit.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    How about pasting it here so we can read it without joining a political movement?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,243 Senior Member
    I can't read the article without signing it but I could see the headline

    Et Tu Brute?

    That's twice people have said that. I clicked there from Drudge. Must have some sort of deal with them.

    Here's what was said:

    Ron Paul's vibrant fan base is in open rebellion today over Rand Paul's perceived reversal on domestic drone strikes. The Kentucky senator, whose famous 13-hour Senate floor filibuster did much to strengthen his ties with his father's hardcore following, told Fox Business Network on Tuesday he's OK with drone strikes on American citizens who, for instance, rob a liquor store.

    "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."



    Update: In response to the backlash, Sen. Paul released a statement about his views on domestic drone strikes. "Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations," Paul said. When asked if he was retracting his hypothetical about an armed liquor store thief being killed by a drone, his spokeswoman Moira Bagley told Foreign Policy "not retracting." Here's the full statement:

    "My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

    Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

    Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

    Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,580 Senior Member
    Now he's flipping again. Smelling more and more like a standard politician.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rand-paul-drones-boston-90551.html
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,243 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    How about pasting it here so we can read it without joining a political movement?

    Yeah, sorry. I'm not signed up with them either, and like I said, it didn't ask me to. Dunno why it is for you guys. Here's a couple links:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/23/rand-paul-shockingly-now-supports-the-use-of-drones-on-us-soil-to-kill-americans-so-what-was-that-filibuster-thing-all-about/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-drones_n_3140850.html
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,243 Senior Member
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones

    This seems to be a little clearer, but still:

    Costello: What about in this instance? One Texas sheriff told reporters his agency is considering arming his drones with rubber bullets and tear gas. Let’s say there’s a large crowd gathering and you need some crowd control. This type of drone might be able to diminish any problems on the ground. Would that be allowed under your bill?

    Paul: Anything that would require a warrant. It would have to have a warrant. And I’m concerned about obviously arming drones. But I don’t want to say that I’m arguing against technology. For example, there’s a bomb in a car, I’m very happy that we have automated robots that can go up to the car and investigate the bomb and we don’t have to risk a human. Same with drones. If they can save lives, that’d be one thing. Arming drones obviously sends up pictures of the military and I don’t think domestically armed drones are a good idea. What I would say is that drones could be used if you have a proper warrant. But that means you go through a judge.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 9,462 Senior Member
    Surveillance drones. Yes, within limits.

    Armed drones? Never
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    So apparently Paul is not in favor of "armed" drones but passive drones used for surveillance. But then he says that maybe rubber bullets would be okay.

    I'm not so sure this is a genuine flip-flop but maybe instead he's trying to arrive at a personal decision on the fly. Which isn't altogether bad, but he'd be better off keeping his trap shut until he's worked out the details in his mind.

    Myself, I can understand the potential value of a passive drone for police work, but think this technology can be a slippery slope.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,580 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Listen guys, this is the future of law enforcement. For those of you that have seen the movie Robocop, we are NOT that far from it. We may not see a self awere and thinking model within our lifetime but certainly a semi-automated unit handled remotely like a drone or a bomb robot type. So what is the diferrence between a ground based robotic cop and an airborne one? Just wings...

    I like it!

    Guys sitting in an office, remote operating "RoboCops" will kill far less citizens for holding wallets or phones. The emotions of the officer are removed. EVERY encounter is recorded. Assault on a police officer becomes defacing goverment property. One robot can replace 5+ cops, it cannot lie, it only leaves the field for maintanence, it is not a union member, doesn't get paid overtime,...I can think of a million reasons why this is a good idea.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I dunno, Cali, maybe I disagree with some of what you say. Robot drones don't get overtime, etc, but those operating it do. And no, it's impartial, but those running the probe aren't -- and it's easy to become detached emotionally with what's onscreen vs being there in person. So an armed drone might be told to fire by a remote operator when, if the operator is in fact a real cop, the shoot might not go down.

    Re. Rand Paul, he's trying to make the distinction between passive vs armed drones and got himself kinda mixed up, I think. I'll let him slide on this because he's so right on so many other things.

    And I tend to think the tipping point is between passive (unarmed) drones used for surveillance, vs armed drones that can fire lethal/nonlethal weapons. I think that passive drones over PUBLIC gatherings or other large scale areas are okay, because I equate them with these ever-present cameras. Armed drones used on US citizens in a domestic setting? That I disagree with.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,580 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I dunno, Cali, maybe I disagree with some of what you say. Robot drones don't get overtime, etc, but those operating it do. And no, it's impartial, but those running the probe aren't -- and it's easy to become detached emotionally with what's onscreen vs being there in person. So an armed drone might be told to fire by a remote operator when, if the operator is in fact a real cop, the shoot might not go down.

    Maybe I wasn't clear...the operators are not impartial, but they are not in constant fear for their lives. A man reaches for his wallet, the operator can wait to see what is in the man's hand. Dogs won't get shot because the operator's ankles are miles away.

    My point is, the remote operator will not be so fearful that he needs to pull his weapon.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    Originally Posted by Wambli
    So what is the diferrence between a ground based robotic cop and an airborne one? Just wings...

    Intellectually, I can tell myself they're the same, but something must be different. All the drone striking we're doing in Pakistan, for instance, would be considered an act of war if done by troops, or even robots, on the ground. Don't ask me why.

    It's kind of like snakes don't bother me when they're slithering on their bellies, but once they start flying...
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 Senior Member
    I think domestic drone strikes would be cool. But then, I'm kinda bored. Slow night on TV.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Now he's flipping again. Smelling more and more like a standard politician.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rand-paul-drones-boston-90551.html

    I'm not calling it a flip, just yet. The guy is a politician, obviously, or we would never have even heard of him. But, the issue is somewhat new, and he may not yet have thought about every aspect of it, in detail. It takes a very in-depth knowledge of a subject to be able to hold your own against a hostile media that uses teams of researchers whose single goal is to find any little flaw in a person's statements that will incite outrage among his fans.

    Rand Paul hasn't made many political mistakes, probably because he is pretty 'locked in' to the libertarian/conservative ideas and values he pushes. He can actually say what he honestly believes, because that's what he got elected on, unlike a lot of politicians who have to try to remember what lies they have told to the various political activists they are trying to appeal to, but he may not be absolutely certain, yet, about what he thinks on every single subject. The media has made him 'crawfish' a little on this one, and will exploit it relentlessly, so he has a blemish on an otherwise good record. But every other non-Democrat presidential hopeful will get the same treatment, so that we will once again have to choose between the least-worst of them.

    I still have high hopes for his future, because I think he may be the link between libertarians and conservatives that might be able to slow down this slide into chaos that the left is trying to bring about.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,903 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    Surveillance drones. Yes, within limits.

    OK, how do you put limits or warrants on this issue.
    Once you put an aerial reconnaissance system in use in the air,
    it collects everything with in the capabilities of the system.

    Electronic surveillance can be programed to certain frequencies, but,
    info on a non intended tgt using that freq spectrum programed will,
    also, be collected.

    And photos and video sees all.

    So, would private collateral info collected be ignored, I think not.

    This becomes a slippery slope of Big Brother is watching.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • North ForestNorth Forest Member Posts: 310 Member
    Big Brother is already watching, its just a question of who and where and what, and by whom. I live very close to the Northern U.S./Canadian border and believe me there are surveillance cams, lots of them. Once, a few years ago while on a classic car (a hobby of mine) recon mission going on a tip, early in the morning in the middle of nowhere farmland, I stopped my truck in the middle of the road (there was absolutely nobody around as far as you could see) for a moment as I had to take an urgent whizz, morning coffee having made it's end. I hadn't realized that my location was only 50 yards from the border, completely unmarked or even fenced. Out of seemingly nowhere, two border patrol vehicles appeared and approached me and my truck with great haste, and positioned themselves "tactically". Naturally, at that moment I had that "Oh, crap!" sensation, but just calmly got my license and papers ready. The first officer approached me swiftly yet with caution, hand on gun holster. I explained my purpose of being there and it all turned out cool, but it sure was a wake up call.

    I "Google Earth'd" my address just for fun, and even though I live in a wooded area, I could still identify one of my vehicles in the driveway and clearly make out the house rooftop. Amazing.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.