Rand Paul appeared on the Glen Beck Show on Friday and told Beck that in the future he expected to see police cars armed with robots that could engage in gunfire and that the robots would likely be able to fly--that is, they would be a form of drone.
Incredibly, he was advancing this as justification for his support of certain drone attacks. He contrasted these type drones, with those flying 50,000 feet in the air, and seemed to prefer the drone in every police car approach.
Glen Beck then brought some sanity back to the conversation.
“I got news for you,” Beck interrupted. “If that ever happens? The Second Amendment is absolutely dead no matter what, unless we at least have fully automatic weapons. That kind of technology in the hands of a government…” he said, before trailing off.
Paul countered that we use robots to dismantle bombs and nobody seems to have a problem with that. “It’s not the technology, it’s the circumstance,” Paul said.
“You may in the end be right,” Beck conceded, “but I am against it, because I don’t want to give this government any more power.”
The audio is below.
Good grief....Rand actually made Glenn Beck sound like the reasonable one in the discussion, and that's not easy.
ReplyDeletePrivate neighborhoods with private roads would make all of that moot. Criminals would be trespassing and could/would be evicted before causing trouble.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar theme, Justin Raimondo called for an end to all immigration to stop terrorist blowback to a somewhat shocked Scott Horton:
http://scotthorton.org/2013/04/25/42413-justin-raimondo/
My point is always that it is the state that criminalizes attempts of private citizens to avoid association with criminals. Then, with criminals in their midst, people call on the police state to save them from those criminals. See how "the market" fails?
Private property would solve everything. Literally.
DeleteWow. When Glenn Beck makes more sense then a Paul...
ReplyDeleteSad. Rand has gone fascist nut.
I have a feeling Rand was named by his father after Ayn Rand. I have no evidence to back this up, just a feeling. If it is true, Rand Paul needs a new name. In my mind, he is neither a Rand or a Paul and is tarnishing both their names. But the sad thing is, he is still one of the most sane voices in the Senate. If you look at many of the votes he makes, he is often one of the few dissenters of either party that opposes terrible legislation. I would rather have twenty of him in the Senate than one John McCain, but that is like saying I would rather be punched in the face than the testicles.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rand drones on...
ReplyDeleteTechnology has proven to us what it has got to offer so far and it will not stop just yet. Monitoring drones on a police car or robots dismantling a bomb are just some of the many ways which we can expect to see in the near future if we really put our minds to it.
ReplyDelete