Paul: Drones would have been OK in Boston manhunt

Hot Air ^ | 4-23-2013 | Ed Morrissey

[TigersEye]

The aliens have been waiting for that. We’re never gonna see ‘em comin’ at this rate! ;^)

[Salamander]

/facepalm

LOL

---

“I have a question for Hagerstown residents. Did anyone see unidentified flying objects on Saturday, April 13? That night, I, and five confirmed others at separate locations, saw triangles over the north side of the city, while looking for the Northern Lights. Electronics were even affected at two other known locations from these things. Were drones around?”
— Hagerstown”

---

I’ve seen the ‘triangles’ myself.
I figured it was our guys in some new tech-gizmo and waved at them.

Salamander The Unflappable Pragmatic

[I more curious as to why they were looking for the northen lights *here*]

[Casie]

“Probably a crime being committed somewhere in this neighborhood. Lets buzz this street again just to make sure. “

[James C. Bennett]

Afghanistan, LOL.

I was only making the point that restrictions on the civilian ownership of any weapon goes against the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which aims for civilians to outmatch the power of the government.

[TigersEye]

Clearly not what Rand Paul meant. What’s the difference between a helicopter doing surveillance of an active chase and a drone?

[TigersEye]

The newsies were telling people the Northern Lights might be visible further south than usual a week or so ago. My friend in south Jersey heard it and was hoping to see them too. Never did.

[Sir Napsalot]

It boils down to, do we have just cause to trust government to do what they say they are going to do?

[TigersEye]

No. So, do we shut down all gooberment activity (because I don’t trust them on anything) and if ‘yes’ how do we do that?

[MaxMax]

Am I the only one who saw the FLIR system being used with automated targeting systems being fired?
It's all over the news, but I guess people have no idea what they're watching.

The Technology "was" used in Boston, but because it was connected
to a helicopter it's ok I guess.

[Sir Napsalot]

I don't have any answer.

I am questioning Sen Paul. From what he said, he can not guarantee government won't use surveillance drones when there’s no probable cause that a crime’s being committed.

[Salamander]

Ah, I see.

Can’t imagine how they’d see them this much farther south and in the mountains but I reckon it could happen.

My grandmother saw them when she was a kid but we’re talking 90 years ago.

[TigersEye]

Can any gov official guarantee that any gov employee won't abuse whatever authority or opportunities their job presents them? Cops in helicopters could start randomly shooting at people and things on the ground just for kicks.

[Sir Napsalot]

Exactly my question, why the slippery slope?

[TigersEye]

What slippery slope?

[MaxMax]

Hell yes, agreed. All there was in Boston was 100's of police officers
dressed up like GIJoe and playing for the cameras in their Military armored vehicles.
If they have the equipment they must use it, right?

The first sign of real trouble and those candy asses would be on the hotline
to the National Guard.

[Sir Napsalot]

Here is what Paul said, (watch video clip here 6:56 in length). Watch the whole exchange.

(Transcipt) PAUL: "Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities."

What Ed at Hot Air showed is 1:49 long. Cut off just before my emphasis in Paul's response. WHY?

[Casie]

I’m just noting how very very easy it would be to slip down that slope. :p

[jurroppi1]

On that point we would agree. Honestly, we should be able to easily procure selective fire weapons if we chose to do so without government restriction.

[TigersEye]

Authority always carries with it the potential for abuse. The question is are policies going to be set that are abusive from the start? I don’t see Rand implying that at all.

[Casie]

"The question is are policies going to be set that are abusive from the start?"

Nah. I'm not interested in the original intentions of bad policy. And I may not be the only one.

From Drudge- Ron Paul fans furious over Rand's drone stand..., How Rand learned to love the drone.

I like Rand to and all, but he's wrong on the drones and I'm growing weary of well meaning republicans opening doors for psychopath liberals. Its ok to just say no. But like girls with low self esteem at prom, republicans keep saying dumb junk like, "Ok. Under the dress. But over the bra." :p