Not sure what makes you think I wouldn't comment.johnnyblaze36 said:
Perhaps you'll enjoy reading the transcript instead although I don't expect you to come back with any different or logical conclusion:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-says-dhs-ice-must-restore-trust-minneapolis-shootings-good-pretti-60-minutes-transcript/
He is correct. We cannot have enforcement without broad support, or at the very least, passive acceptance. Otherwise you end up fighting the whole way. I want deportations. I want immigration enforcement. I don't want a belief to propagate across the country like was stated in the dumbass Grammy's last night where people believe "no one is illegal on stolen land" or "We're not aliens, we're Americans." They are not. They are illegal aliens that do not belong in the country.
When leaders go out there and lie about what occurred and say that a person with a holstered gun was intending on killing ICE agents it, as Rand said, damages trust. If they cannot accurately describe in the realm of reality what occurred they are lying and can't be trusted to enforce policy. "I was operating based upon what I knew at the time." Is not a reasonable excuse. It is 2026. It's a protest. They KNOW a video of the incident is going to be out there. The entire point of what they're doing is to disrupt operations and bait misbehavior by ICE. They will have cameras out. If they stand on a stage and say something wildly inaccurate occurred based upon descriptions alone they're an idiot and can't be trusted to enforce policy.
If they say things like "you can't have a weapon at a protest" it wildly undermines any 2A argument anyone makes. When it's argued that an individual is intending on causing mayhem by merely having more bullets than can fit in a single magazine it undermines any 2A argument. They cannot selectively decide who gets to have what when based upon political beliefs. They cannot say that the mere possession of a firearm is a threat on someone's life, and still validly argue 2A support.
Lots of discussions on this forum, including by you where you correctly describe it as murder, about the killing of Ashli Babbitt. Would the circumstances of her murder be any different had she had a gun? Would it be more justifiable? She would have been breaking additional laws, but a holstered gun is not a threat to anyone and does not any more justify her murder.
Rand is correct and he's pushing propaganda of the underlying principles of conservatism with those statements. They are anti-government overreach and government accountability. What some people are doing is defending actions in an effort to shield the Trump administration. I want Trump to be successful. What happened was the opposite of that.
