Earlier today Rand Paul made some comments about the government's use of drones that had his lackey media director Jack Hunter racing to his Macbook Air to defend him. The comments came during an interview on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto. For those that like context, the conversation relating to the comments in question are below.

The offending comment in question was when Paul seemed to express that it would be just fine if a drone were to take out a man suspected of robbing a liquor store or "carrying a gun". Paul says,

Here’s the distinction, Neil — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.

Paul is correct to make the important distinction that the discussion about drones is not necessarily about the technology itself but about the way that technology is used by government. Drones could have excellent use in the private sector. For example, a rancher could use drones to help keep an eye on his cattle and watch for any breach in his fences. It is true that the technology of drones, in and of itself, is not evil.What is worrisome about Paul's further statements is the suggestion that a suspect in a crime, or at least one doing something as horrible as "carrying a gun", should ever be killed by police or government agents at all. Anyone suspected of a crime should be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" - even if they are carrying a gun. Remember that whole "2nd Amendment" thing?Jack Hunter has already managed to cobble together a flimsy defense of Paul over at the American Conservative. Hunter's main argument is "Hey, yeah he was a little wishy-washy but come on, the guy stood up for thirteen hours!".Hunter writes:

To be fair, Paul wasn’t as clear as he should have been. It seems like he’s trying to describe a standoff or firefight in which the cops are forced to neutralize a thief robbing a liquor store, but the way he actually describes it sounds far more innocuous; he doesn’t mention the thief posing any threat But does anyone actually believe he’s endorsing the use of a hellfire missile to take out a thief that presents no threat? If he thought that was OK, do you think he might have allowed for it in the bill he introduced banning domestic drone strikes?

To be clear, I don't think that Senator Paul actually advocates that suspects of crimes should be killed by police, or that people should be considered dangerous simply for the act of carrying a gun. As Hunter says, Paul "wasn't as clear as he should have been."  But that is the problem with Rand Paul's brand of politics. That is the problem with getting cute.Rand Paul constantly pussyfoots around the issues in order to attempt to appease both his libertarian base along with the neocon and mainstream audience. Instead of taking bold stances as his father did, he minces words and hedges his arguments. This is what causes confusion among those receiving his messages.Expect to see more of this confusion with Rand's positions. It is not possible to both speak boldly in favor of liberty while trying to please the powers that need pleasing in order to become President.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!