Sen. Rand Paul acts like an idiot

[fuelair]

Considering the way people get drunk and freak out I'm not sure I want guns readily available in a pressurized fuselage.

Understand your point, but mythbusters did a pretty good job proving that is not as big a problem (if you take account of the same problem in a bar or church, etc.) as many people think - a hole or few in the fuselage or window/s is not going to swiftly decompress the plane or cause passengers to be pulled out through them.

 

[sarge]

Exactly and not only that...

But I can think of several ways to scan people that would work and be effective, but I will not discuss them in an open forum.

Going in the opposite direction, why exactly do we not allow guns on airliners? There will never again be an airline hijacking post 9/11.....

Guns are unsafe yet allowed in some places. Bars and sports events come to mind. The difference between allowing a gun at a bar (stupid) and allowing lay persons to carry a gun on a passenger airliner is the potential number of casualties.

I can see zero potential good from and allowing passengers to carry firearms and much potential bad.

 

[BenBurch]

... why exactly do we not allow guns on airliners? ...

Exactly the same reason we do not allow them in chemical plants;

Because the consequences of a careless person discharging a weapon could be large.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Guns are unsafe yet allowed in some places. Bars and sports events come to mind.

Is that right? I thought most sports venues and other big entertainment venues prohibited guns. (There's a concealed carry law here in Missouri, and many public establishments--bars, restaurants, etc--have the legally required sign posted saying guns aren't permitted. I just assumed big sports venues do the same.) I think the stampede and trampling at a venue that holds 80,000 could be potentially more deadly than even an airliner depressurizing (or being partially crippled).

I thought the gun prohibition on airlines really was primarily about hijackings and such.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I have no such burden.

The words of the Constitution are clear...... Senators are free from arrest when actually in a session, and when going to and from a session ; (that's a semi-colon) Senators may be questioned about comments made within the Senate at no place except the Senate.

So - show a court case that contradicts the plain language of the constitution, or show a court case that has interpreted "at a session" to mean "at some place other than a session". If you cannot, then it is not at all clear that the original intent of this portion of the Constitution was to protect members of Congress from ever being detained. Indeed, it seems far more likely that the framers meant exactly what they wrote - free from arrest when they are going to, attending, or comming from a session.

A congressional session formally starts on January third and ends on January third of the following year. They are effectively always in session even when on recess or adjournment. On their way to a session applies to duly elected senator/representative-elects on their way to DC in order to be sworn in. You are misrepresenting their day to day movements to mean not being in session.

 

[crimresearch]

A congressional session formally starts on January third and ends on January third of the following year. They are effectively always in session even when on recess or adjournment. On their way to a session applies to duly elected senator/representative-elects on their way to DC in order to be sworn in. You are misrepresenting their day to day movements to mean not being in session.

Exactly. They don't punch a time clock, they aren't on or off duty.

When the Congressional session is opened, they are all covered by the arrest prohibition, not just inside the chambers.

 

[MattusMaximus]

If you read Paul's comments on these security issues carefully, you will see that what he seems to really object to is the fact that these security procedures are applied to everyone. You know, to people who "couldn't possibly be terrorists"; why not just pat-down... you know... those other people instead?

So what he wants is for the security procedures to be applied only to certain people, if you get the drift.

 

[MattusMaximus]

A congressional session formally starts on January third and ends on January third of the following year. They are effectively always in session even when on recess or adjournment. On their way to a session applies to duly elected senator/representative-elects on their way to DC in order to be sworn in. You are misrepresenting their day to day movements to mean not being in session.

So they can't ever be arrested? For anything?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah, if anything I have a bit of respect for Paul on this one.

I have yet to see any evidence (beyond that of assertion by DHS & Co) that the increased TSA hoop-jumping over the past couple of years has actually improved security.

I won't argue this point one bit; in fact, I agree with pretty much all of it.

My beef is with some of Paul's comments, and those of many of his fans, to the effect that only certain subsets of our population should be the ones being subjected to these kinds of searches. I hear this kind of argument a lot: "why'd they pat me down? I don't look like a terrorist!"

What exactly does a terrorist look like, folks? Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So they can't ever be arrested? For anything?

treason, felony and breach of the peace

The first two are obvious and I think that the third one is intended to discourage political speeches that may incite riots that a non-congressperson wouldn't get away with. To be honest though the case for a felony or treason would have to almost airtight before they would take him into custody.

Even if they were arrested though they would still have to be tried and impeached by the rest of their respective branch of Congress before formal charges could be brought up in any other court(s).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is that right? I thought most sports venues and other big entertainment venues prohibited guns. (There's a concealed carry law here in Missouri, and many public establishments--bars, restaurants, etc--have the legally required sign posted saying guns aren't permitted. I just assumed big sports venues do the same.) I think the stampede and trampling at a venue that holds 80,000 could be potentially more deadly than even an airliner depressurizing (or being partially crippled).

I thought the gun prohibition on airlines really was primarily about hijackings and such.

I forget which State, but one of them actually passed a law to give people the Right to carry a gun into a bar.

 

[sarge]

Is that right? I thought most sports venues and other big entertainment venues prohibited guns. (There's a concealed carry law here in Missouri, and many public establishments--bars, restaurants, etc--have the legally required sign posted saying guns aren't permitted. I just assumed big sports venues do the same.) I think the stampede and trampling at a venue that holds 80,000 could be potentially more deadly than even an airliner depressurizing (or being partially crippled).

I wasn't actually talking exclusively about big-time sporting events. There are bars here that allow guns, and there are still little league sports events that do not prohibit guns.


The thing that makes it less stupid for these venues to allow guns than it would be for airlines to allow guns is the potentially greater damage that could be inflicted on an airliner - and the same logic makes it at least as stupid to allow guns into large crowd events like those you mention.

I thought the gun prohibition on airlines really was primarily about hijackings and such.

That sounds reasonable - but would not lessen the stupidity of allowing guns on airliners even if the risk of hijacking could somehow be eliminated. in other words, that guns are disallowed primarily to reduce the threat of hijacking doesn't change the fact that allowing guns on airplanes would present grave dangers unrelated to hijacking.

 

[sarge]

A congressional session formally starts on January third and ends on January third of the following year. They are effectively always in session even when on recess or adjournment. On their way to a session applies to duly elected senator/representative-elects on their way to DC in order to be sworn in. You are misrepresenting their day to day movements to mean not being in session.

Nope. Now, provide court decisions to support your interpretation. Yours is less likely than mine, considering the original intent of the article.

The intent of this article is to prevent a Senator from being delayed in participating in votes and debates. Had the framers intended to apply your interpretation, they would have simply written that no Member of Congress may be arrested during his term of office - after all, according to your interpretation, there is no time during a term that a MC is not at or on the way to/from a session.

My interpretation follows the words of the Constitution more logically than yours. And, I believe that I can provide evidence of sitting Members of Congress having been arrested for non-felony, non-treason charges before. If so, then the burden shifts to you to demonstrate that courts have ruled that members of congress may never be arrested, except for felonies or treason.

 

[BenBurch]

If you read Paul's comments on these security issues carefully, you will see that what he seems to really object to is the fact that these security procedures are applied to everyone. You know, to people who "couldn't possibly be terrorists"; why not just pat-down... you know... those other people instead?

So what he wants is for the security procedures to be applied only to certain people, if you get the drift.

Security screeners should profile. Profiling is largely behavioral, though clearly non-citizens from counties known to be a source of terrorists should get more attention. I simply don't have a problem with that as it is based on hard numbers, not racial hatred. How Rand Paul looks at the issue, I cannot speak to.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Nope. Now, provide court decisions to support your interpretation. Yours is less likely than mine, considering the original intent of the article.

The intent of this article is to prevent a Senator from being delayed in participating in votes and debates. Had the framers intended to apply your interpretation, they would have simply written that no Member of Congress may be arrested during his term of office - after all, according to your interpretation, there is no time during a term that a MC is not at or on the way to/from a session.

My interpretation follows the words of the Constitution more logically than yours. And, I believe that I can provide evidence of sitting Members of Congress having been arrested for non-felony, non-treason charges before. If so, then the burden shifts to you to demonstrate that courts have ruled that members of congress may never be arrested, except for felonies or treason.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/help/congress_table.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Procedures_of_Congress

A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions", one for each year; Congress has occasionally been called into an extra or special session. A new session commences on January 3 each year unless Congress decides differently

The original intent of this constitutional provision is to prevent the other states or their legislatures from detaining the representation for the people of the other states from being able to do their duties. This was a very real concern as the British had done just that in the recent past and it was still fresh in the minds of the framers of the constitution. The fact that they mentioned it at all in such an important document shows just how important it was to them. That they then clarified what was considered a justifiable reason for detainment and that no other reason was allowed should have also clued you in to their intent.

Keeping in mind the conditions and methods of transportation available in 1788 (no trains, planes or automobiles) it was of national importance to allow the free passage of all of the members of congress in order to ensure that they could perform their duties. It's not like they could catch the next plane and skip a layover in order to make it back to the Capitol on time or make a phone call saying that they were going to be a little late. A long delay might have serious consequences in the conduction of the nations business.

Now then, with that being said I wouldn't be surprised at all if there have been times in more recent history where a congressperson has been detained for reasons not technically allowed under the constitution who didn't exert his privilege to free passage under the constitution. It's meant to be used for the reasons I laid out above and it would be very bad publicity if they did for less than a very good reason. However, they chose to not do so (like Rand Paul did here) either because they felt that it wouldn't actually have any effect on them being able to do their duties or because they would only draw even more attention to their dalliances and follies or for some other personal reasons.

That doesn't mean that they could not have exerted those privileges given to them by law.

 

[sarge]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/help/congress_table.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Procedures_of_Congress



The original intent of this constitutional provision is to prevent the other states or their legislatures from detaining the representation for the people of the other states from being able to do their duties. This was a very real concern as the British had done just that in the recent past and it was still fresh in the minds of the framers of the constitution. The fact that they mentioned it at all in such an important document shows just how important it was to them. That they then clarified what was considered a justifiable reason for detainment and that no other reason was allowed should have also clued you in to their intent.

Keeping in mind the conditions and methods of transportation available in 1788 (no trains, planes or automobiles) it was of national importance to allow the free passage of all of the members of congress in order to ensure that they could perform their duties. It's not like they could catch the next plane and skip a layover in order to make it back to the Capitol on time or make a phone call saying that they were going to be a little late. A long delay might have serious consequences in the conduction of the nations business.

Now then, with that being said I wouldn't be surprised at all if there have been times in more recent history where a congressperson has been detained for reasons not technically allowed under the constitution who didn't exert his privilege to free passage under the constitution. It's meant to be used for the reasons I laid out above and it would be very bad publicity if they did for less than a very good reason. However, they chose to not do so (like Rand Paul did here) either because they felt that it wouldn't actually have any effect on them being able to do their duties or because they would only draw even more attention to their dalliances and follies or for some other personal reasons.

That doesn't mean that they could not have exerted those privileges given to them by law.

You've provided nothing at all. That Congress is in session does not mean that a member of congress is always in or going to or from a session of congress. Again, had the framers meant to say that a sitting MC could never be arrested, then that is what they would have written.

As it stands right now, I have 100% of the evidence on my side. Sitting MC have been arrested and convicted for crimes that are neither felonies nor treason. It has happened often enough and recently enough that were there a chance that the arrests were illegal, the MC would have simply refused the arrest and it would have been tested in court. In the absence of a competent court saying otherwise, these arrests and convictions are absolute proof that it is permissible to both arrest and convict a sitting MC of crimes that are neither felonies nor treason.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You've provided nothing at all. That Congress is in session does not mean that a member of congress is always in or going to or from a session of congress. Again, had the framers meant to say that a sitting MC could never be arrested, then that is what they would have written.

As it stands right now, I have 100% of the evidence on my side. Sitting MC have been arrested and convicted for crimes that are neither felonies nor treason. It has happened often enough and recently enough that were there a chance that the arrests were illegal, the MC would have simply refused the arrest and it would have been tested in court. In the absence of a competent court saying otherwise, these arrests and convictions are absolute proof that it is permissible to both arrest and convict a sitting MC of crimes that are neither felonies nor treason.

I am going to have to ask you for the examples of arrests and convictions that you are claiming. Remember, they cannot be felonies, treason or breaching the peace.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you read Paul's comments on these security issues carefully, you will see that what he seems to really object to is the fact that these security procedures are applied to everyone. You know, to people who "couldn't possibly be terrorists"; why not just pat-down... you know... those other people instead?

So what he wants is for the security procedures to be applied only to certain people, if you get the drift.

Yea, I saw an interview with the man. He wants procedures in place to focus much more security on that have recently traveled to places like Pakistan or Yemen. He also wants to have fast moving lines for frequent flyers who have voluntarily submitted to FBI background checks. This will surely endanger the lives of all of us!

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yea, I saw an interview with the man. He wants procedures in place to focus much more security on that have recently traveled to places like Pakistan or Yemen. He also wants to have fast moving lines for frequent flyers who have voluntarily submitted to FBI background checks. This will surely endanger the lives of all of us!

The travel history I can buy to some extent (I would hazard a guess that it could be easily fooled simply with fake or stolen identities though) but the FBI background check sounds to me like a big waste of FBI time and resources from the get go.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Security screeners should profile. Profiling is largely behavioral, though clearly non-citizens from counties known to be a source of terrorists should get more attention. I simply don't have a problem with that as it is based on hard numbers, not racial hatred. How Rand Paul looks at the issue, I cannot speak to.

Profiling should be based largely on behavior. Whether or not it actually is in practice, and whether or not certain idiotic Senators think it should be in practice, is an entirely different issue. I doubt Paul bothers spending the energy to rub two brain cells together to actually think that much on the issue. He and far too many other people just have the knee-jerk reaction of "I don't look like a terrorist! Go look at that other person, because they look like a terrorist to me!"

ETA: Don't forget two very important words here, folks: Timothy McVeigh. Did he "look like a terrorist" before he blew up 168 people?