This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 25, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Now, as the manhunt in Boston unfolded last week and as residents remained holed up inside their homes while two mad men threatened their safety and security, the issue of drone use made headlines once again. Now, some asked, should drones have been used during that manhunt and would lethal force by drones on those American citizens have been appropriate?
Well, the man who just last month staged a 13-hour filibuster to protest the administration's drone strike policy was all of a sudden -- he was issuing an exception to his stance.
Now listen to what Senator Rand Paul told my good friend Neil Cavuto.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CAVUTO"/FBN)
SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: 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.
We shouldn't be willy-nilly looking into everyone's backyard and what they're doing. But if there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I'm not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used. I'm all for law enforcement. I'm just not for surveillance when there is not probable cause that a crime is being committed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: So has Senator Rand Paul changed his position? He joins us right now.
Senator, welcome back.
PAUL: Well, welcome to you, Sean. But I didn't change my position. It's exactly the same position I expressed during the 13-hour filibuster.
HANNITY: You mean I missed it?
PAUL: Well, in the famous words of George W. Bush, I think I was mis-underestimated.
PAUL: If you watch my debate for 13 hours, which I don't think many people did, I used the exact same example of the liquor store in my 13-hour debate. I said over and over again, for example, I also used the hypothetical, if the Twin Towers are being attacked, that's deadly force being used against America and Americans, there is the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. If someone is engaged --
HANNITY: Yes. But what does that mean, though? Does that mean that in the middle of this that the police could have called up a drone strike -- you're saying we should have drones in major cities available if such an incident like this occurs?
PAUL: No. I think people misinterpret what we're talking about here. If there is an active gun fight going on and you were shooting at the police and you're robbing a liquor store, the police have the ability and they have the justified obligation to fire back. The type of technology doesn't really matter.
For example, if we were opposed to technology, we might be opposed to a drone or a robot that might dismantle a bomb. A drone is a type of technology. I've been against the abuse of the Bill of Rights, but never said I was against any kind of technology.
But do I want drones flying over getting involved in normal crime sequences? No. But I could imagine a time where a policeman is being shot at in his car and they have the ability to push a button in the car and a small robotic weapon is able to elevate and shoot back at a criminal. So what you call a drone doesn't have to be from 50,000 feet. It could be simply in the neighborhood and part of a car.
HANNITY: It could be a helicopter, for example, right?
PAUL: Well, in the heated pursuit of someone who is shooting at the police or shooting at civilians, it doesn't matter what kind of technology it is, but it does matter whether or not there is a heated pursuit and whether or not there is an engagement of a gun fight and whether they're a threat to the policeman.
PAUL: That's what the doctrine is. The thing is I'm against targeted killings by drones, but I'm also against targeted killing by sniper, by spear, by knife, by club. The technology isn't so important. What I was arguing at the filibuster was targeted assassination.
HANNITY: By the way -- and I told you this the other day, I took great personal satisfaction that your dad's supporters were coming after you like they were throwing snow balls at me a few years back when he was running for president. But I think I understand where their criticism is coming from and I think it may be something we all agree on.
I think the reason that many of us as conservatives are very leery when it comes to government using drones, we don't trust the government. I don't trust the government -- the government can't control our border. They don't want to and they haven't shown a willingness to do it. Whether or not they use technology right I think is a legitimate concern that a lot of conservatives, including myself, civil libertarians have.
PAUL: And you're talking to the senator who is the most concerned about privacy, the most concerned about your civil liberties, and the most concerned about restricting the use of this kind of technology.
That's what I think is a little bit unfair is that you get these left-wing blogs out there trying to promote something and say I changed my position. Even in your introduction, you're insinuating I changed my position. My position is exactly the same. You can look at the footage of my filibuster and it's exactly what I'm saying now.
HANNITY: All right, so that's fair.
All right, let me ask you this. I want to play for you something that Harry Reid said, because you're trying to work with Marco Rubio, I understand you met with him I think yesterday to talk about your Trust But Verify provision that you want added to the immigration bill.
One of the problems I think that Senator Rubio is having is that many Americans, myself included, don't believe the government is capable of controlling the border first. Even two-thirds of Democrats, Fox poll came out today, they want the border control first. But how do you possibly negotiate with Democrats, like the president who demagogues and like Harry Reid who said this yesterday?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV., MAJORITY LEADER: Most the headlines are focused on the hours the sequester cost travelers in airports across the nation. The frustration and the economic effects in these delays should not be minimized.
But the sequester could also cost the country and humankind a cure for AIDS, Parkinson's disease or cancer. These arbitrary cuts have decimated funding for medical researchers seeking cures for diabetes, epilepsy, hundreds of other dangerous and debilitating diseases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Now Republicans want to kill granny, want dirty air and water, and by the way, don't want to help cure diseases. You know and I know we're spending more money this year than last year. That's just a lie what he says, but this is -- these are the people you have to negotiate with.
PAUL: Well, you know, immigration needs to be fixed. I am for immigration reform, but as a conservative, I want to fix the border first. I've always been for securing the border first, and so my amendment will do exactly that.
Trust but Verify will say the border has to be secured and then the immigration reform begins. And to insure that the border actually is secure, we got to vote on it. The president doesn't get to stamp it with his approval. It has to be voted on by your representatives every year to insure that the border is becoming increasingly secure. Only in that fashion will I think you get the support of conservatives for immigration reform.
HANNITY: All right, Rand Paul, thanks so much. We're going to continue to follow it. We'll watch closely and we'll see if the Boston marathon terror attack has an impact on the debate. Appreciate you being with us.
PAUL: Thank you.