Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

[MondoBongo]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

It is a fair assessment of what he said 9n several Sunday morning talk shows today.

"My skepticism about gun laws is criminals don't follow the law. They don't care what the law is, you can pass any law you want and criminals won't follow it, by definition."

Contrary to what the OP states, Marco Rubio is clearly talking about guns. He believes that background checks will be ineffective in curbing gun violence. Agree or disagree with his assessment, the man is clearly talking about guns.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

"Water-Gate"......exactly why Rubio won't get a discussion with liberals about violence in general.....because they are generally violent people themselves....although they pretend otherwise......

else why would someone simply sipping water be attacked so violently.....?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

It is a fair assessment of what he said 9n several Sunday morning talk shows today.

"My skepticism about gun laws is criminals don't follow the law. They don't care what the law is, you can pass any law you want and criminals won't follow it, by definition."

Contrary to what the OP states, Marco Rubio is clearly talking about guns. He believes that background checks will be ineffective in curbing gun violence. Agree or disagree with his assessment, the man is clearly talking about guns.

He also stated that the discussion is all but pointless and that the focus should be on violence and mental health.

As dumb as Dante is this thread is pretty much accurate.

 

[MondoBongo]

He also stated that the discussion is all but pointless and that the focus should be on violence and mental health.

As dumb as Dante is this thread is pretty much accurate.

First of all, I disagree with Marco Rubio. But, he did nicely articulate the reasons why he feels background checks are useless with getting all pearl-clutchy and hyperbolic. He gave a well reasoned argument and someone on the left needs to be just as articulate in stating why they believe background checks would be effective. He then went on to say the emphasis should be on violence and mental health - again, this is his opinion and he's entitled to make it. One should be countering his points, not eviscerating him for making those points to begin with. I guess that's why I'm a little confused about this thread.

You know all of those times people on the left are told they are afraid of first Fred Thompson and then Sarah Palin and then Miche1e Bachmann? Yeah, that's bullshit. But they should be afraid of someone like Marco Rubio. Again, despite "water bottle gate" he is rather impressive and doesn't come off as a total unadulterated nut job. Democrats unhappy with the direction the Democratic party is headed might be syphoned off if someone like Marco Rubio becomes the de facto leader of the party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

So what do you propose to treat whatever causes people to turn violent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every law that has ever been passed has been broken.

The argument that we should not have any background checks because they won't be obeyed is an argument for having no laws whatsoever.

Is that what you crazy people really want? NO LAWS, about anything?

 

[Sarah G]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Anything except guns of course.

 

[Oldstyle]

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

Everyone wants to control violence prone people. But ignoring how they gets guns by going around weak regulations is pathetically silly

It's about gun violence. People who support the 2nd support sensible gun regulations. Rubio will too if he looks at the polls and thinks it will help his election chances.

What's amusing to me is that you progressives actually believe that the same people who can't enforce the laws we have on the books NOW to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane are suddenly going to be able to get the job done if you give them some MORE laws to enforce! These are the same idiots that gave us Fast & Furious.

What Rubio is correctly pointing out is that more gun control laws are not going to stop people who don't care about the law. I'm sorry if such a simple concept baffles you but it's reality.

If you've got a stretch of highway that's posted at a 50 mph speed limit and the average speed traveled on it is 65 with the police issuing few if any tickets, it would be ludicrous to determine that the "solution" to speeding on that road is to drop the posted speed to 40mph.

 

[healthmyths]

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

Everyone wants to control violence prone people. But ignoring how they gets guns by going around weak regulations is pathetically silly

It's about gun violence. People who support the 2nd support sensible gun regulations. Rubio will too if he looks at the polls and thinks it will help his election chances.

What WEAK controls are you alluding to?
What is motivating you and others are rare and exceptional incidences that have occurred 62 times!

Since 1982 there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 of them have taken place in 2012. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.

The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

So why all this concern over an average of 8 people killed per year over the last 31 years???

More importantly as Rubio is correct also.. why the push for more laws when the existing law breakers aren't prosecuted?

Even YOUR brain dead VP made the comment..

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller:
"In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."
Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Read more: VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller

And here is why brain dead said what he said!!!
Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns,
President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws,
cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent | WashingtonExaminer.com

IT makes absolutely NO SENSE to once again harm the majority when the minority isn't being prosecuted! I.e. why not be more aggressive with the existing laws rather then
always look to passing MORE laws??

Plus... why all this excitement and angst over guns that killed 8 people a year..in light of the 1.5 million abortions of fetal heartbeat babies and potential democrat voters ?

 

[MondoBongo]

What Rubio is correctly pointing out is that more gun control laws are not going to stop people who don't care about the law. I'm sorry if such a simple concept baffles you but it's reality.

But if that's going to be the argument, then why have any laws at all since criminals aren't prone to obey them?

 

[007]

LIBTARD logic...

 

[MondoBongo]

else why would someone simply sipping water be attacked so violently.....?

Um...that was a joke. I believe I have expressed nothing but respect for Marco Rubio in this thread.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Indeed gun violence by urban gang bangers, and inner city neanderthals constitute the majority of the problem.

No need to pretend its a societal problem........

 

[MondoBongo]

Indeed gun violence by urban gang bangers, and inner city neanderthals constitute the majority of the problem.

No need to pretend its a societal problem........

Nice dog whistle. Do you toot it often?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

else why would someone simply sipping water be attacked so violently.....?

Um...that was a joke. I believe I have expressed nothing but respect for Marco Rubio in this thread.

i was just pointing out your joke wasn't so much of a joke....since that is exactly what happened....'water bottle gate' was all over the liberal media....in their obvious attempt to belittle and make fun of a potential republican presidential candidate....Rubio got just a taste of what Palin has gone through....

my question is why would nasty liberals want to discuss 'violence' in general when they are so virtually violent themselves ......?

could you really see a discussion with Rubio about violence on one hand.....while they are attacking him for sipping water on the other.....?

Rubio's attempt at an honest conversation with them about origins of violence is a lost cause...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Simple logic, Dante; guns don't cause violence, people do. Just where are you trying to go with this?

 

[MondoBongo]

else why would someone simply sipping water be attacked so violently.....?

Um...that was a joke. I believe I have expressed nothing but respect for Marco Rubio in this thread.

i was just pointing out your joke wasn't so much of a joke....since that is exactly what happened....'water bottle gate' was all over the liberal media....in their obvious attempt to belittle and make fun of a potential republican presidential candidate....Rubio got just a taste of what Palin has gone through....

my question is why would nasty liberals want to discuss 'violence' in general when they are so virtually violent themselves ......?

could you really see a discussion with Rubio about violence on one hand.....while they are attacking him for sipping water on the other.....?

Rubio's attempt at an honest conversation with them about origins of violence is a lost cause...

If you don't understand the difference between actual physical violence and mocking someone, then I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Seriously. If Marco Rubio can't take the pressure of "water-gate" then he shouldn't be in office. That's just a fact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

What if we all started killing each other with baseball bats? The bats are inanimate objects, any object from a Samurai sword to a traffic cone can be used to kill someone. Please stop with "guns kill people, people don't" crap. Nobody's buying it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there was an amendment that said Americans had the right to keep and use automobiles,

would that make it unconstitutional to deny driver's licenses to people with drunk driving convictions, or a vehicular homicide conviction? Would registering cars become unconstitutional? Would licensing drivers and requiring tests become unconstitutional?

Isn't this gun rights extremism really about irrational people making an irrational interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Um...that was a joke. I believe I have expressed nothing but respect for Marco Rubio in this thread.

i was just pointing out your joke wasn't so much of a joke....since that is exactly what happened....'water bottle gate' was all over the liberal media....in their obvious attempt to belittle and make fun of a potential republican presidential candidate....Rubio got just a taste of what Palin has gone through....

my question is why would nasty liberals want to discuss 'violence' in general when they are so virtually violent themselves ......?

could you really see a discussion with Rubio about violence on one hand.....while they are attacking him for sipping water on the other.....?

Rubio's attempt at an honest conversation with them about origins of violence is a lost cause...

If you don't understand the difference between actual physical violence and mocking someone, then I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Seriously. If Marco Rubio can't take the pressure of "water-gate" then he shouldn't be in office. That's just a fact.

every action begins with a thought....and/or an emotion....

frankly you could look at the thought patterns and emotions of liberal elitists and make a case for subversive violence....backed up ultimately with outright violence....