Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

[Clementine]

?

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….

Excellent points. It is violent PEOPLE, not their chosen weapons, that we need to fear. Most murders are committed with knives, but yet no outcry to control them.

About the same number of people are killed in Chicago each year than have been killed in mass shootings over the last 30 years. Chicago already has stricter gun laws than most, yet the number of murders and violence continues. Maybe if they would ask why so many violent people are there and get to the root of it things would change.

Obama and the liberals are turning a blind eye to the real causes and are just going after one of their pet projects- controlling guns. When they talk about restricting and confiscating guns because of those mass murderers, it's clear their priority isn't public safety. Only potential victims will even be affected by the law, not the killers. Mass murderers aren't the biggest danger, not by a long shot. The proposed gun laws won't do a damn thing to stop crime and will only be the beginning of disarming the general public. Punishing those who didn't commit any crimes.

 

[MondoBongo]

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....

Why don't you save your broad brush for painting your walls? Again, this conversation is going exactly nowhere because of your generalizations. There is no comparison between what happened to Marco Rubio after his rebuttal speech and gun violence. None.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

Why don't you save your broad brush for painting your walls? Again, this conversation is going exactly nowhere because of your generalizations. There is no comparison between what happened to Marco Rubio after his rebuttal speech and gun violence. None.

they are both examples of attacking others....

 

[MikeK]

While I generally don't care for Marco Rubio I do give him credit for making this distinction, which essentially focuses on the real problem rather than its secondary aspect. And as I recently learned, the real problem seems to be psychotropic drugs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Er, that applies to "Life, Liberty, and Property" as defined under the FIFTH AMENDMENT. You have not the right to deprive anyone from legally obtaining property in the United States without due process of law. You can just shove that little red herring back where it came from.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

You have laws because societies function best with some sort of order imposed. You have Police because people don't obey the rule of law. My point was that it's illogical to ask for MORE laws to address a problem when you aren't enforcing the ones that you already have in place. Let's not forget that it is the same Administration that sold assault weapons to narco-gangs that is now declaring that law abiding citizens shouldn't have access to the things that they helped criminals obtain. Am I the only one who finds that the height of farce?

You're being sold a pig in a poke by progressive politicians that simply passing stricter gun control laws will keep things like the Newtown killings from taking place. We've got several generations of kids that have grown up on medication for supposed problems like ADD and it's becoming rather apparent that the "cure" can be far worse than the original problem. But instead of doing something constructive, progressives have once again used a crisis to try and pass laws that will take guns out of the hands of Americans who have done nothing wrong.

 

[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?

You have laws because societies function best with some sort of order imposed. You have Police because people don't obey the rule of law. My point was that it's illogical to ask for MORE laws to address a problem when you aren't enforcing the ones that you already have in place. Let's not forget that it is the same Administration that sold assault weapons to narco-gangs that is now declaring that law abiding citizens shouldn't have access to the things that they helped criminals obtain. Am I the only one who finds that the height of farce?

Link please.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

The other side of that argument is that since tens of thousands of people die in automobile accidents each year...shouldn't we ban the use of autos here in America even by people who have never had an accident before? It's obvious the automobiles are a bigger danger and safety issue than guns will ever be. So why aren't we legislating the end of private ownership of autos?

Do you see how ridiculous what you're saying REALLY is?

 

[Oldstyle]

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

You have laws because societies function best with some sort of order imposed. You have Police because people don't obey the rule of law. My point was that it's illogical to ask for MORE laws to address a problem when you aren't enforcing the ones that you already have in place. Let's not forget that it is the same Administration that sold assault weapons to narco-gangs that is now declaring that law abiding citizens shouldn't have access to the things that they helped criminals obtain. Am I the only one who finds that the height of farce?

Link please.

You need me to link that the high powered assault weapons that the Justice Department allowed to "walk" to drug gangs are the very same type of weapons that they are now seeking to ban sales of to average Americans? I guess I could...but that's really something that should be common knowledge at this point.

 

[JimH52]

Rubio on Face the Nation was a joke. Other than immigration, where he is one of the eight, he is a typical repub. He made his stance on gun control clear, so he will get his end of the month check from the NRA. The man is a joke!

Both Immigration and Gun Control are dead in the House. Everyone knows that.

 

[MondoBongo]

You need me to link that the high powered assault weapons that the Justice Department allowed to "walk" to drug gangs are the very same type of weapons that they are now seeking to ban sales of to average Americans? I guess I could...but that's really something that should be common knowledge at this point.

I'm sorry. I guess I expected you to provide a link showing that high powered weapons were sold to narco gangs "just because" considering that fact that you've completely oversimplified what happened in what was dubbed "Fast and Furious."

 

[MondoBongo]

Rubio on Face the Nation was a joke. Other than immigration, where he is one of the eight, he is a typical repub. He made his stance on gun control clear, so he will get his end of the month check from the NRA. The man is a joke!

Both Immigration and Gun Control are dead in the House. Everyone knows that.

He's not a joke. He's intelligent and articulate and not some hyperbolic hateful assclown the right is typical of running up the flag pole. Democrats would be wise not to ignore the power of his message.

 

[JimH52]

All polls show Hillary killing Rubio, even among Hispanics. Rubio will turn out to be just another White man from the GOP.

 

[MondoBongo]

All polls show Hillary killing Rubio, even among Hispanics. Rubio will turn out to be just another White man from the GOP.

*looks around* Yep. It's 2013 with primaries not even starting for another two years. Did you correctly predict an Obama win in 2005?

 

[FA_Q2]

?

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 easier, and more convenient you make it to kill somebody the more killings you will have, and the US is one the easiest places in the world to kill people.

Guns make it very easy, and convenient to kill a person, and the US is flooded with more guns then any country in the world. Thats why the US has such a rediculous amount of murders.

Its not even about harden criminals. Anybody can lose there temper over something, and just pull out a gun, and shoot somebody thanks to concealed carry.

Guns are the problem. Our murder rate would be FAR lower without guns.

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.

Again, you want to control the means – A TACTIC THAT HAS NO SUPPORTING FACTS – and ignore the root.

I notice that you have entirely ignored the fact that gun control has not worked. Once again, another gun control thread WITHOUT ANY FACTS.

Poor and badly constructed gun control has problems,

Gun control is not supposed to cure ALL gun violence. We do not treat discussion of any other laws and regulations like we do discussions on gun control. NRA?

The straw men, the red herrings, the false premises, the outright lies, none of it will stop the new momentum

People like me support the 2nd. We support concealed weapons permitting. We support much, but with a dose or honesty and reality that is lacking from fanatics

Still waiting for actual data that supports any of these claims. I notice a LOT of claims and demands that gun control advocates are correct but I notice not one shred of evidence, anywhere at all.

Most of the standard arguments have already been torn to shreds here but I would think that because you are so sure, so positive that such measures are correct that you have done your due diligence. Found proof that these laws actually cause fewer homicides. Looked up the relative data and been shown the light.

Of course, I have to ask then, why do gun control advocates NEVER post anything that resembles a fact?

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

You are misunderstanding the argument (of course, most people that repeat this are also misunderstanding it but oh well).

Essentially, you are not talking about making a law to stop anything. The fact is, the use of a gun by a person in this way is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Putting up legal barriers to owning weapons does nothing because the person in question has already decided to break the law – one that is WORSE than the new law you are creating.

If you are going to go out and murder, you are simply not going to go oops, I can’t murder this person. HAVING A GUN WOULD BE ILLEGAL. Of course that is not going to happen, the criminal has already decided to break a greater law.

What we are proposing here would be something like making possession of car keys illegal while drunk in an effort to stop drunk drivers. That is simply asinine. A drunk is not going to decide against driving because the possession of keys is illegal, he has already decided to break the drunk driving law in place.

That is exactly what you are hoping to accomplish with gun control. You HOPE that a criminal is going to not have a weapon because it is illegal but that person has already decided to break the law with that weapon. Yet another law in the way is not going to matter.

 

[FA_Q2]

?

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?

Some of this is societal. We should be addressing that but not through law. Some of it is a matter of drug laws and gang problems. That can be addressed through law. Some of it is a matter of mental health, another are that can be addressed through law. Tied to this is the pharma industry that has strong ties with many of these tragedies. THAT should be the FIRST thing that we address; the drugging of young people that likely should not be drugged or that need different type of care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Why is this a problem for anyone?

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

That is not a dog whistle by the way though you want to see it that way.

Well, I don’t know that poster that well so maybe it’s a broken clock thing BUT…

What he states is completely correct. Damn near 80 percent of homicides are gang related. How can you not admit that they are intimately related? Most of that stems from inner city slums and the rest from an asinine drug war. Those things are EXTREMELY closely related with the murder rate in this nation and if we took care of those problems, we would see real results that would dwarf even the fantasies of gun control advocates.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

?

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

Are you saying that, for example, domestic violence is not a problem?