Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Marco Rubio "open to changes in gun laws"

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    May 8, 2011

    Note to Sen. Rubio. Both of those instances are already illegal. Makes me wonder how he has been graded so highly by both the NRA and GOA when there hasn't been any gun related legislation of note since he was elected in 2010 and he puts out stupid statements like this one. I smell another "moderate" in the making.
  2. callihan_44

    callihan_44 INFIDEL

    Aug 19, 2010
    boy the criminals are shaking in their boots, whatever will they do when they want to commit a crime?

  3. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    Feb 18, 2009
    And this would have had absolutely zero effect on the CT shooting as the killer was not the purchaser or owner of the firearms.
  4. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    I'm all for keeping guns out of the mentally ill's hand too. D U H. Now, tell us how?
  5. Magelk


    Jul 17, 2011
    Just wait, you're gonna see a bunch more of the rats jump ship.
  6. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    The NRA itself has previously said the exact same thing.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  7. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    May 8, 2011

    Here's my surprised face ---> :yawn:

    Im sure the NRA will find a way to support "common sense compromise" legislation.
  8. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    Which part of Rubio's statement do you disagree with? You're against preventing the mentally ill from owning firearms?

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  9. barbedwiresmile

    barbedwiresmile Unreconstructed

    Feb 3, 2008
    But wait- I thought Rubio was the next GOP golden boy?

    Oh well, can you imagine how 'open' Romney would have been to more gun control?
  10. HarleyGuy


    Mar 29, 2008
    I wonder if anyone in Washington D.C is concerned about keeping "assault weapons" and other illegal guns out of the hands of the Mexican drug cartels?:wow:

    Had it not been for a a couple of patriots at the BATFE blowing the whistle on the "Fast and Furious" debacle, the Three Muskateers would have blamed U.S. gun owners and FFL dealers for their screw ups.

    Sen. Manchin D-WV sure stuck in the backs of his constituents....and with an A-rating from the NRA!

    If these politicians, and this President really wants to do something constructive to curb gun violence, how about PROSECUTING those who actually commit crimes with guns?

    This is the same SOS, only a different day, with different players.:steamed:
  11. Kablam


    Jan 12, 2005
    Ah shoot. You beat me to it.
  12. ModGlock17


    Dec 18, 2010

    Moooove with the wind, Baby. You've got to moooove with the wind.


    Basic Observation: First politician who makes a decision immediately after an event, tends to make a fool of himself when the rest of the facts come out.

    Proof: "If I had a son, he'd look like ..... "
  13. We can sing to choir all we want, but these are politicians and politicians are going to gauge the mood of their constituents and they are generally going to vote accordingly. That is, after all, what we would typically want them to do. And most of them do want to get re-elected. If calls and letters to Rubio are overwhelmingly in favor of changes to gun laws, what would you have him do? Ignore his constituents? Doesn't sound like he's committed to vote one way or the other at this point.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  14. Gundude


    Mar 7, 2003
    If those changes are unconstitutional, then yes, of course. His responsibility to defend the constitution supercedes his responsibility to do his constituents' bidding. Otherwise we're stuck with the pure form of democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  15. Well, of course. The key word being "If".
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  16. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    May 8, 2011
    Using the purest interpretation of the 2A, no Im not opposed to it. There's a lot of mentally ill people that don't harm other people, guns available to them or not. I don't like collectivism and the definition of "mentally ill" is entirely subjective. A very small group of people, they that write the DSM manuals, deciding such important liberties as the right to defend oneself with whatever tool you decide? Since when are mentally ill people to not be able to defend themselves? No thanks. I don't really support that.

    Crazy people are going to do crazy things and you'll never legislate that out of existence. In the whole population I don't support punishing many millions for the unfortunate actions of a very tiny few.

    Regardless of my opinion mentally ill people are already barred from gun ownership due to the VT shooting spree. Rubio should at least know this. He's leaving his "options open" with his statement and it's obvious.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  17. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    Jan 26, 2001
    maybe along with a criminal history check he thinks there should be some sort of instant check for metal illness where one was remanded by the courts....
  18. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    He does know this, he apparently thinks that there are some flaws in the implementation.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  19. CAcop


    Jul 21, 2002
    Remember a lot of this stuff politicians are saying is posturing. Obama threw in a caveat of "everything in my power." Meaning that if the House blocked him he might be willing to throw up his hands and say, "Well I tried." Remember this a is a guy who voted "present" most often on his way to the top.

    Rubio is essentially voting present. There has been talk over the last few years of tightening up of reporting requirements of the states in regards to people with mental health issues. They have died quick deaths because they throw in people with PTSD which accounts for 1/3 of active duty police officers and of course military vets.

    I would be willing to bet the end result is short of a 1994 or even CA AWB. My guess would be better definitions of who is "too crazy to own a gun" and maybe registration requirements of any 10+ firearm.

    Remember right now they re fighting over the fiscal cliff, followed by the debt cieling, followed by Bengazi, followed by FandF. FandF may also play a part. The GOP may get a chance to hold hearings on it if they go for gun control.
  20. Paul7


    Dec 16, 2004
    East of Eden
    A lot less than Barry.

    With the current makeup of the House any serious gun control is DOA. This sounds crass, but after a little while this will all blow over. The pols will run after the next shiny object.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012