Spokesman: Rubio supports comprehensive study of gun laws to prevent more mass shootings

posted at 7:31 pm on December 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Think the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican nomination is going to get crosswise with the NRA by voting for new gun regs? Me neither.

The challenge for Rubio’s communications team: Craft a statement that screams “reasonable!” for the benefit of national swing voters while committing to nothing beyond respectful consideration. Here’s what they came up with.

“In the aftermath of the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Sen. Rubio, like millions of Americans, is looking for public policy changes that would prevent such a horrible event from happening again,” spokesman Alex Conant said. “He remains a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to safely and responsibly bear arms. But he has also always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The challenge with gun laws is that by definition criminals do not follow the law. For example, Connecticut’s gun laws, some of the strictest in the nation, were not able to prevent this atrocity. Nevertheless, he supports a serious and comprehensive study of our laws to find new and better ways to prevent any more mass shootings.”

So, to sum up, he’s against criminals and lunatics possessing weapons and wants to do more to prevent lethal rampages. Reasonable! He also has an A rating from Gun Owners of America and a B+ from the NRA, which is an interesting story. Until 2006 he had an A from them too; then, after he became speaker of the state legislature, he voted for an NRA-backed bill to permit gun owners to bring their weapons to workplace parking lots. But because the bill was blocked on its first try by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and eventually was passed with compromise language, the NRA concluded that he hadn’t done enough as speaker to advance its agenda. The result was a new grade of B+, which sounds relatively high but in fact is relatively low by Senate Republican standards. According to WaPo’s spreadsheet, the only GOPers with a worse grade are Susan Collins, Dan Coats, and Mark Kirk; meanwhile, fully ten Democrats have a higher rating than B+, which tells you what Obama’s up against in trying to get a bill passed here.

A man with a B+ from the NRA will be eager to impress conservative primary voters with his commitment to the cause so I’m trying to imagine a bill that Reid could bring up which might conceivably earn Rubio’s vote. Maybe, given what the statement says about keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, he’d support extending background checks to private gun sales? As recently as two years ago, his spokesman confirmed that he supports “reasonable restrictions” like background checks and waiting periods. But for Rubio to vote yes, Reid would likely have to float it as a separate bill; if he jammed it into some sort of omnibus gun control package, Rubio will obviously vote no on grounds that it goes too far. In fact, that’d be the optimal outcome for him. He’d get to give a floor speech alluding to “some good ideas” in the Democratic bill (reasonable!) before explaining why he must, alas, vote no to protect the rights of gun owners. And why not? A bill requiring background checks for private sales would have nothing to do with Sandy Hook. After all, Lanza didn’t get his guns that way. Whatever the Democrats propose is all but guaranteed to be disconnected from the actual facts of the horror that inspired the policy chatter this weekend, right down to the fact that mass shootings are not, in fact, becoming more frequent in the U.S., so if your top priority is addressing what happened in Newtown, you might as well vote no. The only measure related to Lanza’s M.O. that might come up is a ban on high-capacity magazines, and that may not be something Rubio goes for. His thinking on this subject seems, quite correctly, to focus on better screening of gun owners, not tinkering with the weapons themselves. The question is, if Reid floats a ban on high-capacity magazines and nothing more, would that be a “small” enough incursion that some Republicans (if not Rubio) would feel politically safe voting for it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

He remains a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to safely and responsibly bear arms.

That’s NOT what the 2nd amendment says – I don’t recall any “safely and responsibly” provision … though Rubio’s into amnesty for illegals, and then some, so Rule of Law is not a big concern of his.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I agree here, too, with that.

Rubio is increasingly sounding like one of the “the Constitution is a living document” people — they throw in qualifying phrases when they refer to the Constitution in order to accommodate their altered view of the original contents. Thus, can’t be trusted to uphold and defend (and protect) the Constitution.

There’s no qualifying phrase in the Constitution, 2nd Amendment as to this issue here, about “safely and responsibly bear(ing) arms.” It just says there’s a Right to keep and bear arms.

The Founding Fathers understood how these Rights would be picked-apart by others and thus, they didn’t include any wiggle-room in their declarations. Unfortunately, being straightforward for the Left, ALL Liberals and that includes those in the GOP, too, is a big stumbling block to their “I’ll say one thing but I mean something else” methods of operations.

THE PROBLEM with *all* gun regulations and, ultimately, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment Right (to keep and bear arms) is that the REAL GOAL of regulating “arms” or guns is to eliminate their ownership gradually-to-potential-eventual-completely as to “the people.” That’s always the unstated goal behind those who pop up at times of tragedy or otherwise to push for “gun control”.

It’s not the guns, it’s the state of mind of the person with the gun/s. Same with every other Right we are endowed with.

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Whatever the Democrats propose is all but guaranteed to be disconnected from the actual facts of the horror that inspired the policy chatter this weekend, right down to the fact that mass shootings are not, in fact, becoming more frequent in the U.S.,

Yup. This is also the proof that liberals are politicizing a massacre. They know their policies would not have changed the outcome of the massacre but will push on anyway. All the while ignoring the affect it will have on law abiding citizens – particularly women – in defending themselves.

In a year practically defined by “War on Women” it’s very appropriate for politicians to resist further gun control on the grounds it will hurt a woman’s power to defend herself against stronger and larger men who wish to do them harm.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 7:25 AM

I wonder how many of the 20 million that have illegally crossed our border also have criminal records involving guns. We don’t even know their names and they are off limits for questioning. Yes, let’s have a debate.

trs on December 18, 2012 at 7:30 AM

BUT READ THE WHOLE THING…study conducted by, of all places, the Leftwing hangout of Harvard, found as follows (and this, as reported by, of all organizations, the American Civil Rights Union):

…the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report:

If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain: (pp continued)

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:31 AM

I say study away. But, I mean real scientific and statistical inquiry. Not fake leftist inquiry or “study” that starts with a conclusion and searches for select data that it can twist to fit that conclusion.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM

So, when Leftwing orgs. declare by their “study” that increased gun control results in increased murder rates in a population/nation, THEY’RE to be discounted (because they’re “Left”)?

OUR collective hangup is that there ARE NO TO FEW “studies” that establish the contrary (that increased gun restrictions and regulations result in an improved crime and murder rate). No one ever substantiates the Left’s general ploy to restrict if not remove guns from Americans with any “study” that establishes why we should, except as a political goal by a government that seeks to limit/restrict/eradicate Right/s.

So it’s a political goal by the Left, generally speaking (those who seek to eradicate/limit/restrict 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms), that defines the process when “gun regulations” and “gun restrictions” are pushed. None other than a political philosophy that has been proven to be a failed one by other nations who’ve gone down that failed path, such as Cuba, Russia, China, etc. (nations that have eliminated gun ownership and the actual guns among their populations).

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM

I was under the impression that somewhere in both state and federal laws there was some type of stipulation making it illegal to murder someone…I must have been mistaken because obviously if that were a law on the books it would have been impossible for any of these massacres to occur regardless of current gun laws…right?

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Here is a study: Instead of forcing teachers to run toward shooters unarmed, let teachers with CCW permits carry on school property. Let them have a shotgun locked in the office. Stop making soft targets even softer. This is a failure of liberal ideology. These lunatics don’t seem to be crazy enough to run into areas known to be able to shoot back. This school was a fortress. The guy had to take the time to break in. But in the process of breaking in, the victims could only throw their bodies at the shooter. I am sure that the principle would have preferred the option of having a shotgun when running toward him. But no, the left would rather not acknowledge that real evil exists. They want to inject themselves as the solution and make yet another law the criminal will ignore rather than give the power back to the people. Why do they care about the gun violence here and not in Chicago, DC, or NY? Because they already have their dogma in force there. They don’t care that it doesn’t work and they don’t want to acknowledge that it doesn’t work. And the worse school massacre in the US happened in 1927 and used bombs. The guy planned it for a year. You can’t pretend you live in utopia like a naive twit and force everyone else to pretend as well. You need to either be willing to go on offense against a lunatic or allow others to be able to take on that responsibility.

MechanicalBill on December 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM

1000++

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:48 AM

I was under the impression that somewhere in both state and federal laws there was some type of stipulation making it illegal to murder someone…I must have been mistaken because obviously if that were a law on the books it would have been impossible for any of these massacres to occur regardless of current gun laws…right?

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM

As with many other moral absolutes, the definition of “murder” and the prohibition against doing it has been watered down today to mean “whatever makes you feel better is the best thing to do”.

Human life has become meaningless to many a troubled person and they’ve been encouraged to “just do it” on every front about nearly anything and everything. Permissiveness begins with a flirtation and ends with a bang.

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:51 AM

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:51 AM

This Lanza guy had his own suicide as a motivation, from what I am guessing. He prided himself on ending his “own” life — little value as to his life and subsequently little aversion to “self murder” he was seeking and did seek — and seems to have needed an audience of the most grotesque sort: killing the innocence.

It was like Lanza eradicated childhood. Bitterness, resentment, hatred…whatever characterized his madness, I can only speculate, but what he was engaged in and why seems to have been characterized by a gross devaluation of human life.

Lourdes on December 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM

The Sandy Hook massacre may be classified as an act of domestic terrorism. It will be interesting to learn what motives were behind this attack.

Tripwhipper on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM

“The National Rifle Association normally maintains an active presence on social networks, but has all but gone dark since Friday’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The most prominent example of the NRA’s sudden withdrawal from social media was seen when the organization hid its official Facebook page, as TechCrunch reported Sunday.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to TPM that Facebook took no action regarding the organization’s page. However, owners of Facebook Pages can “unpublish” the accounts from public listing on the website at any time, as Facebook’s terms explain.

The Thursday before the massacre, @NRA, the NRA’s official Twitter account tweeted: “Did you hear? Our #facebook page reached 1.7 million “likes” today! Thanks for being a friend!,” along with a link to a graphic celebrating the milestone. ”

Guilty conscience perhaps?

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Guilty conscience perhaps?

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Guilty conscience my ass. They’re probably just laying low to hide from psycho moonbat freaks who like to preach peace and love while publishing the names of their political enemies in the hopes that thugs might do harm to them. Or who like to hack into social-network accounts of those with whom they disagree. Since they’re so pro-free speech and all.

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I’m sorry but people in this country have forgotten what the word infringe means:
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

My God the 2nd is quite clear. This right shall not be infringed.
All of these restrictive gun laws are in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Limiting magazines, that’s an infringement.
Requiring permits?
That’s an infringement.
We could go on.
I notice the problem with most of America is reading comprehension.
All of my students, and I do mean ALL of them, for the past 11 years I’ve been teaching, do not understand definitions of words in the English language.
It is exactly why many of my ‘smart’ students & others alike find it very difficult to pass my exams, bcs they are mostly all essay and short answer questions.
In high school I am being forced to teach kids how to read a f@cking sentence and learn what it means.
WTF is happening in GRADE SCHOOL?!

Badger40 on December 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

AlahPundit/HotAir appear to be a Campaign Arm for the Magic Cuban. Rubio is as bad as Jeb/George Bush on his love of Amnesty as well as flexible on every other ‘right’ as long as his prospects will be augmented.

el Vaquero on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Guilty conscience perhaps?

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Your brain is diseased. You don’t think … you repeat.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

AlahPundit/HotAir appear to be a Campaign Arm for the Magic Cuban. Rubio is as bad as Jeb/George Bush on his love of Amnesty as well as flexible on every other ‘right’ as long as his prospects will be augmented.

el Vaquero on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Not quite; Hot Air is really just a reflection of the GOP Zeitgeist and (to throw another German term on you) Weltanschauung, and has been pretty much since the the takeover by Townhall. They’ll probably happily pimp any from the GOPe-approved list of probable GOP prez candidates.

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

^ Takeover by Salem, that should be

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

MR is showing that he’s just another mush mouth rino. Lucky we found out early on. There’s so much misinformation about guns out there because the msm either doesn’t know the differences or they don’t care to be correct. The NRA needs to get out there and explain the different mechanics of each weapon. Do not call them ASSAULT WEAPONS. Our problems are caused by nuts with guns not gun nuts.

Kissmygrits on December 18, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Thanks for the info re: HotAir which I rarely stop by over the last several years. I realized that most of the Conservative Blogs have almost nothing portending Conservatism and everything Conservatism is not. HotAir is just another slightly less objectionable than the Sissypants @ Nat Review.

el Vaquero on December 18, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Rubio jumps the shark! Them one thing I will absolutely not tolerate from a politician is weak knees on gun control. Stand strong or get out of the way.

claudius on December 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Seeing as how we are (supposedly) a federal, constitutional republic, I have no problem with the idea that I don’t need all the same weapons that the federal army/navy/air force have. However, as a resident of a sovereign state, I do believe I should be able to have the same weapons that my local, county and state police have. Otherwise, if society is so safe that I don’t “need” weapons, then the police don’t need them either. Now, if the police want to start acquiring the same weapons as the military, well then…

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

from the GOPe-approved list of probable GOP prez candidates.

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I should probably know, but what is the e for in GOPe?

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Put mental patients in mental hospitals. Problem fixed.

TX-96 on December 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

But so many of them are in Congress!

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

We just need to legalize post-womb abortions.

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I should probably know, but what is the e for in GOPe?

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Establishment. But of course that doesn’t exist. Lots of people here have told me so.

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Hmmmmm. I’ll be impressed when the first Senator proposes a bill that requires mandatory firearms training for all school principals and assistant principals and a gun safe in every school office. Imagine the result if Dawn Hochsprung had been able to confront Lanza with a Kel-Tec in the hallway that day instead of just her best teacher voice. I’ll start holding my breath now.

cynccook on December 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM

If it’s good enough for pilots, who are responsible for dozens of grumpy passengers while riding in a glorified tube, then it should be good enough for teachers who are responsible for our children.

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Only some of them, the ones that exhibit aggression. There are a lot of really peaceful mental patients out there.

alwaysfiredup on December 17, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Hey now, we’re talking about mental patients not mooslums…oh, wait.

Nutstuyu on December 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

This is another example why if we ever want to get anything done we must separate ourselves from the Republican party and especially their staff that is placed into every conservatives campaign. This staff tries to be everything to everyone and in this pretzel they only end up looking like another politic with no foundation.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. You want a answer to this use conservative principle. More guns and not more gun control is the answer. Their is no amount of regulation or mental health or crap to stop the random murderer. Murders have existed since the dawn and will exist on the sunset of man. The best answer would be everyone taking responsibility. What if say the principle his/her staff or any of the multitude of other teachers were armed?

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-armed-with-guns-ever-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/#disqus_thread

http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=Mass+murderers+v.+armed+citizens

C-Low on December 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Rubio is not to be trusted. Not on amnesty, not on guns. He slides to the left by instinct. When he holds ground or moves right it’s because of an external force like the NRA, not because of internal principle.

David Blue on December 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM

^^ Yeah what he said ^^

Buttercup on December 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Quickly becoming damaged goods my “born of Cuban immigrants” friend.

JohnnyMojo on December 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I’m sorry, but has everybody simply lost their minds?

Senator (President Wanna-Be) Rubio, nothing in your statement bears any relation whatsoever to the killings in Newtown. Nothing. If anything, it only displays your own ignorance and willingness to jump out front to grab some more spotlight. Dude, the election is in 2016. You can calm down for now. You are not helping yourself, and you’re certainly not helping stamp out mass murder.

The most maddening thing about this entire feeding frenzy — the 24/7 media coverage, the overflowing blog sites, the public statements by everyone from the President to our friends who just feel compelled to offer up meaningless words of tripe on Facebook, just because — is that the very reaction to this event may do as much as any other single factor – to create the breeding ground for the next one.

There are forensic psychiatrists out there speaking but nobody’s listening to them.

Leading the initial stories with sirens, masses of armed men walking around with assault rifles, leading with body counts (as if it’s a contest, which it is, between the wanna be mass killers among us), posting photos and every personal detail possible about the killer, chasing down anyone with anything to say. Even, in the final ridiculous move, having the President of the United States take to the airwaves not once, but twice, solely because of the act of this one deranged individual.

All of it is being watched by the next one. Some quiet, shy, socially awkward kid, who sees themselves as less than a nobody can, in the blink of an eye, be known throughout the world.

Are these guys showing up in their bathrobes and tennis shoes? No, they’re showing up fully decked out in the current-day uniform of the mass killer. All black. Military garb. Armed to the teeth. The very upside down, twisted, vision of a super hero. In this case, a super villain.

And we help them. Encourage them. Feed the beast. By blowing them up beyond all bounds of human proportion. Small yesterday, a giant today, astride the world, your photo plastered on every television screen.

Why does the media (who wants to now be “in charge” of the gun “discussion”) not see that they, themselves, are significant contributors to this phenomenon? Of course. They don’t really care. They only want the ratings that come from being seen to care more than anybody else.

Sorry, but they’ll have to line up behind the politicians.

That is insanity.

IndieDogg on December 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

MechanicalBill on December 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Great post.

TexasDan on December 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM

 
Hmmm … I haven’t heard Paul Ryan get squishy about guns.
 

ignatzk on December 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Far be it for the RINO enablers to refuse to protect one of their secret stealth RINO’s.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM

AlahPundit/HotAir appear to be a Campaign Arm for the Magic Cuban. Rubio is as bad as Jeb/George Bush on his love of Amnesty as well as flexible on every other ‘right’ as long as his prospects will be augmented.

el Vaquero on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Not quite; Hot Air is really just a reflection of the GOP Zeitgeist and (to throw another German term on you) Weltanschauung, and has been pretty much since the the takeover by Townhall. They’ll probably happily pimp any from the GOPe-approved list of probable GOP prez candidates.

ddrintn on December 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Romney’s campaign….’nuff said.
HotAir was even worse than RightScoop with the Romney/Gope love.

tencole on December 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I am getting sick of this … not the gun issue …
Why are we still saying that Rubio is a “frontrunner for the 2016 Republican nomination”?
He is NOT eligible! His parents were not citizens when he was born … he will do a lot good in Congress and that is where the focus should be for him …
I can’t believe that there are still idiots spouting that line, especially after that disaster we have with Obama!

deafy on December 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM

AlahPundit/HotAir appear to be a Campaign Arm for the Magic Cuban. Rubio is as bad as Jeb/George Bush on his love of Amnesty as well as flexible on every other ‘right’ as long as his prospects will be augmented.

el Vaquero on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Thank you for recognizing what has happened here! I believe everyone wanted to give Rubio a chance to deliver true conservative values. Unfortunately, he gets squishier with each passing opportunity. Ed and AP are lost to(new word),moderatism! One’s a journalist and the other a lawyer! So be it!

tomshup on December 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM

After all freedom is negotiable!

chicken thief on December 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM

If one reads the Constitution, and can actually read English words & understands what they say, then all the kibbitzing in the world isn’t going to make any of these infringements legal.
But feel free to do so.
It’s sooooo helpful.
Rubio is a putz.

Badger40 on December 18, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Thank you Mr Castro

Delsa on December 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM

As each day goes by it appears that there isn’t any republican that you can trust. And all this time I thought it was only demonrats that you couldn’t trust. Go figure.

johnny reb on December 18, 2012 at 6:30 PM

IMO the answer is more guns in the schools.

While better laws to keep guns away from people with mental disorders is good, I think some in Tennessee have the right idea.

Tennessee Considers Training And Arming Schoolteachers To Protect Against Shootings

Only a trained person with a gun, not dumb new gun laws, will stop a crazed gunman determined to kill our kids. IMHO we should not leave our children and their teachers totally defenseless while being slaughtered.

Chessplayer on December 18, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Rubio is a career opportunist that stands for nothing but Marco Rubio. I’m so over this Bush lapdog!

Jayrae on December 19, 2012 at 5:05 AM

Why does this administration insist on bringing up 240 year old issues that were solved 240 years ago. Wars have been fought and issues settled. For some reason he needs to revisit all these issues to try and remake America. He may be able to expect remaking the same fights.

johnnyU on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3