Did Rubio say what I thought he said....


PDA






Rembrandt
January 17, 2013, 08:15 AM
Rubio was on O'Rielly last night, asked whether he supported gun registration, he said yes.....

If you enjoyed reading about "Did Rubio say what I thought he said...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sansone
January 17, 2013, 08:51 AM
don't forget politicians are like used car salesmen, they say what you want to hear. Unfortunately that's what the general public wants to hear right now.

IMHO this will blow over and the political climate will return to the posture of 6 months ago, with the possible exception of AWB renewal. Yes that sucks but if we keep pressure on the reps in congress maybe not even that

SaxonPig
January 17, 2013, 09:30 AM
Rubio is a modern Republican... very liberal in many ways.

22-rimfire
January 17, 2013, 10:12 AM
Rubio sort of "said" that he agreed with "universal" background checks. I don't think he said "registration" and if he did, O'Reilly was prompting him to agree with what he said and I don't think he remembered everything the O said. O'Reilly seems to be on his registration, licensing, and background check thing however. Don't understand why he would believe that licensing would be something that would combat crime. It's an infringement. O'Reilly continues on his "heavy ewapons" kick which is beyond me as the O bills himself as somebody who is informed. He isn't as much as he thinks he is. The only thing the O said that might be effective is he supported automatic 10-year prison sentancing for crimes committed with guns.

The problem is that Rubio thinks O'Reilly is on his side.

O'Reilly was prompting the other female guest to agree that Rubio said he was in agreement with him, and she said, yes, it's a start. You see they want all guns made illegal. This is only the start. It will continue.

Skylerbone
January 17, 2013, 10:39 AM
As the Senator from NY said, "We just want to get a handle on these weapons". I'll bet that's exactly what they want. After all, what are handles for?

GAMALOT
January 17, 2013, 10:40 AM
Between O'Reilly and Shepard Smith it is hard to figure out who is more the liberal. Fortunately when Smith comes on I can switch to Lou Dobbs and when O comes on I usually check my forums until Hannity.

O'Reilly is fair and balanced in his own mind!

OpelBlitz
January 17, 2013, 11:09 AM
O'Reilly isn't exactly the spokesperson for 2A rights. He's better than some, but worse than most I listen to. Actually, he's like a more right-wing version of Piers Morgan if you ask me. I don't hate him, but he's quite the bully with guests.

I tend to like Marco Rubio. And I don't recall him saying outright about anything regarding registration.

Vonderek
January 17, 2013, 11:20 AM
O'Reilly was talking over him and his other guests and kept repeating ad nauseum a run-on sentence about background checks, registration, and forbidding transporting certain firearms across state lines (he was for 'allowing' the states to determine what was and wasn't banned instead of the feds.) He then kept asking his guests repeatedly if they agreed with him. I think Rubio answered "yes" because he is for background checks and by doing so it sounded like he was agreeing with O'Reilly's whole platform. And I think he (Rubio) wanted to move the discussion along.

I think O'Reilly is straddling the issue but is more on the pro-2A side and needs educating (if his ego will allow it) on why registration and his bizarre interstate transportation idea are bad. I think in the end he could be a net positive on the debate.

Also, like other journalists O'Reilly keeps linking gun registration with car registration. We need to call these people on this that it is a totally irrelevant comparison. Driving a car is not protected under the Constitution and federal law already forbids creating a firearms registry for a good reason. Nobody in some future government is going to use a DMV database to confiscate your car.

JFrame
January 17, 2013, 11:20 AM
I didn't see the Rubio interview, but in an article regarding that segment, it said that Rubio supported universal background checks, but he added that even the decision to implement that should be left up to the individual states. That would hardly seem to make it "universal."


.

OpelBlitz
January 17, 2013, 11:55 AM
Vonderek, you said it well.

radiotom
January 17, 2013, 12:24 PM
O'Reilly was talking over him and his other guests and kept repeating ad nauseum a run-on sentence about background checks, registration, and forbidding transporting certain firearms across state lines (he was for 'allowing' the states to determine what was and wasn't banned instead of the feds.) He then kept asking his guests repeatedly if they agreed with him. I think Rubio answered "yes" because he is for background checks and by doing so it sounded like he was agreeing with O'Reilly's whole platform. And I think he (Rubio) wanted to move the discussion along.

I think O'Reilly is straddling the issue but is more on the pro-2A side and needs educating (if his ego will allow it) on why registration and his bizarre interstate transportation idea are bad. I think in the end he could be a net positive on the debate.

Also, like other journalists O'Reilly keeps linking gun registration with car registration. We need to call these people on this that it is a totally irrelevant comparison. Driving a car is not protected under the Constitution and federal law already forbids creating a firearms registry for a good reason. Nobody in some future government is going to use a DMV database to confiscate your car.
I had some college professors saying that they didn't think anybody should have cars and everybody should use public transportation (high speed rail, etc). One time a student asked what about people out in the boonies? The teacher said they shouldn't be allowed to live in the boonies either.

Scary stuff is being preached in our colleges. The kids were not receptive of it, but who's to say they won't be in 50 years?

GAMALOT
January 17, 2013, 12:30 PM
Us folks out in the boonies should be on Mules and Horses but then they would be taxing poop.

Skylerbone
January 17, 2013, 01:15 PM
No, the Left wants to create zero impact zones where no mere mortal may tread. The sole usage of set aside land would be for environmental research; to observe nature as they believe it was. Why you ask? Al Gore's "limited resources" argument. We The People are eating, breathing, breeding and pooping too much for a "sustainable future".

What to do? Implement "common sense" legislation like birth control and abortion on demand. Encourage creation of laws or...a "healthcare" plan run by the government that, once submitted to, forces such measures on its populace. One child per couple, three bicycles per household, no wasting of limited health resources on the elderly.

Provide your services to the bourgeois and die. Proposition 21 anyone? What makes a populace controllable are size, location and lack of defense. Pack people into dense areas, reduce the numbers and remove their arms. Make a checklist and see where our nation stands.

berettaprofessor
January 17, 2013, 02:33 PM
Rubio was on O'Rielly last night, asked whether he supported gun registration, he said yes.....

That's what I thought he said....

GAMALOT
January 17, 2013, 02:48 PM
O'Reilly badgered him in to a combined answer in his typical fashion. Rubio did say he was for tougher back ground checks but not for registration.

Steve H
January 17, 2013, 02:53 PM
The way I heard the interview he did NOT agree that registration was good. O'Reilly put those words into the conservation.

Ole Coot
January 17, 2013, 03:01 PM
Don't you just love arguments about something that all parties know absolutly nothing about? And we wonder why the non gun owners are uniformed about them with both "sides" creating fear of an object.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did Rubio say what I thought he said...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!