So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
tector
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 14664
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:49 am
Location: Broward

So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Post by tector » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:39 pm

SE FL gunshow calendar: https://goo.gl/GNyvTP

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.-Swift

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Learned Hand

User avatar
Odessaman
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida

Re: So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Post by Odessaman » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:03 am

Great, what's this - a Minority Report inspired pre-crime bill? No thanks. Ask a battered wife whether she'd rather have a restraining order or armed security. Only one of the two protects against psychos who are smart enough not to broadcast their intentions ahead of time.

Hey, Marco - how about we abolish the Capitol Police and Secret Service, and instead we can issue "gun-restraining orders" to suspected nut jobs as they enter federal buildings?

The only measure Congress should be considering is how to help states fund the same level of security for our schools that we provide for their worthless asses in the capitol.
~ Odessaman ~


“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”
― Mark Twain

User avatar
jjk308
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5591
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: Oldsmar, Florida USA

Re: So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Post by jjk308 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:20 am

He probably came out in favor of it because it ain't gonna happen without a lot of changes. Just this simple question pretty much sinks it: If someone's family, friends, police or social workers ask a judge to take his guns because he's a danger to himself or others, then WHY IS HE STILL ALLOWED TO WALK AROUND IN PUBLIC SURROUNDED BY POTENTIAL WEAPONS?

In other words it rationally should become a commitment hearing so that Mr. Nutcase doesn't resort to knives, baseball bats, cars, firebombs.... after his guns are taken away. Do these fools really think that by taking away one of his rights they'll make everyone safe from him?

Any bets that it has zero impact on the murder rate in the few states that have tried it?

Our real problem is the commitment laws like the Baker Act, which put up far to many roadblocks to keeping someone in a mental institution involuntarily. I've seen it first hand - it took a roomful of lawyers, psychologists, a psychiatrist, social workers, a judge and me, the guardian ad litem of a poor old guy who was delusional, incoherent.
I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

User avatar
dixiedawg
Member
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:08 am
Location: Orange Lake, FL

Re: So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Post by dixiedawg » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:39 pm

I was a big fan of Marco's once upon a time, as I'm sure many here were. Not so much anymore. I will support almost anyone who runs against him in a primary.

REDinFL
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 5514
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Pinellas

Re: So what are we to make of Marco Rubio supporting this proposal?

Post by REDinFL » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:00 pm

jjk308 wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:20 am
He probably came out in favor of it because it ain't gonna happen without a lot of changes. Just this simple question pretty much sinks it: If someone's family, friends, police or social workers ask a judge to take his guns because he's a danger to himself or others, then WHY IS HE STILL ALLOWED TO WALK AROUND IN PUBLIC SURROUNDED BY POTENTIAL WEAPONS?

In other words it rationally should become a commitment hearing so that Mr. Nutcase doesn't resort to knives, baseball bats, cars, firebombs.... after his guns are taken away. Do these fools really think that by taking away one of his rights they'll make everyone safe from him?

Any bets that it has zero impact on the murder rate in the few states that have tried it?

Our real problem is the commitment laws like the Baker Act, which put up far to many roadblocks to keeping someone in a mental institution involuntarily. I've seen it first hand - it took a roomful of lawyers, psychologists, a psychiatrist, social workers, a judge and me, the guardian ad litem of a poor old guy who was delusional, incoherent.
As with battered women getting a restraining order, which serves to enrage the abuser, such an order will incite such a creep to more destructive behavior to ''get even.''. Remember, the worst school killing in US history was done with dynamite in 1927.
NRA Endowment Member
PhD from University of Hard Knocks

Post Reply