Marco Rubio said so many completely erroneous and idiotic things while appearing on seven talk shows in one day that I had to break them up into two separate posts. This is Part Two of two. Part One is here, where you can also find the video of the entire Meet the Press segment. I could only bring myself to watch that one program of the seven, and believe me, that was more than enough, as you can see by the amount of material he gave me.
When we last left Marco, he was in full-on bull pucky mode. Let us now rejoin the Senator's self-imposed humiliation already in progress:
Here is my point and has always been my point on gun laws. They are highly ineffective in terms of accomplishing the following goal and that is to protect the right of law abiding citizens to possess weapons which the Second Amendment guarantees, the constitutional right, and they are ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals who quite frankly, because they're criminals, don't care what the law is...
... We are spending all of our time talking about background checks as if somehow criminals will no longer get guns because they have to undergo a background check. We're lying to people. That isn't true.
He got one thing right: They're lying to people.
But there's that good old GOP "logic" again. Yes, Marco, criminals ignore laws. So, using his reasoning, stop signs are ineffective because scofflaws run them. The solution? Do away with stop signs.
Same goes for any laws for that matter. Bank robbers continue to rob banks (at gunpoint, of course); people still cross our borders illegally (Oops! There go all those strict border crossing restrictions); and pay no mind to those rapists behind the curtain, because clearly, they are not the least bit intimidated by the threat of imprisonment. Nor are muggers. Or politicians who kidnap 20-year-old men, give them alcohol, ask repeatedly for oral sex, and fire guns into walls.
The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. I didn't write that into the Constitution. That's in there. And any time you're going to do anything that impacts a constitutional right, the scrutiny should be very, very high. And that's what I'm applying to this. If someone can produce a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals but protects the right of law abiding citizens to possess them and doesn't infringe on those rights, I would consider that. But the proposals I've seen so far-- I haven't fully read the Toomey/Manchin compromise-- but all the proposals I've seen so far do not achieve that goal...
There is nothing in any of the gun safety proposals that infringes on anyone's Second Amendment rights. Drop it. That is a completely false and irrelevant argument. Drop it. Nobody's rights are impacted. Nobody's. Drop it. Better yet:
Oh, and Marco? I have a real pet peeve about people opining about something they've never bothered to read. You might try actually examining the entire Toomey/Manchin legislation before opening your embarrassingly big, thirsty mouth and commenting on it.
Or doesn't the NRA pay you to do that?