Laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Law enforcement officials do. Law enforcement cannot enforce laws that do not exist.
“Shall not be infringed” does not remove “A well regulated” from the second amendment. By refusing to act on gun laws Mr. Rubio shirks his constitutional responsibility to regulate without infringing. Refusing to allow a debate is refusing to obey the constitution. Beyond this, everything he says is simple smoke screen change the subject refusal to act.
First Mr. Rubio did vote to continue a Republican filibuster, against any debate in the senate on the issues of public safety as it relates to guns. Anyone (with any sense) must agree that any criminal who wants to murder someone can easily get a gun. The current laws are so weak they are unenforceable. Current gun laws do nothing nothing to keep criminals from getting guns.
How Mr. Rubio thinks that current laws infringe on the rights of the law abiding is smoke screen rhetoric to derail the debate that Marco Rubio voted against allowing. If he honestly feels that current laws infringe he should immediately take these laws before the US Supreme Court. Republicans did that with health care regulations, why does Rubio not do this with current gun laws? Because he will lose.
On Meet the Press (April 14, 2013) Marco Rubio clearly stated that the problem with gun laws is they neither protect gun owners rights nor do they keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the Senator’s reasoning to make no changes in the law? Here he changes the subject from public safety to a statement of total futility in trying to do anything.
Marco continues to avoid the debate by stating “no one is having a debate on the violence problem.” Certainly not Mr. Rubio. He opposed any debate of any form and changes the subject to avoid any real debate.
When questioned on universal background checks Marco again changes the subject to the fact that as the law stands criminals will just go elsewhere.
As the law stands now going elsewhere is legal. Law enforcement can do nothing about the transaction. A change in the law would be a tool law enforcement could use to do a lot about this type of transaction. Transactions like blind internet and parking lot sales. Yes, this will still occur, but the transgressors would be subject to arrest BEFORE they murder someone.
Police do, as a matter of routine in New York City, shake down pedestrians on the street looking for pot. Yet if a gun is found that’s not reason for arrest. Change the law so law enforcement can actually stop criminals with guns.
Marco’s final word: “We are missing a golden opportunity to have an important debate on Violence”. This is what the debate that Mr. Rubio filibustered is all about. Violence will not stop, without guns, violence is far less lethal.
Marco Rubio is simply in the pay of the gun industry and cares nothing about public safety. His stance simply reinforces a system where criminals are very well armed leaving the law abiding to arm themselves. Marco Rubio’s America is a gun industry utopia where all citizens live in fear.
Angus Croix 