The Shark Tank

Will Senator Marco Rubio Oppose a New ‘Assault’ Weapons Ban?

rubio gun 3

Back in June 2009, Marco Rubio attended a gunshow in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Shark Tank Media, LLC

By Javier Manjarres

Will Senator Marco Rubio oppose what are likely to be  new control measures advanced by Democrats in 2013?  Yesterday, Rubio Press Secretary Alex Conant said that the Senator “is looking for public policy changes that would prevent such a horrible event from happening again.”

Conant also stated that Rubio “supports a serious and comprehensive study of our laws.”  But what does that exactly mean?  Many gun rights activists are assuming that Rubio continue with his strong support of the second amendment and oppose any new anti-gun legislation that could come out of Senate in the aftermath of the school incident in Connecticut.  But will mounting pressure from the gun-control lobby cause Rubio to hedge his support?  

Democrat Senators Frank Lautenberg and Diane Feinstein are openly calling for the re-institution of an ‘assault weapons’ ban.  Predictably, President Obama and his gun control cronies will milk this tragedy for every last drop of political gain they can get out of it.


Unfortunately, Democrats have distorted and co-opted the language in the gun control debate and are using it to advance their political agenda.  The word ‘assault’ is actually a behavior or action that is taken by the individual handling weapon- it is not a proper description of the weapon itself.  In other words, ‘any’ weapon can be considered an assault weapon, even the smallest caliber of firearms, to the largest of knives.

 1as·sault

 noun \ə-ˈsȯlt\

 Definition of ASSAULT

1

a : a violent physical or verbal attack

b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)

2

a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in

It’s highly unlikely that Rubio will not back any such ‘gun-control’ measure.  This does not mean that he would not support tightening ‘the noose’ on existing measures already in place that would make it more difficult for criminals and mentally unstable citizens from being able to obtain weapons. Rubio is a responsible firearms enthusiast himself, so much so that to keep the target he once used to qualify for his concealed weapons license pinned up in his campaign office.

Here is the statement from Rubio’s spokesman-

“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.” - Hot Air

If you liked the post, please share it below.




About author

Javier Manjarres

As the managing editor of The Shark Tank, Javier was awarded the 2011 CPAC Blogger of the Year. Countless videos and articles from the Shark Tank have been featured on Fox News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, and other national news publications. Javier has also appeared on Univision’s “Al Punto” and numerous radio shows, including being the weekly 92.5 Fox News' DayBreak with Drew Steele political contributor

Related Articles

12 Comments

  1. Chopper December 18, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Wrote Sen Rubio an e-mail last night asking him to vote against any proposed law that limits our rights under the 2nd Amendment. Newtown was an aberation! Any precipitous action taken due to the mass hysteria on the left will be the first step towards a massive gun confiscation by the Progressive dominated Federal goverment.

    • Paul In Orlando December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am

      Chopper,

      I too, sent him several e-mails about this. I did add a little more to it by pointing out to him that based on what I’ve heard and read in the media (whatever that’s worth anymore), there was rampant vote corruption/fraud in all States this last round. Our votes are useless anymore and the only thing we have left to protect us from government is our rights to bear arms. Take that away from us, and it is the end of America.

      Government(s) and religion(s) has been and still is the greatest enemy of humanity! If you don’t believe me, look back in the history of mankind. Nothing has changed and we keep making the same mistakes. Maybe the people deserve being ruled by tyrants.

  2. JewFish December 18, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Senator Rubio has got to be one of the best looking govt officials hubbba hubba

  3. Whats_Up December 18, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    This “more gun control” is hogwash. It is just another power grab by these Control Freaks …just like ObamaCare.

    Seriously, if CONgress could honestly DO something or were honest with themselves about being “concerned about others”, then WHY haven’t they handled the OVER 40 homicides per week in Chicago, DC, etc.? WHY isn’t the media up in arms about this happening on a weekly basis?

    The cities and states with the most stringent and anti-Gun Control measures have the highest crime rates and homicides in the country – PERIOD.

  4. John Wright December 19, 2012 at 7:30 am

    One thing we can count on from Marco is an intelligent, sane, well thought out response. We can also count on him to protect our 2nd amendment rights.

  5. Greg December 19, 2012 at 7:33 am

    The last ban on ‘assault’ rifles did absolutely nothing to curtail gun violence, why would another?

    By the way, the term ‘assault rifle/weapon’ is a manufactured term. No such weapon exists, and weak attempts to define it are lame.

  6. Perseids December 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    We were told many years ago that this issue of weapons on or within so many feet of a school property had been solved by Clinton’s Federal law banning such encroachments. (It certainly did have an effect upon me dropping my kids of at school in the mornings way back when. They went back to taking the bus) Or is it that criminals intent upon a certain action or offense don’t give a damn what any law prohibits?

    So the less endowed among us echo the sirens call for an “assault weapons” ban. Doubtful any of these idiots could give a legal basis for such a classification. Doubtful they have ever heard of the Technical Branch, let alone ever dealt with them, or know the joy of counting evil features and then choosing which to remove so as to meet the acceptable number. Give me a .22 at a reasonable distance and it will render the very same result on a human given proper placement as a .308 .223 30.06 .50 or whatever flavor you prefer. The so called “assault weapon” is a straw man created by our Government leaders to restrict and or rescind OUR Rights.

    This is about our rights, our freedom. That which we loose incrementally one small bite at a time. The death of a thousand cuts as it were.

    As for dear Marco, he will do as his master “recommends”. Is there any doubt what jeb will say? Jeb pronounced Zimmerman guilty on day two when he said the stand your ground law did not apply. Really? One can only be glad he is no longer holding power, directly at least, over any other human being. For that, at least, I am thankful.

  7. Nancy Celano December 24, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Democrats under Obama are becoming accustomed to passing bills that are against the Constitution. It has become commonplace to them. The govt. can confiscate every legal firearm in the country and the next day the illegal guns will be smuggles in from Mexico, probably some of the from the ATF debacle.

  8. Sally December 29, 2012 at 8:47 am

    If Rubio supports any kind of Gun Control… He will lose in the Republican Primary if he decides to run in 2016 and will never be our Nominee for President! Think about Marco.

  9. Bill January 3, 2013 at 7:41 am

    Listen up everybody. Increased availability of sub machine, semi, and full automatic machine guns inrease the probability of violent crimes by unlawful individuals. Those are facts. Gun crimes occur in major metro areas and states with stringent gun laws because these states are bordered by states with little to no gun regulation, i.e. CA/AZ, VA/DC. Guns traverse the Interstates, illegally, on a daily basis. As a hunter, I see no rhyme or reason to possess a high capacity magazine and sub machine gun. Pistols and shotguns are sufficient. Let me tell you right now. The biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment are crazy right wingers who do not speak for me or the majority of America. They will push for increased legislation by virtue of their unabashed support for warped NRA principles that only aim to protect multi-million dollar gun manufacturers. It’s money people. Mr. LaPierre could give two s**** about your gun rights, he cares about his million dollar salary and the dudes he protects.

    • Chris R January 4, 2013 at 9:37 pm

      What the hell is a semi automatic machine gun? You must have received your firearms education from the same place as Feinstein. You are aware that fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934, right?

    • Castlerok January 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      You, sir, are simply not correct. On many things. First and foremost, the the 2d Amendment does not mention “hunting.” It does, however, mention “a Free State” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      But, aside from your ignorance about maching guns and submachine guns even being in the conversation (since they have been illegal for decades… and NOT a part of any major crime since the 30′s) – the fact is that the availability of firearms does NOT cause an increase in violence. Culture and the destruction of values, however, does.

      But don’t take my word for it. Take HARVARD’s word for it:

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf