RUSH: Marco Rubio, in the United States Senate, said the president "doesn't have the guts" to admit that he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment. Marco Rubio says that this dog and pony show (my words, not his) is not about ending gun violence. It's exactly what our caller from North Carolina said that Bob Schieffer was doing when he goes out and compares the NRA to Hitler and says (summarized), "My gosh, if this country defeated Hitler, certainly we can defeat the NRA." What really is going on is a battle to defeat the Constitution, in this case, the Second Amendment.
Rubio says the president "doesn't have the guts" to admit that he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment. By the way, there's something to this. One of the things that we never get from the left... This is very important, folks. I want you to hear this and believe it. In all this talk about bipartisanship and getting along, the one thing you never get with the left is an honest debate. Because they will never tell us what their real objective is. They always mask it or camouflage it or hide behind it with children, in the case of yesterday and many other times.
But you can't have an honest debate with them.
They will not tell you that they want to eliminate the Second Amendment. They will not tell you that, if they could, they'd find a way to confiscate guns. They won't be honest about that. So when you accuse them of that, when you say that that's what their real objective is, then they go nuts accusing whoever says it (like me) of being extreme and dangerous and reckless because of what people are going to think after hearing it.
When, in fact, I'm not the one being dishonest. It's the left that will never honestly state its objectives. They will never honestly state their position. When they do, on those rare times they do, such as in this school in Wisconsin, people rise up against it. That's why they stay subtle and camouflaged. Let's go to the audio sound bites with Senator Rubio. He was on The O'Reilly Factor last night. O'Reilly said, "Where's the president going wrong, Senator, on all of this?"
RUBIO: Let's remember what the impetus for all this was. It was this horrible tragedy in Connecticut, which, by the way, all of us were outraged by, all of us are sad about, and all of us would want to see never happen again. And by the own admission of the White House what they proposed today would do nothing to have prevented what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado before that, or any of these other places where this has occurred. The issue America faces is not guns; it's violence. I think the fundamental question is, "What is happening in our culture and in our society that's leading to people committing these atrocities, whether it's mental illness or some other violent propensities that have come into our culture and into our society?"
RUSH: He's again, as always, exactly right. We're not even aiming at the right thing. And yes, I intended to use that phrase: "aiming at the right thing." I actually heard... Jim Gray was on Fox this morning talking about Manti Te'o, and he used a common phrase that people use, and then he ended up apologizing for it. I think the phrase was "he's got a gun to his head" or whatever. He apologized. "Oh, poor choice of words right now. I really apologize. I did not mean to say that." That's how sensitive people are to all this. But Rubio is exactly right.
The problem isn't guns, it's violence, and why are people committing these acts? If it's mental illness, what can we do to stop it? What obstacles are in our way of dealing with the mentally ill? They are many and varied, and they're large, and there's not much we can do, because the mentally ill have had rights proclaimed to exist for them where you can't protect them and us from them. We can't protect them from themselves. So why is this happening? So what Obama and the boys are doing is going after the guns.
That's the Band-Aid, but that's not really what they're doing.
They're attacking the Constitution, freedom, liberty.
RUSH: So up next, Bill O'Reilly said to Marco Rubio, "Is President Obama demagoguing this gun issue? Is he demagoguing it because he sees public opinion going in his direction?"
RUBIO: I'm gonna let you in on a secret. I mean, the president is a liberal. He sees this as an opportunity to get some of these things done. This is what he's wanted to do his entire political career. He sees an opportunity to do it, and he's gonna utilize every rhetorical device to get to that point. I actually think the president -- and he just doesn't have the guts to admit it -- is not a believer in the Second Amendment, although he states that he is. If he wants to reform the Second Amendment, then have the guts to admit that.
RUSH: Exactly. That, folks, is so on point.
It can't be said enough in the midst of all of these claims and all of these requests for bipartisanship and, "Can't we all get along?" I just want to tell of those in the low-information voter community: The problem in getting along with the Democrats is -- you just heard Marco Rubio say it -- they will not be honest about what they want. That's why you don't even know! You who support them don't even really know what they're all about because they don't really ever tell you. You have a profound misunderstanding of who you're voting for.
You think it's all about compassion and fairness and equality, being nice to people and making sure that the rich pay their fair share. You don't know the half of it, in terms of what you're actually voting for and supporting. Rubio is right on. If you want to reform the Second Amendment, then tell us that and let's have a debate on it! But the reason they won't have a debate on it is they would lose it, and the issue would be gone. That's why there won't be a debate on it.
Diana in Olney, Illinois. I'm glad you waited. Great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I just wanted to make a point. I'm a 63-year-old grandmother, and I'm afraid for our country, and I'm worried that the government is trying to confiscate the guns. But I'm also worried about the mental health issue, because a few years back, didn't Homeland Security say that some of the dangerous people were the ones who are born-again Christians?
RUSH: Right-wingers. Yep. Exactly.
CALLER: Yeah. So wouldn't that be another avenue they could go down to try to get your guns?
RUSH: Well, they had to retract that report. That report was a report on terrorism, domestic terrorism. The Obama administration put out a report that basically said right-wing NRA members, conservative Christians, and pro-lifers represent the greatest domestic terror threat. There was an outcry, and they had to withdraw it. I don't think you will know... This is a toughie. Coming for your guns... I'm gonna answer this after the break. I don't want to have to rush through this and be any more misunderstood than usual.
RUSH: This business about coming for your guns. I know the previous caller openly admitted that she worries that that's going to happen. And what I was gonna say to her very quickly is, you won't know it when it's happening. If that ever happens, it's gonna come at you in a way you don't recognize. Maybe not, though, as vigilant as people are. I don't want anybody thinking that I am predicting that. But she is right.
Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security, Big Sis, put out a report the first or second year of the regime that the greatest threat of domestic terrorism was the American right wing: Pro-life Christians, the bitter clinger crowd. It was greeted with tremendous opposition, and they withdrew it. But that doesn't mean they don't still believe it. They just withdrew it. It was one of those times where they made the mistake of telling us who they really are.
People had a fit, so they apologized. They took it back, and blamed it on a couple people and a lack of proofreading and some such. Marco Rubio is exactly right. The American left, the president, Democrats (this is not a mystery), do wish they could change the Second Amendment. If they could, while nobody was looking or while everybody was looking, they would. But they will never tell you that. They'll deny it, in fact.
They will never tell you what they're really are for. You can't have an honest debate with these people. Now, let's talk about a day in the future, should it happen, where polling data is (as far as the experts are concerned) irrefutable that a majority of the American people agree with them. If that day comes, if they ever think that a majority of the American people -- a serious majority of the American people -- agree with them and would reelect them, then all bets are off.
I don't have any doubt that they would do it, and they would couch it as following the will of the people. Bob Schieffer, his comments equating the NRA to Nazis and to Hitler? Look, it should not be a mystery to you. I think what people have a tough time rationalizing -- and I'm talking now about non-wonks, people who are not involved day-to-day, people who seriously do know more about the Kardashians than they know about Obama or the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Those people, you will never be able to persuade of anything. You'll never be able to make 'em understand why the Democrats would want to take guns away from people. You'll never be able to persuade them why. If you tell them, for example, "Well, these people are opposed to individual liberty and freedom," do you realize what a hard sell that is? Freedom itself is a hard sell! Who was it that said that?
It was Ron Paul in his farewell address to Congress who made the comment on the floor of the House of Representatives that he is shocked how difficult it is to sell freedom to the American people, that it's an obstacle to many people. They don't want the responsibilities that come with it. They don't want the consequences that come with it. They are willing to trade security -- economic and what have you -- for freedom. But it's a tough sell.
By the same token, if you talk to people that pay scant attention to all this, and you tell them that the people they are voting for are interested in eliminating some of the freedom granted by the Constitution, do you realize what they're gonna think? "What do you mean? These are the people that want gay rights! You're the one who doesn't want gay marriage. What do you mean they're trying to take freedom away? They're trying to expand it to everybody!"
They might think that people don't need to have any guns.
If you can convince those people that American X has too much money, how hard is it to convince them that we have too many guns? If those people readily agree that nobody needs more than a hundred grand a year, then nobody needs more than one gun. That just means that we're up against a number of obstacles, the media being a chief one. But where is the polling data on this? Snerdley brought that up. This is an interesting little piece here from CNN. It's a CNN/TIME magazine poll.
Headline: "Slight Dip in Support for Gun Control Measures in Last Month -- There is strong support from Americans for many of the proposals to curb gun violence that President Barack Obama announced Wednesday, but according to a new national poll, public support has slipped a bit when compared to surveys taken immediately after last month's mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut," and it will slip even more by next month as the public tires of the news media's fearmongering hysteria, which is why these things have to be rushed through while the iron is hot.
That's why they are hustling as fast as they can. The emotional reservoir starts to empty. In the immediate days after something like Newtown, that's when they move mountains to try to get what they want done. As time goes by, support for it dwindles as emotion is replaced by rationality. That's why they've gotta act fast. The emotion is fading now. Rationality is ratcheting back up, and so the talk of "gun control" has been replaced by "gun violence," and the "executive actions" are now "executive orders."
They're not oriented toward taking guns away. It's just a "sensible, common sense approach" to whatever. "A CNN/Time Magazine/ORC International poll also indicates that Americans generally favor stricter gun control and think that it is too easy to buy guns in this country, but they don't believe that stricter gun laws would reduce gun violence all by themselves." Now, the poll's findings, buried at the bottom of this article, do not advance the gun control agenda.
In this TIME Magazine/CNN poll, most people agree with the NRA, for example, about putting armed guards in schools, despite that recent ad they ran, which was clearly a crime against humanity and all that is holy. "That NRA ad? Why, that was outrageous! Why, that NRA ad, why, that was reprehensible! Why, who do they think they are? Why, that ad...? I'm embarrassed by that." Despite that ad, more Americans support armed guards in schools. That's not what the regime wants to hear.
The regime wants to hear that more of you are in favor of gun-free zones. So the polling data is not going in their direction even now. The emotion is waning and rationality is ratcheting back up. So now it's on to the next event. The next event, whenever that happens -- and there will be one -- will get the whole process started again, and Obama will convene a meeting again. The lingo will be (Obama impression), "The last time this happened, uh, I said, 'Enough!
"'We simply gotta do something. It's enough!' Well, I think we all see now how I was right. We still haven't done enough! We've got to do more," and they'll start the process all over again, and they'll get as much as they can while that emotion is boiling over. It keeps going and keeps going. It keeps repeating until they get closer and closer to what they want. They never, however, ever get all they want because they're never satisfied. It's never enough.