View Full Version : Karl Rove: Only Way To Stop The Violence Is To Repeal Second Amendment
Amp Mangum
06-21-15, 15:24
Republican strategist Karl Rove said on “Fox News Sunday” the only way to stop gun-related violence, like the Wednesday massacre at Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston S.C., was to repeal American citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/#ixzz3djL4FfLs
as I say republican or democrat is like asking to be punched in the left side of our face or right ! when we dont want to be hit at all !!!!!!
it sadly is gov against us these days and either side is not for the people anymore !
Factually incorrect. He should be kicked out of GOP. Sounds like something ISIS would suggest.
Factually incorrect. He should be kicked out of GOP. Sounds like something ISIS would suggest.
He didn't suggest it. It's another misleading title. Watch the interview.
He didn't suggest it. It's another misleading title. Watch the interview.
He said:
"Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen."
I guess it depends on context how that can be taken, but if he's been known as a "gun rights activist" as they claim, it would seem the context would be he's not in favor per se of repealing the 2A.
Cagemonkey
06-21-15, 17:00
This is AWESOME!!! All the Statist Despots are starting to show their TRUE COLORS. Keep believing in the false paradigm of the two party system. You can know start to see where they want to take you. Right now the RINOS like him, Boehner and McConnell are doing more damage to the Republic than Obama. Their all TRAITORS.
He didn't suggest it. It's another misleading title. Watch the interview.
No your right. He simply proffered it at as viable solution in a factual context.
Comes across as a suggestion to me.
Jwknutson17
06-21-15, 17:10
33823
And all this time we could have stopped the senseless violence if we just told ISIS their weapons are illegal.
Of course a simpler solution might be to stop recognizing "race" as a valid reason to provide beneficial preference.
Won't stop all tragedies but it would remove some of the motivation on both sides.
We should also remember it wasn't just guns at Columbine, propane bombs kept people from escaping and prevented law enforcement from entering. So to the best of our ability we need to control dangerous people.
Trying to regulate guns, propane tanks, pressure cookers, kitchen knives and rope in order to make society "safe" is a fools errand.
All any attempts at nationwide, sweeping gun control would accomplish is to turn law-abiding, productive citizens into criminals. That in and of itself presents a whole slew of problems, as the resentment and defiance that would follow in much of the country could effectively turn this place upside down. Look at what started to happen after Sandy Hook and the full-court press for gun control that followed; it was stopped legislatively but there was an air of defiance I had rarely seen in the gun-owning community. A digging-in of the heels if you will. I'm not making any predictions or spouting off about "revolution" or such but I can in all honesty say that something to the extreme that Rove suggested/mentioned would be a bad, bad idea. Forcing people's backs against a wall----armed people at that----who were created criminals is not the wisest course of action.
Besides, the Constitution (for damn good reason) is not easy to amend. There are enough "free" states in this country that the required number of passage by state legislatures wouldn't happen.
He said:
"Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen. I don’t think that’s an answer."
I guess it depends on context how that can be taken, but if he's been known as a "gun rights activist" as they claim, it would seem the context would be he's not in favor per se of repealing the 2A.
I added in bold the sentence that Rove said at the end of the quote that you provided in reference to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Most libertarian websites have removed that sentence to make it sound like he supports the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That is what the Alex Jones and Glenn Beck nut suckers do on websites like InfoWars and TheBlaze.
No your right. He simply proffered it at as viable solution in a factual context.
Comes across as a suggestion to me.
It appears that you didn't watch the interview either. If you had, you would have noticed that he clearly said that repealing the 2nd Amendment was not advisable, and the referenced quote was sarcasm directed toward the anti-gun left.
When you see crap like this on websites like InfoWars and TheBlaze with no links to the entire video, that's what I call a clue.
I added in bold the sentence that Rove said at the end of the quote that you provided in reference to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Most libertarian websites have removed that sentence to make it sound like he supports the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That is what the Alex Jones and Glenn Beck nut suckers do on websites like InfoWars and TheBlaze.
Libertarians are not anti gun by nature, so I'm confused why they'd do that. Brady Bunch et al yes. More about making Rove look bad than an anti gun agenda?
Libertarians are not anti gun by nature, so I'm confused why they'd do that. Brady Bunch et al yes. More about making Rove look bad than an anti gun agenda?
Vilify Rove perhaps? Rove represents a portion of the Republican party they're not exactly fond of. Though, honestly, I'd hesitate to call Glen Beck a "libertarian".
He went from : the " Only Way To Stop The Violence Is To Repeal Second Amendment to : the Only Way To * reduce* The Violence Is To Repeal Second Amendment. I use to think the only thing worse than a republican was a democrat , anymore they are pretty much the same to me. If it would ever come to that, ammo prices would go to the moon
Republican strategist Karl Rove said on “Fox News Sunday” the only way to stop gun-related violence, like the Wednesday massacre at Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston S.C., was to repeal American citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/#ixzz3djL4FfLs
And this takes the guns out of the hands of thug and criminals? How? Just seems to leave me unable to protect myself.
Libertarians are not anti gun by nature, so I'm confused why they'd do that. Brady Bunch et al yes. More about making Rove look bad than an anti gun agenda?
These libertarian websites hate Rove and the "establishment GOP." They are not above using lies and distortions to discredit him.
Let me clarify, not all libertarians are like this - just a very vocal few.
These libertarian websites hate Rove the "establishment GOP. Their are not above using lies and distortions to discredit him.
Rgr rgr, That makes more sense.
Amp Mangum
06-21-15, 19:11
Looks like The Daily Caller tried to spin the story and took his words out of context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fGP9B8c4MQ
He didn't suggest it. It's another misleading title. Watch the interview.
I didn't see a link, and expected a full story from a media outlet... stupid me.
The one time I take their word....
sevenhelmet
06-21-15, 20:50
Media sources taking quotes out of context? Say it ain't so!
Media sources taking quotes out of context? Say it ain't so!
Even if this is just poorly expressed, suggesting some like getting "enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment" is still saying "guns are the problem." I don't think there is a "context" problem here so much as another person who really doesn't get it. If he'd have stopped at "removing all guns from society" as a mythical hypothetical I'd be fine with what he said. He has basically challenged our enemies to attack the second amendment directly. If this were coming from somebody like Trump it wouldn't matter because he's a clown. But Rove is actually a major player and he should know better.
"Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen."
Even if this is just poorly expressed, suggesting some like getting "enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment" is still saying "guns are the problem." I don't think there is a "context" problem here so much as another person who really doesn't get it. If he'd have stopped at "removing all guns from society" as a mythical hypothetical I'd be fine with what he said. He has basically challenged our enemies to attack the second amendment directly. If this were coming from somebody like Trump it wouldn't matter because he's a clown. But Rove is actually a major player and he should know better.
"Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your are also misquoting him or at least not providing the entire quote. I watched the interview a couple of times now and recall him stating that it (repealing the 2nd Amendment) "is not an answer." I did not see anything inflammatory, threatening, or challenging about his remarks. The entire content and context was appropriate given the question that was loaded with assumptions posed by Wallace. Nothing about what he said struck me as controversial until some people with an agenda started selective editing.
Moose-Knuckle
06-22-15, 00:43
Of course a simpler solution might be to stop recognizing "race" as a valid reason to provide beneficial preference.
Won't stop all tragedies but it would remove some of the motivation on both sides.
We should also remember it wasn't just guns at Columbine, propane bombs kept people from escaping and prevented law enforcement from entering. So to the best of our ability we need to control dangerous people.
Trying to regulate guns, propane tanks, pressure cookers, kitchen knives and rope in order to make society "safe" is a fools errand.
This is spot on, not to give the SOB any more attention but if you read the SC shooters manifesto it goes into exactly the bolded part.
Moose-Knuckle
06-22-15, 00:51
All any attempts at nationwide, sweeping gun control would accomplish is to turn law-abiding, productive citizens into criminals. That in and of itself presents a whole slew of problems, as the resentment and defiance that would follow in much of the country could effectively turn this place upside down. Look at what started to happen after Sandy Hook and the full-court press for gun control that followed; it was stopped legislatively but there was an air of defiance I had rarely seen in the gun-owning community. A digging-in of the heels if you will. I'm not making any predictions or spouting off about "revolution" or such but I can in all honesty say that something to the extreme that Rove suggested/mentioned would be a bad, bad idea. Forcing people's backs against a wall----armed people at that----who were created criminals is not the wisest course of action.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
- Ayn Rand
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your are also misquoting him or at least not providing the entire quote. I watched the interview a couple of times now and recall him stating that it (repealing the 2nd Amendment) "is not an answer." I did not see anything inflammatory, threatening, or challenging about his remarks. The entire content and context was appropriate given the question that was loaded with assumptions posed by Wallace. Nothing about what he said struck me as controversial until some people with an agenda started selective editing.
I took the quote as posted by Will. Do you have a more complete quote?
Eurodriver
06-22-15, 06:38
I'm with Sensei on this one.
I did not, in any way shape or form, see him call for a repeal of the second amendment.
I interpreted it as: "If the left wants to solve the gun problem by banning guns, they need to repeal the second amendment first because otherwise it is illegal to do so."
I took the quote as posted by Will. Do you have a more complete quote?
It is already in post #12 but here it is again in its entirety:
"Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen. I don’t think that’s an answer."
Notice the last sentence which is omitted by most of the agenda websites. However, I don't know why people are relying on the doctored transcript when the actual video has been linked at least once in this thread.
I added in bold the sentence that Rove said at the end of the quote that you provided in reference to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Most libertarian websites have removed that sentence to make it sound like he supports the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That is what the Alex Jones and Glenn Beck nut suckers do on websites like InfoWars and TheBlaze.
It appears that you didn't watch the interview either. If you had, you would have noticed that he clearly said that repealing the 2nd Amendment was not advisable, and the referenced quote was sarcasm directed toward the anti-gun left.
When you see crap like this on websites like InfoWars and TheBlaze with no links to the entire video, that's what I call a clue.
I don't see this story anywhere on The Blaze, correct or with selective editing.
Of course a simpler solution might be to stop recognizing "race" as a valid reason to provide beneficial preference.
Won't stop all tragedies but it would remove some of the motivation on both sides.
We should also remember it wasn't just guns at Columbine, propane bombs kept people from escaping and prevented law enforcement from entering. So to the best of our ability we need to control dangerous people.
Trying to regulate guns, propane tanks, pressure cookers, kitchen knives and rope in order to make society "safe" is a fools errand.
It was there yesterday...perhaps removed.
IF you subscribe to the fallacy that firearms are the problem, then all he's saying is the logical extension of that. With the current 2nd amendment case law, there is no possible way to put enough restrictions on firearms to even slow down a nutjob like the Charleston shooter because you actually have to follow due process and convict someone or adjudicate them mentally insane in order to strip them of their 2nd amendment rights.
I've often said that I have a lot more respect for antis that just come right out and say they'd like to repeal the 2nd Amendment than the one's who just want to act like it doesn't exist because at least the former would be following the legal amendment process as written in the Constitution. I would fight that effort tooth and nail but at least we would be operating under the Constitution as intended instead of the "living document" BS.
So to the best of our ability we need to control dangerous people.
Which itself is nigh impossible without gutting due process. It's so hard to adjudicate someone as dangerously insane these days that it's a waste of time. You have to actually wait till they hurt someone before you can lock them up...
It is already in post #12 but here it is again in its entirety:
Notice the last sentence which is omitted by most of the agenda websites. However, I don't know why people are relying on the doctored transcript when the actual video has been linked at least once in this thread.
Missed that the first time. Full quote accepted. Works for me.
brickboy240
06-22-15, 15:52
However Rove meant it...he has proven in the past that he is not our friend.
Rove has a whole PAC that i in place to defeat Tea Party type candidates before they get to a general election. Rove is a big govt neo con and far from a lover of liberty or freedom.
However Rove meant it...he has proven in the past that he is not our friend.
Rove has a whole PAC that i in place to defeat Tea Party type candidates before they get to a general election. Rove is a big govt neo con and far from a lover of liberty or freedom.
Agreed.
brickboy240
06-23-15, 10:17
People like Karl Rove are actually part of the problem. The old guard GOP establishment that really does not want to lead or reform a damn thing in America.
He is really no less dangerous than any Democrat/leftist activist when you get down to it.
Cagemonkey
06-23-15, 19:20
People like Karl Rove are actually part of the problem. The old guard GOP establishment that really does not want to lead or reform a damn thing in America.
He is really no less dangerous than any Democrat/leftist activist when you get down to it.Thanks for having a clue as to whats going on. The RINOS are doing more damage to us than Obama and his minions due to the fact that their enablers. Karl Rove is part of the problem, not the solution. So aren't Boehner and McConnell. The Republicans have to clean their house out before they go after Obama and his radicals.
polydeuces
06-23-15, 21:09
Excuse me - but this is THE Karl Rove - correct?
Master of subterfuge, creator of spin, manipulator of media, teller of tales......leaving room for misinterpretation? Being vague?
Douchebaggery. Plain n simple.
Excuse me - but this is THE Karl Rove - correct?
Master of subterfuge, creator of spin, manipulator of media, teller of tales......leaving room for misinterpretation? Being vague?
Douchebaggery. Plain n simple.
You forgot that he is responsible Hurricane Katrina.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.