PDA

View Full Version : Karl Rove.. Removing guns only way to stop violence. WTF? repeal 2nd Ammendment.



HBARleatherneck
06-26-2015, 10:22
This is from a couple days ago, but I didnt see any discussion about it.

"So, we have come a long way. 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 would 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." exact quote from Karl Rove. fuck you.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+quicksnailsfeed+%28quicksnail sfeed%29

He tries to back pedal.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/karl-rove-walks-back-repeal-the-second-amendment-comments-after-uproar/

68Charger
06-26-2015, 10:38
In a way I agree with him- in the way that they should stop trying to violate the 2nd...
if you really want to ban guns the right way to go about it would be to repeal the 2nd...
Good luck with that.

short of that, move to a country without a constitution.

ETA: So is Mr. Rove ok with violence that doesn't involve guns? it's a common narrative with the Anti's that only violence with guns matters.

ray1970
06-26-2015, 11:15
I say if we're going to repeal amendments why not start with the first. Then anyone who speaks their mind can be prosecuted. Politicians included. Heck, maybe we could put those people in some sort of concentration camps.

SamuraiCO
06-26-2015, 11:37
He was answering the question posed but does not agree with the premise. He clarified that he understands the reason for the 2nd and the loss of freedom that would occur if this was to happen.

MED
06-26-2015, 11:43
I don't think this is true. With every passing decade, the Supreme Court cares less and less about the constitution and everything is up for interpretation; this is what they really meant even though it is not what they wrote. The Second Amendment could easily mean something else in the not so distant future.

sroz
06-26-2015, 11:50
Yeah. This was debunked a couple days ago once the entire segment was reviewed. Another case of showing only selective excerpts.

Singlestack
06-29-2015, 06:50
I'm no fan of Rove - a true establishment Republican if there ever was one. However, I have become more aware of some on the right who are just as guilty of those on the left of spinning comments out of context for their own benefit. This was an example of that.

Hound
06-29-2015, 09:54
Be careful with this line of thought. People never would have thought alcohol would be prohibated and yet it was. Yes they repealed it but the damage it did in the mean time we still live with today. Not the least of which was the gun control laws. If the Anti-Gunners start the ball rolling as the prohibitionists did......