Posted on 06/22/2015 7:17:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Posted By The Tatler On June 22, 2015 @ 2:07 am In Second Amendment | 16 Comments
Karl Rove made an appearance on Fox News Sunday and said the only way to stop gun violence is to repeal the Second Amendment and “remove guns from society.”
The subject was the tragic shooting at Charleston, South Carolina’s Emanuel African Methodist Church.
WALLACE:How do we stop the violence?
ROVE: I wish I had an easy answer for that, but I don’t think there’s an easy answer
We saw an act of evil. Racist, bigoted evil, and to me the amazing thing is that it was met with grief and love. Think about how far we’ve come since 1963. The whole weight of the government throughout the South was to impede finding and holding and bringing to justice the men who perpetrated the [Birmingham] bombing.
And here, we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together, grieving as one and united in the belief that this was an evil act, so we’ve 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 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.
Also read: Uber Bans Firearms in Cars
I used to have disdain for Car Salesmen. But my distaste for politicians exceeds this. At least the Car Salesman works to earn a living. I won’t sent 1 cent to any politician. They are mostly the same breed as pimps.
If he isn’t the enemy of Conservatives and the Second Amendment he’d better learn to express himself better. Too late for me.
: Uber Bans Firearms in Cars?
Who the hell needs Uber anyway. They just set themselves up to have their drivers victimized. Another ‘Gun Free Zone”?
LOL.
The important question is how we can stop idiots like RINO rove.
Karl Rove - the Bob Shrum of the Republicrat party.
Today while listening to talk radio, I heard a black woman say the solution isn’t gun control, but heart control. BINGO!
Duh. She used the elevator...like everyone else
I sent the below letter off to papers today.
From: Retain Mike
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 3:51 PM
To: WSJ Letters (wsj.ltrs@wsj.com)
Subject: Karl Rove and the Second Amendment
Karl Rove presented a popular, contra-factual, deceptive statement when saying, “the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and .... repeal the Second Amendment”. However, Harvard Law School completed a study discovering that within the U.S. and across European countries, violent criminality and suicide were unrelated and often inversely related to gun ownership.
In conclusion it said,” the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”
Instead the study asserted that basic social, economic, and cultural factors determined human actions.
Harvard Law School Gun Study
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6297
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pd
Rove just delivered himself the final blow as far as politics is concerned. After this, who wants to hear what he has to say? He has been inconsequential for a long time, but now he is really done.
Everybody considered him the man behind Bush’s decisions. He was not. He was simply one advisor, and not a real big one. Now he’s nothing but a man trying to hold on to some semblance of importance. He’s gone!
“You read minds don’t you? (SARCASM)”
You don’t need to be able to read minds to understand what he meant. You just have to be able to read. And comprehend. Two things clearly beyond you ;).
And today we KNOW he meant exactly what I said, because he’s trying to walk it back with double-talk instead of openly denying it. He’s a piece of garbage.
He is not walking it back
If you bothered to listen to the segment, Rove clearly said “That is not going to work” in regard to the idea of doing away with the second amendment
He was on Hannity last night and he emphasized that what needed to happen in the Charleston Case was not gun control but that someone needed to listen to what that 21 year old was espousing and take responsibility fort it (which did not happen)...In short a societal solution and not a government solution.
You and Laz and all the people who were so outraged at Rove for something he did not say need to grow up and figure out who the real enemy is. Republicans (of all stripes) do not believe in abolishing the second amendment ...but liberal Democrats would do it in a minute.
You also should apologize to Rove for your stupid misreading of what was said.However Ive learned that Freepers (who ARE on my side of the political spectrum) often act like children so I don’t expect that you will
“He is not walking it back
If you bothered to listen to the segment, Rove clearly said “That is not going to work” in regard to the idea of doing away with the second amendment
He was on Hannity last night and he emphasized that what needed to happen in the Charleston Case was not gun control but that someone needed to listen to what that 21 year old was espousing and take responsibility fort it (which did not happen)...In short a societal solution and not a government solution.”
_________________________________________________________
If he said or suggested a societal solution is what’s needed, then he surely IS walking back what he said to Chris Wallace, claiming “oomph” was required to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Society cannot repeal anything, only legislators can. So the fact he had to even show up on Hannity to keep talking about the same subject trying to not say what he did say to Wallace is - by definition - walking it back. Again, it’s clear comprehension of text escapes you.
And, “apologize” to Rove? You’re clearly out of your mind. Why you fanboy this moron is a mystery. This clueless clown swindled almost $400 million out of people for his basically useless Super PAC American Crossroads in 2012, spending more money on behalf of more losers than ever before in politics. And this numb-nuts Rove an his RINO ilk have the nerve to blame their losses on conservatives!! It was THEIR RINO candidates losing en masse in 2012: Thompson, Wilson, Mack, McMahon, Rehberg..and the biggest loser of all in Mitt Romney. Rove’s success rate in 2012 was less than 10% - and sending hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain backing candidates he told every media outlet were “The only ones who can win” - except they didn’t. His comments to Wallace on the 2nd Amendment reveal exactly what he thinks and who he is, and it’s the same political acumen that was evident when all of his backed candidates lost comprehensively. He’s no conservative. He’s a “big-gubmint”-loving RINO. Like all the Bushes, Romneys, Fords, Nixons, Rockefellers, et.al. And he’s so stupid about not watching what he says - like the Wallace appearance - that he had to go beg Hannity to put him on for a “do-over”, the kind of do-overs media give to Democrats who unintentionally expose themselves against the Party Line.
Your admonition to me that I owe Rove an apology is so ridiculous that you should be laughed out of every room you walk in to. And it’s clear you’re as intellectually inept as Rove is.
I can feel the spit coming from your lips .
Once again in the segment everyone got so upset about because they failed to read the whole thing Rove said this :
‘ROVE: I wish I had an easy answer for that, but I don’t think there’s an easy answer
We saw an act of evil. Racist, bigoted evil, and to me the amazing thing is that it was met with grief and love. Think about how far we’ve come since 1963. The whole weight of the government throughout the South was to impede finding and holding and bringing to justice the men who perpetrated the [Birmingham] bombing.
And here, we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together, grieving as one and united in the belief that this was an evil act, so we’ve 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 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,THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>
Why the hell would someone say say “THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN” if they are suggesting something they want to do?
In other words he is saying the opposite of what you guys accused him of saying .
Go ahead hate Karl Rove all you want
Hate him till the cows come home.
Its not going to make one bit of difference because he is a guy on TV saying things.....Things that evidently some people cannot understand
Meanwhile Obama gets himself elected and does what he wants and you have wasted all your energy hating Karl Rove
enjoy
“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,THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>
Why the hell would someone say say “THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN” if they are suggesting something they want to do?
___________________________________________________________
This is a direct quotation of what you said Rove said. Since I quoted directly, let’s not have anymore confusion. It’s clear your problem is comprehending SYNTAX. You know, sentence structure like use of nouns, verbs, and predicates?? Roves statement as said above CLEARLY shows he’s an advocate of 2nd amendment repeal based on his own linguistics. His statement of the problem - as he sees it - is that there is no “magic law” (yet) to eradicate events like Charleston. He says then that in order “dramatically reduce” shootings such at this, the only solution is to “remove guns from society”. So we have Rove assessing the problem (lack of a “magic law” to “dramatically reduce more Charlestons), and then declares what the solution to the problem would be (”remove guns from society). In terms of argumentation of debate points, this is what’s known as laying out the case. So in this paragraph you want to use to exonerate his corruption, he tells us what he thinks the problem is and what he thinks the solution would be.
It’s his use of the word “until” that gives away his cover. The word “until” is a preposition, and means “a word to indicate continuance to a specified time” (this is the Merriam-Webster definition). So Rove tells us we’re going to be subject to Charleston type events UNTIL the “specified time” that “somebody” gets the “oomph” to “repeal the 2nd Amendment”. He says it’s not going to happen - but he doesn’t say it’s not going to happen because of his own defense of principle behind the constitutional provision that the right to bear arms should be unabridged. He’s saying we’re going to have Charleston-type problems UNTIL somebody gets “oomph” (read: courage) and eliminates the 2nd amendment to remove guns from society (ahhh...his “magic law”, at last!!)
Your parsing of his last statement away from everything else tells us a lot about YOU! Trying to overemphasize “that’s not gonna happen” in isolation is an epic fail on your part. It’s trying to foist the notion he’s posing as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but you IGNORE everything he said before it and drop the context of his own words of the entire paragraph you quoted on his behalf. Far from a defense of the 2nd amendment, the whole context of this very paragraph YOU quoted indicates clearly this is a LAMENT from Rove that somebody - at present - lacks “oomph” to repeal it (if you were truly a 2nd amendment defender, why on earth would you ever utter what would be required to get rid of it???). Rove is lamenting that there will be no repeal (after all, he tells us the solution to “dramatically reduce” more Charleston type events - get rid of guns; apparently Rove has never heard of all the gun crime that happens in the heavily gun restricted Chicago). He’s not defending the 2nd Amendment. At all. And any idiot with half a brain can read this paragraph of his you quoted and understand that as clearly as the sunrise. Except of course, you.
Rove is worthy of all the hatred he brings upon himself. Whether he’s swindling private citizens out of cash for his Epic Fail Super PAC, or foisting yet another big-gubmint luvin’ Bush down out throats, he’s earned every bit of hatred he gets. Equally from both sides, I might add. Karl Rove’s 15 minutes of fame was over LONG ago - and it’s time for this worthless ass-clown to get off the stage and go back to his closet-case life.
You can BS all you want
Rove did not say what you said he said
My comprehension is just fine
Rhetorical device
In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Note that although rhetorical devices may be used to evoke an emotional response in the audience, this is not their primary purpose.
This above is what Rove used ...Im sorry you could not follow it
You are 100% clueless about who the GOP-e really is.
You have a very bad case of normalcy bias.
I won't be able to mock you when the truth finally is revealed to you because I will be dead or because communication lines have been severed.
So I shall mock you now.
Not sure if woofie is a establishment hack or just very dim.
“Rhetorical device
In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Note that although rhetorical devices may be used to evoke an emotional response in the audience, this is not their primary purpose.
This above is what Rove used ...Im sorry you could not follow it
___________________________________________________________
I didn’t follow it - and neither did anybody else - because that’s not what he used. He wasn’t “persuading” us to look it this topic from another point of view. And even if he were using this (which he wasn’t), this definition of rhetorical device PROVES MY THEORY, not yours!! The conclusion of his thesis was that such violence as Charleston would continue UNTIL the 2nd Amendment was repealed to “remove all guns” from people’s hands (ostensibly). So your claim of using rhetorical language to persuade us to accept his thesis by other means undermines what you’ve been claiming all along LMAO!!! Your argument now is, “His thesis being exactly what he said it was, though I still maintain he didn’t really say what he said, and to prove my point, here is the method which he used to persuade us of his thesis, which I still claim he didn’t utter”.
You’re as screwed up as Rove is, without a doubt. Have a great weekend!!
FU you FAT BA$TARD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.