Rove: Only Way To Prevent Violence Is Repeal Second Amendment
Karl Rove didn’t actually say he favors repealing the Second Amendment, but he did say that’s a route to stopping violence.
[CHRIS]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.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
32 responses to Rove: Only Way To Prevent Violence Is Repeal Second Amendment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
robert June 21st, 2015 at 19:17
how about we keep the 2nd and sign a petition to have rove fired
The Original Just Me June 21st, 2015 at 19:43
Donald Trump can at least do that; ” YOU’RE FIRED ! “
whatthe46 June 21st, 2015 at 20:18
you said that name. i’m cringing. oooohhh
The Original Just Me June 21st, 2015 at 20:38
But I was sitting here at my computer all by my self. I didn’t think anyone would hear me. Honest !
whatthe46 June 21st, 2015 at 20:41
nice. lol
robert June 21st, 2015 at 20:41
i will except that
i hope we can work that into the debates somehow
F_cons June 21st, 2015 at 19:20
Or the 2nd could be read in its entirety
Dwendt44 June 21st, 2015 at 20:30
True enough. The “Well regulated militia’ is what is called the National Guard these days. ‘Well regulated’ means that the governor or federal agencies have authority over the militia, which was registered and trained civilians that could be called up in an emergency. That was in large part because we had no standing army at the time and the 2nd reason the conservatives refuse to acknowledge is to allow bands of ‘citizens’ (Posse Comitatus’ to apprehend run away slaves.
granpa.usthai June 21st, 2015 at 23:09
what many have been saying since the get go.
got no problem with a WELL REGULATED MILITIA keeping and bearing arms
even Nuclear
but if it’s everybody can keep and bear arms if they want
it’s gotta be Nuclear also, lest some will have their 2nd infringed upon while others don’t.
ExPFCWintergreen June 21st, 2015 at 19:33
Or we could simply concentrate on REDUCING violence. Y’know, like REDUCING our carbon footprint. This “all or nothing” Teapublican shibboleth is the ultimate excuse for inaction. Well, shit, we can’t fix EVERYTHING so I guess we might as well do nothing. Because LibburTEA.
tracey marie June 21st, 2015 at 19:40
The whole nation? hardly rove, fox slop and all it’s spin offs and sycophants tried to change the narrative that the attack was against christians, they also tried to say their is no evidence that these are rwnj ideas and beliefs and tried to blame liberal policies, common sense restrictions, intense background cks, raising the legal limit on owning a gun, teaching that guns are intimidating and scarey because they were developed for one thing, killing. To put forth a new talking point and vague threat that banning guns is the only solution is disingenous at best. The world and violence are not an either or situation.
The Original Just Me June 21st, 2015 at 19:42
Oh man, can this guy get any more weird ? If he thinks repealing the 2nd. and taking away all of the guns will stop illegal import guns—— Well, if he is so smart let’s have him stop the flow of drugs and illegals from Mexico first. You know, just as a test case. Can somebody PLEASE have this idiot committed ?
whatthe46 June 21st, 2015 at 20:16
exactly.
Carla Akins June 21st, 2015 at 20:03
I don’t think any reasonable person is asking for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. Does he have a big ass brain tumor?
Glen June 22nd, 2015 at 00:14
It could probably do with some tweaking, though – just replace the phrase “well-regulated militia” with the more modern version of it… “police and national guard”. After all, that’s almost certainly what America’s founding fathers were talking about – the right of “the people”, not individuals, to bear arms.
And maybe also insert a clause making it clear that it’s not a right to bear any arms you want, either – the arms that the people have the right to bear is limited in extent (police and the national guard certainly don’t require rocket launchers, for instance).
Dwendt44 June 22nd, 2015 at 00:39
they didn’t have crew served weapons back then except for cannons and mortars. And those are not very portable. Today the have machine guns, assault rifles, high capacity hand guns, RPG and and other rockets, and a few items I can’t think of at the moment.
bpollen June 22nd, 2015 at 01:58
“and a few items I can’t think of at the moment.”
Like snappy uniforms? REALLY short haircuts? Shiny shoes?
(My point being that our Armed Forces have replaced the “well-regulated militia.”)
Dwendt44 June 22nd, 2015 at 14:11
True enough. But the 2nd is used by ammosexuals to grant themselves rights never intended by the Founding Fathers. There’s no need for a ‘militia’ these days, and the wild and deadly assortment of weapons that a person can have is amazing. Even a Barrett 50 cal. sniper rifle is legal. According to the NRA thugs, any weapon we might want is ‘legal’.
bpollen June 22nd, 2015 at 15:44
Yup, you are on the money.
TuMadre, Ph.D June 22nd, 2015 at 03:54
I’m actually going to have to argue that tweaking, for one VERY specific reason. There is a 160 year old Supreme Court edict that states that the government in its agents have no duty to protect its citizens from harm, which was famously reaffirmed in 1981 holding that the state is only responsible for citizens when a special relationship exists, like custody.
In order for “the people” to have meaningful access to life and liberty, they must be able to do so unrestricted by the fear of bodily harm, death or subjugation. This requires that the people are supported through affirmative legislation that supports the people in efforts of self-preservation and also maintains their ability to access tools to that end, OR requires the state to take full responsibility for its people, with penalties for failure. It also requires that the people be ok with that, as lack of confidence leads to subversion which endangers the public safety.
Garry Gale June 22nd, 2015 at 10:21
Lots of people want the 2nd amendment repealed…otherwise America would still have slavery, lynchings, torture, witch burning…. other countries recognize the need to repeal and update obsolete legislation to create a more civilized society… the 2nd amendment has to be flushed down the toilet of oblivion to bring the USA into the 21st century.
Greebo June 22nd, 2015 at 10:30
What do you mean by “reasonable person”? Someone considering the 2nd Amendment a sensible clause? If yes, I have to disagree: as far as I know there is no country in the western world having implemented a similar clause, and anyone calling for anything remotely resembling it has a good chance to be filed under “dangerously insane”.
Or do you mean someone not ready to fight a lost course. In this case you might be right – at least for the time being such attempt would be doomed.
Carla Akins June 22nd, 2015 at 14:21
I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership, however I cannot get on board with just anybody with a temperature over 80 can have own an arsenal.
Greebo June 23rd, 2015 at 04:15
I take it that you in general are in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
This leads to another question: what do you mean by “responsible gun ownership”?
granpa.usthai June 21st, 2015 at 23:04
stop the violence?
GO NUCLEAR!
imagine if every American had a Nuclear Arms with pressure release trigger!
it’d be so peaceful, those in NYC could hear a pin drop in downtown LA!
besides, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow ANY infringements, so how you gonna repeal it anyway?
go modern
go NUCLEAR
be safe
be @ peace
Garry Gale June 22nd, 2015 at 02:50
Its an AMENDMENT….. it can be further amended!
Its just a blood stained comfort blanket for ammosexal morons.
William June 22nd, 2015 at 07:56
“it can be further amended!”
Mike June 22nd, 2015 at 10:34
No fan of Rove’s Alan, but you went through some pains to jam those words into Carl’s mouth.
Mr Rove actually veered from the right wing narrative.
He admitted it was a racist and bigoted act.
He commended the families for their compassion.
He said that removing guns from society will, “guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns…”
He said that more laws won’t protect us.
Dwendt44 June 22nd, 2015 at 14:06
not swiss cheese laws that are left after the NRA thugs get through with them.
Mike June 22nd, 2015 at 17:40
I won’t argue a few new regulations because of the weapons available today, but laws generally don’t change anyone’s behavior, that takes something bigger…
When I was a kid, drunk driving was a way of life. My sisters and I packed this goofy plaid cooler full of beer for my dad whenever we took a family road trip. The chief of police had a custom made beer holder in his patrol car. It was generally accepted you could drink a beer while driving.
Madd has made that kind of behavior insane in this day and age, rightfully so. They did it through public awareness and logic…
Someday we’ll get sick of burying 15k or so people every year and do something about it. Sadly, it will take a lot more than 9 people being gunned down senselessly to get there. JMO.
cecilia June 22nd, 2015 at 13:42
who kidnapped rove, killed him and is now walking around in his skin??
Bunya June 22nd, 2015 at 14:27
Karl Rove is one of the lowest forms of life walking the earth today, and NOW – after he was part of the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle – he’s suddenly become so righteous and wholesome? I’m not buying it. I think he’s only trying to gain a bit of the credibility he lost. Ain’t gonna happen.