Repealing the Second Amendment probably doesn't seem like an impossible task for some. Better to point out that nationwide confiscation and actively busting down doors and warrant-less searches would be required to make guns disappear from society. I'm sure there are a few people in the anti-gun segment that would be okay with that, but that is something the fence sitting general public would certainly not stand for.
Karl Rove <accused of> switches sides?
- Thread starter taliv
- Start date
- Status
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
If you believe that politicians and their hacks who support and defend the passage of illegal and secret legislation that is generated and negotiated by the executive branch give a hoot about the Constitution your sadly mistaken.
Whatever Rove said was based on pure political calculation and how he and those who support or he supports come out on top which in his case are progressive Republicans. Look how he deals and has dealt with true conservatives over the years and IMO it's obvious he would take the loss rather than support.
Whatever Rove said was based on pure political calculation and how he and those who support or he supports come out on top which in his case are progressive Republicans. Look how he deals and has dealt with true conservatives over the years and IMO it's obvious he would take the loss rather than support.
Coyote3855
Member
I don't care for Karl Rove, but I think his statements, while perhaps poorly worded, are being twisted for political purposes.
Lord Teapot
Member
dont care, still better off with them than any Democrat, and i say this as a twice obama voter. his statement was taken out of context, and context matters.
It's a two part supposition addressing exactly what the anti gun Administration has on it's bully pulpit. The President once again addressed it the other day as his agenda - to start a conversation over limiting gun ownership.
Rove just put it out there in the open. If "they" want to limit ownership of guns to eliminate gun violence, first the 2d Amendment has to be repealed. That means it actually gets thru Congress and is voted on by the States. It would take years.
Once approved, then confiscation would have to occur - the point is to remove guns from society completely, thereby eliminating them as a cause of violence. It would require house to house searches, and it would NOT find them all. Not half.
That's the point he subtly brings up. "Not going to happen." glosses over the reality - attempting to remove guns from society would divide society - including most of the Law Enforcement and Military. It's unreasonable to assume that a few anti gun banners can force millions of others to give up their arms.
In a very quiet way Rove put it right out there and said how that was going to be evaluated - a big "Not going to happen." It addresses and dismisses the whole argument of the disarmament agenda up front - and ignoring it is their main point. They don't want to appear to be the catalyst of deconstructing the Constitution, they want evil gun owners to be blamed for violence in America. They don't want to be identified with trashing the Bill of Rights to gain their ends - so they refuse to converse on the consequences, and control discussion on the potential results of doing it.
Rove couldn't go there in depth on a talk show hosted by them. But he got it in anyway, and now they have to live with it. It's part of the national discussion now - the antigunners are trying to eliminate part of the Constitution.
Most of them going about their daily lives will be shocked to discover what they are up to - they never considered what could happen other than their fantasy view of imposing a Utopian society on others.
They don't want to consider that their neighbors would not only hide their guns and keep them, but if push came to shove, use them.
Rove did us a favor.
Rove just put it out there in the open. If "they" want to limit ownership of guns to eliminate gun violence, first the 2d Amendment has to be repealed. That means it actually gets thru Congress and is voted on by the States. It would take years.
Once approved, then confiscation would have to occur - the point is to remove guns from society completely, thereby eliminating them as a cause of violence. It would require house to house searches, and it would NOT find them all. Not half.
That's the point he subtly brings up. "Not going to happen." glosses over the reality - attempting to remove guns from society would divide society - including most of the Law Enforcement and Military. It's unreasonable to assume that a few anti gun banners can force millions of others to give up their arms.
In a very quiet way Rove put it right out there and said how that was going to be evaluated - a big "Not going to happen." It addresses and dismisses the whole argument of the disarmament agenda up front - and ignoring it is their main point. They don't want to appear to be the catalyst of deconstructing the Constitution, they want evil gun owners to be blamed for violence in America. They don't want to be identified with trashing the Bill of Rights to gain their ends - so they refuse to converse on the consequences, and control discussion on the potential results of doing it.
Rove couldn't go there in depth on a talk show hosted by them. But he got it in anyway, and now they have to live with it. It's part of the national discussion now - the antigunners are trying to eliminate part of the Constitution.
Most of them going about their daily lives will be shocked to discover what they are up to - they never considered what could happen other than their fantasy view of imposing a Utopian society on others.
They don't want to consider that their neighbors would not only hide their guns and keep them, but if push came to shove, use them.
Rove did us a favor.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
If Rove did any favors for the 2A movement it was a side effect of his personal agenda, he is purely a political animal and views the world as a personal score card.
As far as confiscation goes, that would be the very last step and we have to be much more concerned about the penalty phase of any disarmament scheme. Make a law that forbids taking a gun from the home, improperly stored, registered, of a certain style/size/capacity, mandate training and licensing and make the penalty great enough that the average American won't put up with it for fear of incarceration or fine and the interest of most of us will wither quickly.
If use is restricted and regulated to the point that all one can do is use it within the home for protection and outside of that any unregulated use is forbidden all that remains is to bury them and within a generation nobody will care anymore.
Sounds way out there to some I suppose but having lived fore a mere 50+ years and been somewhat of a student of history I have seen and read of changes far greater than this happening over just a few decades.
As far as confiscation goes, that would be the very last step and we have to be much more concerned about the penalty phase of any disarmament scheme. Make a law that forbids taking a gun from the home, improperly stored, registered, of a certain style/size/capacity, mandate training and licensing and make the penalty great enough that the average American won't put up with it for fear of incarceration or fine and the interest of most of us will wither quickly.
If use is restricted and regulated to the point that all one can do is use it within the home for protection and outside of that any unregulated use is forbidden all that remains is to bury them and within a generation nobody will care anymore.
Sounds way out there to some I suppose but having lived fore a mere 50+ years and been somewhat of a student of history I have seen and read of changes far greater than this happening over just a few decades.
ApacheCoTodd
member
I'm not a conspiracy loon...
nor do I care to look for problems or outrage just for the sake of it but the degree of "whistling past the graveyard" in this thread, relative to this; subject, this speaker, at this time and with this administration is very troubling to me.
This man by his very nature says NOTHING accidentally or simply "off the cuff".
I don't know if folks are hoping it's much ado about nothing or deliberately ignoring the significance.
Debating what this administration can or can not do - even relative to the US Constitution - has already been proven to be far from a black (or even dark grey) and white discussion. Now, it's merely various shades of fog and misdirection.
Having the single most effective community agitator in the strongest position possible makes almost anything possible.
What's disarming the US populace compared to up-ending the entire world?
Himself and those like him have already shown nothing but contempt for the US Constitution and those in a position to defend it from Him/Them (when not assisting) are warming their political hands by his fires.
Remember too, the 21st Amendment took a mere, what... 9 months to pass and was ratified by state conventions rather than by the state legislatures - the only amendment to utilize this method and without the extreme power of today's media and our current community agitator in chief to ramrod it with the likes of Pelosi, Boehner... et al...
Todd.
nor do I care to look for problems or outrage just for the sake of it but the degree of "whistling past the graveyard" in this thread, relative to this; subject, this speaker, at this time and with this administration is very troubling to me.
This man by his very nature says NOTHING accidentally or simply "off the cuff".
I don't know if folks are hoping it's much ado about nothing or deliberately ignoring the significance.
Debating what this administration can or can not do - even relative to the US Constitution - has already been proven to be far from a black (or even dark grey) and white discussion. Now, it's merely various shades of fog and misdirection.
Having the single most effective community agitator in the strongest position possible makes almost anything possible.
What's disarming the US populace compared to up-ending the entire world?
Himself and those like him have already shown nothing but contempt for the US Constitution and those in a position to defend it from Him/Them (when not assisting) are warming their political hands by his fires.
Remember too, the 21st Amendment took a mere, what... 9 months to pass and was ratified by state conventions rather than by the state legislatures - the only amendment to utilize this method and without the extreme power of today's media and our current community agitator in chief to ramrod it with the likes of Pelosi, Boehner... et al...
Todd.
Last edited:
wally
Member
I look at it this way, if the supreme court rules the Constitution gives the "right" for gay marriage it'll take a Constitutional Amendment for the people who don't like gay marriage to get rid of it.
He's basically saying the right to own guns is already there in the Constitution and for the peoploe who don't like guns to get rid of them it'll take a Constitutional Amendment (and police actions that'd likely start the second American Revolution).
I'm not a Rove fan, but we need to not over-react to statements like this, that are easily misused out of context.
He's basically saying the right to own guns is already there in the Constitution and for the peoploe who don't like guns to get rid of them it'll take a Constitutional Amendment (and police actions that'd likely start the second American Revolution).
I'm not a Rove fan, but we need to not over-react to statements like this, that are easily misused out of context.
leadcounsel
member
Good summary.
I listened to it live and was taken aback by his statements. I feel his statement was in-artful. But I did not believe or interpret it to be an attack on gun rights. You gotta remember these people talk non-stop on these shows, and have to make their points in 10 seconds - they cannot possibly give a thorough analysis.
I was disappointed though, honestly. His points are not the points I would make and he could have made stronger points. Saying "it's not going to be repealed" almost seemed like a challenge to the left. Here would be my brief answer to the question posed about how to stop gun violence.
1. We live in a dangerous unpredictable world where motivated evil people can and do kill in mass numbers with any weapons or no weapons at all, and no laws can keep evil people from getting weapons or committing murders, even in controlled environments like prisons.
2. Murder, even mass murder, occurs by PEOPLE with many weapons, not just guns.
3. Guns are not the cause. Even in nations with total gun bans, mass murder still occurs with other weapons.
4. Therefore, attacking and banning guns is a red-herring, only serving to remove valuable self-defense tools to victims, including women, parents, and the frail and outnumbered or surprised.
5. If you look at historic mass shootings, note that the only thing that stops these shootings is the introduction of a gun by a good-guy. The sooner that happens, the more lives are saved.
6. People need to take personal responsibility for their safety.
7. Put in context, murder and assaults are statistical anomalies in the US, so lets not get reactionary.
Big Bad Bob
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 388
Karl Rove is a master of misinformation. He knows that no Republican will touch gun control, but that there are some Democrats who will. If he is seen advocating for it now, and some Democrats fall for his misinformation scheme, it allows him to continue to paint the left as liberal gun grabbers.
Notice that he didn't say he wanted gun control, but that repealing the 2nd amendment is the only way to eliminate gun violence. Stating and wanting are two different things, and Karl Rove is a master manipulator.
It sounds looney, but politics is about deception and misinformation. Leave it to politicians to never let a good crisis go to waste.
Notice that he didn't say he wanted gun control, but that repealing the 2nd amendment is the only way to eliminate gun violence. Stating and wanting are two different things, and Karl Rove is a master manipulator.
It sounds looney, but politics is about deception and misinformation. Leave it to politicians to never let a good crisis go to waste.
manithree
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 112
I'm no fan of Karl Rove, but I did watch almost live (I DVR Fox News Sunday every week), and it seemed to me, he was calling out the progressive agenda.
We all know closing the alleged "gun show loophole" and banning scary-looking "assault rifles" and "high capacity" magazines is not going to reduce crime. And most of us suspect that the liberals and progressives aren't really all that interested in reducing crime, but in banning guns for their own reasons.
It sounded to me like what Karl Rove was saying was, here's the real goal behind incremental gun control, it isn't a real solution, and, at least right now, it's not gonna happen.
It doesn't happen to me often, but I did find myself in agreement with Mr. Rove on that comment.
We all know closing the alleged "gun show loophole" and banning scary-looking "assault rifles" and "high capacity" magazines is not going to reduce crime. And most of us suspect that the liberals and progressives aren't really all that interested in reducing crime, but in banning guns for their own reasons.
It sounded to me like what Karl Rove was saying was, here's the real goal behind incremental gun control, it isn't a real solution, and, at least right now, it's not gonna happen.
It doesn't happen to me often, but I did find myself in agreement with Mr. Rove on that comment.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Rove is very pro-2nd Amendment and was not calling for its repeal. If you watch the entire segment he was making the acceptable social cost of freedom argument.
Mike
Mike
Last edited:
I heard it and it wasn't antigun. He was making a point about the situation and the foolishness of some current antigun proposals.
Anyway - the idea of almost complete and total bans is not new.
Take the Koper and Roth studies that found that the AWB had no effect on any crime measure. The progun world took it to mean that bans are useless and should be abandoned.
They found that the existing stock of assault weapons and production of new guns without the AWB grenade launches and bayonets
D) met demand. Thus, the AWB was useless.
Then they said that stricter, confiscatory laws might be useful. Oops, that's what the antis took away - not what the pros took away.
Rove was making the point that some would want total confiscation and that isn't going to happen.
In the abstract, with no guns, no one gets killed with guns. No one gets killed with light sabers either nowadays.
Anyway - the idea of almost complete and total bans is not new.
Take the Koper and Roth studies that found that the AWB had no effect on any crime measure. The progun world took it to mean that bans are useless and should be abandoned.
They found that the existing stock of assault weapons and production of new guns without the AWB grenade launches and bayonets
D) met demand. Thus, the AWB was useless.Then they said that stricter, confiscatory laws might be useful. Oops, that's what the antis took away - not what the pros took away.
Rove was making the point that some would want total confiscation and that isn't going to happen.
In the abstract, with no guns, no one gets killed with guns. No one gets killed with light sabers either nowadays.
OilyPablo
Member
Sometimes I think the websites screaming headlines like some in this case are not our friends. Astroturf. Fake. False flaggery. Be careful what we repeat.
AKElroy
Member
This. I too read the DC piece, and actually seeing the segment is entirely different. I am not a Rove fan, but he is smart enough to know that gun rights are one of the few issues that still galvanizes an otherwise fragmenting electoral base. His words, while awkwardly worded, are accurate. It would take a repeal of the 2A, that is not going to happen, and it is not the answer.
TanklessPro
Member
Did he or didn't he....I really don't care, I don't like him. Rove is a political hack.
22-rimfire
Member
We all take for granted what is said in the Constitution as being "law". But if you didn't agree with what is there, wouldn't you want to change it somehow? That is pretty much the way it is with guns and the way our political system works.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I think Rove may have mistaken how it should work with what will happen. The antis know that they won't win a head-on battle to repeal the Second, so they are going to make specious arguments that the Second Amendment allows any form of gun control they desire (see the 4-vote dissenting opinions in McDonald and Heller).
Rove is more politically sophisticated than that, so I'm not sure why he would make the comment or give such a simplistic view of it.
Rove is more politically sophisticated than that, so I'm not sure why he would make the comment or give such a simplistic view of it.
Furncliff
Member
Megan Kelly...
"Karl is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?"
How often does a hack have to be wrong before people stop listening to him.
...apparently a lot.
"Karl is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?"
How often does a hack have to be wrong before people stop listening to him.
...apparently a lot.
sappyg
Member
I seem to have dropped a stitch here.
Regardless, Fox just trotted Rove out again on Hannity to clarify his position. Maybe if we stop paying attention he will go away.... Or.... At least go somewhere else.
Regardless, Fox just trotted Rove out again on Hannity to clarify his position. Maybe if we stop paying attention he will go away.... Or.... At least go somewhere else.
LongLostBushman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1
I've never been a fan of his. Either way I would say he is correct in that might be the only legal way to get rid of firearms in our society. However I agree it is not the answer.
TimSr
Member
I am no fan of Rove, and I despise him as an establishment guy, HOWEVER :
This is exactly the way I took it. I've said similar things myself. Instead of constantly proposing unconstitutional regulations, the antis should start being honest and straightforward trying to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd Amedment, so we can debate the REAL issue instead of the fabricated "I support the 2nd Amedment, but........." phony garbage. Even the most rabid anti-gun politicians out there, including Obama, claim to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Rove was calling them out.
This is exactly the way I took it. I've said similar things myself. Instead of constantly proposing unconstitutional regulations, the antis should start being honest and straightforward trying to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd Amedment, so we can debate the REAL issue instead of the fabricated "I support the 2nd Amedment, but........." phony garbage. Even the most rabid anti-gun politicians out there, including Obama, claim to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Rove was calling them out.
The net result of his remarks is that we can confront the disarmament lobby for what they are REALLY trying to do - gut the Constitution.
Add in the new ITAR proposal to stop discussing how guns work - to prevent terrorists from looking it up on the internet. That is a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.
We don't need to exaggerate what the affects are, we need to get those who propose them to enumerate the exact change they want. If the anti gunners want to ban guns, what does it take?
Abolish the 2d Amendment and confiscation. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.
The follow on to that is IF it is attempted - there will be cause to start a civil war. House to house confiscation might occur in some urban areas, but it won't be tolerated by others. If you think Bundy Ranch was a misguided attempt to protect someone's rights, wait until armed storm troopers are kicking in Grandma's door to take her .32 auto - oh wait they DID do that in New Orleans.
There won't be a Federal court judge to stop it with no 2d Amendment to fall back on, and the expediency of the moment paramount. So, in the construct of what gun banners say they want to do - get rid of guns - it then requires deconstructing the Constitution and house to house searches.
We do need to call them out for what they are proposing, and Rove addressed it. He wasn't saying it was a great idea, he was saying "You people need to think about the logical consequences of what you propose."
What the anti gunners propose to do is cause a Civil War. And they need to have that thrown back in their face, to make them think again about what they are asking for.
And in the face of what is now being depicted as police oppression of minorities, we also need to ask why they don't have the nation's police forces disarmed - first.
The police having guns and the people having guns are intimately linked, if the anti gunners don't want gun violence, then they want the cops to be disarmed, too, and that needs to be put out on the national conversation as another direct consequence.
We know the answer to that, too. Ain't gonna happen.
It's their fantasy Utopia they are foisting onto the national conscience, ok. Make them accept ALL of it and think it thru. "No guns in America!", sure. That means NO guns at all. None. Nada.
Mention that the next time you get confronted - make them face the reality. If they see cops as being ok to have guns, then ask what the difference would be between us and the Iron Curtain?
Rove did us a favor. Seize the moment.
Add in the new ITAR proposal to stop discussing how guns work - to prevent terrorists from looking it up on the internet. That is a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.
We don't need to exaggerate what the affects are, we need to get those who propose them to enumerate the exact change they want. If the anti gunners want to ban guns, what does it take?
Abolish the 2d Amendment and confiscation. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.
The follow on to that is IF it is attempted - there will be cause to start a civil war. House to house confiscation might occur in some urban areas, but it won't be tolerated by others. If you think Bundy Ranch was a misguided attempt to protect someone's rights, wait until armed storm troopers are kicking in Grandma's door to take her .32 auto - oh wait they DID do that in New Orleans.
There won't be a Federal court judge to stop it with no 2d Amendment to fall back on, and the expediency of the moment paramount. So, in the construct of what gun banners say they want to do - get rid of guns - it then requires deconstructing the Constitution and house to house searches.
We do need to call them out for what they are proposing, and Rove addressed it. He wasn't saying it was a great idea, he was saying "You people need to think about the logical consequences of what you propose."
What the anti gunners propose to do is cause a Civil War. And they need to have that thrown back in their face, to make them think again about what they are asking for.
And in the face of what is now being depicted as police oppression of minorities, we also need to ask why they don't have the nation's police forces disarmed - first.
The police having guns and the people having guns are intimately linked, if the anti gunners don't want gun violence, then they want the cops to be disarmed, too, and that needs to be put out on the national conversation as another direct consequence.
We know the answer to that, too. Ain't gonna happen.
It's their fantasy Utopia they are foisting onto the national conscience, ok. Make them accept ALL of it and think it thru. "No guns in America!", sure. That means NO guns at all. None. Nada.
Mention that the next time you get confronted - make them face the reality. If they see cops as being ok to have guns, then ask what the difference would be between us and the Iron Curtain?
Rove did us a favor. Seize the moment.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
