Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by IronMonster, Jun 21, 2015.
Just another sign that the Stupid Party leadership is dedicated to failure.
The surest way to fail in politics is to alienate your base. A bright 10 year-old knows that. Boehner doesn't. Rove doesn't. Indeed they don't settle for alienating conservatives. The Party leadership is ENRAGING conservatives - the Stupid Party's proven formula for failure.
Hillary has already as good as won thanks to the Stupid Party leadership. Buy what shooting stuff you'll need for the next 2o years right now. You probably won't be able to after November 2016.
Rove is a washed-up has-been who has had his moment in the spotlight, and along with folks like Jesse Jackson, are desperately seeking any possible way to get attention from the media. He's jumping on the same worn-out anti-gun bandwagon that gets the media all hot and bothered. But by virtue of his out-of-touch comments, he shows that his finger is anywhere but on the pulse of true conservative voters.
Just one more "expert" to ignore.
Major point of agreement #1...
Yes, Rove Is an abomination, a waste of skin, a washed up has-been.
However being fair to the has-been, he in no way stated that he WANTS the second amendment repealed...only that it would be required to eliminate ALL guns and it would take massive political Oomph to do it. ( Dem president, 75%Dem Congress and 75%Dem Senate and enough of the similar situation in most States to do that. ) And unless or until that would somehow happen all the "magic laws" that are passed are NOT going to do anything to stop nutjobs from mass killings.
The fact is, he seems to be increasingly unable to make even such a minor point about a major thing without being misunderstood, or he's so hated that anything he says is going to be interpreted the wrong way...
Rove says, " I love puppies!"
Headline is, " Rove dislikes kittens!"
He has become just another textbook example of, "when your time is up and you can't deliver your lines without stepping on your tongue, and your name has become a cliché for your opponents to exploit ... get your washed-up butt off the stage".
Major point of agreement #2.
Yes, If the GOP leadership had the nuts God gives to a squirrel, they'd give Rove and Boehner the boot...very publicly.
Haha so taking away a constitutional right keeps us safe eh?
Well bubblegum, why stop there!!
Lets toss out the whole thing.. For security.
Freedom? Who needs that anymore?
The internet is being stupid again, no one reads or checks...
People have taken the words of Rove out of context or, at least, in partial context. He did say that the only way to stop those killings is to repeal the 2nd Amendment but he also said that wasn't going to happen.
All free entertainment, HAPPY FATHERS DAY!, now back to my cold beer.
A lot of people here have said similar things.
I'd have to hear his inflection. Was he being sarcastic about the impossibility of 1st passing a law then physically rounding up ALL THE GUNS IN AMERICA and destroying them?
Or was he floating the idea as a real way to stop mass shootings.
If you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear the argument goes, yeah mass shootings would end.
Mass killings on the other hand would not. Crazy parents will still be able to stab their families to death in their sleep or poison them, Automobiles and pressure cooker bombs will replace guns for big splashy mass killings and serial killers always prefer strangulation anyway, right??
Don't like KR much but he was probably quoted out of context. Or maybe not but his opinion holds no value these days anyway.
if there are roughly 300 million firearms in the USA and lets say at todays market value of an average of $400.00 each (keep in mind one 20,000.00 antique Winchester makes up for a lot of cheap guns).
then to remove the firearms from the USA would not only remove approx. 120 billion dollars in tangible assets. And would destroy the 43 billion dollar A YEAR Firearms and Ammunition business. States would have no way to fund their Wildlife depts. And major sporting goods business's would fold up. No Hunting no Shooting No gun clubs no hunting licenses no gasoline sold to go hunting no gasoline sold to go shooting to the range etc.
It would be a HUGE hit to the economy.
Worked out real good in Iraq, we limited individual rights to own arms and ISIS took over!! America was built on the right to own Firearms, dont like it leave. Or make a state where guns are outlawed and see how they do... organized crime will be the rule of law.
As Stated in the other thread on this...
What they better learn is before they ever try that one they best be ready for the battlefield for real.
That would be the single thing that will bring every real man out of the cracks and crevices of this country in a rage.
They could not handle the fallout, but it might just reduce the number of liberal left wingnuts. That is about the only outcome that would be the result of that attempt.
You want to know how they plan to dilute the voting pool and steal our gun rights. Here is is in a nutshell. Inch By Inch they continue to do this more every year.
Devil's advocate here. I watched the exchange between Rove and Wallace. I'm not convinced he wasn't being facetious.
His delivery was sucky, but you really can't beat up on a guy for doing what we all do occasionally.
I watched Fox News Sunday, too, and I got the sense that he was lamenting that the 2nd Amendment wouldn't allow the US to "get rid of guns altogether." I heard the first part of his sentence (something like, "The only way to curb violence is to get rid of all guns from society, but...") and I thought he would finish the sentence with something rational like, "...bad guys will have guns regardless of what laws we make." Or, "...with hundreds of millions of guns, there is just no way we are going to ever get rid of guns from our society." But instead, Karl Rove decide to end the sentence with, "...that will never happen unless the country decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment."
Curse him and the horse he rode in on.
Rove constantly makes statements like "they would have to do xxx and that's not going to happen". He's old enough to know that his words will be parsed so the agenda-driven reporter will make him sound like he's anti-kitten or possibly pro-rodent as albin25 stated above, regardless of what he says. He stepped into this one all by himself now he can clean it off his own shoes but I doubt an unbiased review of his past thoughts and statements on the 2A would lead anybody to the conclusion that he's truly anti-gun.
I do find it interesting that when the current administration had it's wonderful majority in both houses and held the presidency they chose to attack the health care industry rather than take on the 2A. I guess they figured the weak-willed American public could be lulled into the "death by a thousand cuts" approach to ridding us commoners of guns but it required a "pass it before we read it" approach to deal with health insurance.
We should be thankful they pursued Woodrow Wilson's priority list and not that of the current democrat party. Ridding us of our dangerous guns would have been issue #1 if the current party planks would have set the priority.
And I'm fairly certain that barring any SCOTUS action to unhinge Obamacare, the next time the dems have that same majority situation, 2A will be the "repeal it before you read it" approach.
As I've said may times before, the difference comes down to who is "actively pursuing an anti-gun agenda" or being passivity on the subject. I'd rather have passive folks who believe that things should just remain the way they are than those "it's all about the children" control freaks who really don't understand human nature. Let them ban pools or bathtubs first to save the children.
Obama says this kind of thing doesn't happen in other countries, WRONG AGAIN !!!
Ban the 2A and the media will be the first group to be yelling, you gun guys come save us from the mean old government.
Watch your mouth Karl, you may get what you ask for.
My bet is, the end of the 2A would only be the *start* of large-scale violence, no matter which side fires the first shot it'd be Civil War II.