Charleston shooting

Does Karl Rove Want to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Probably not: "I don't think it's an answer," says the former Bush adviser.

|

Fox News

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Republican strategist Karl Rove said "the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society." He added that "until somebody gets enough 'oomph' to repeal the Second Amendment, that's not going to happen," so "I don't think it's an answer."

Depending on how you define "oomph," Rove's comments could be read as a statement of regret, similar to those regularly heard from gun controllers such as President Obama, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton, that Americans lack the political will to do what's necessary to reduce gun violence. That seems to be the way that Second Amendment supporter Dan Gifford, who yesterday sent a mass email describing Rove as a "new employee" of billionaire gun control backer George Soros, understood what Rove said. Gifford is not alone in concluding that Rove thinks repealing the Second Amendment would be good idea if it were politically feasible.

A more charitable interpretation is that Rove was saying it's a fantasy to suppose that violence can be reduced by making firearms harder to get, given the reality that hundreds of millions are already in circulation. Mass confiscation of guns would indeed run afoul of the Second Amendment, and that is not the only problem with that approach. Criminals are highly motivated to obtain the tools of their trade, and they are unlikely to comply with a policy aimed at "remov[ing] guns from society." The people who do comply will be law-abiding folks who posed no threat to begin with, who will then be at a disadvantage relative to thugs with guns. Repealing the Second Amendment therefore would hardly be tantamount to achieving the goal of a gun-free society.

Here is the relevant exchange between Rove and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, so you can judge for yourself what Rove meant:

Wallace: Karl, whether you agree with the president on gun control or not, you certainly have to agree with him that we see these cases of mass violence way too often and we see them more often in the United States than in other advanced countries. And I mean, you know, you are in a position to say, what do we do about it whether it's government, whether it's community, whether it's family, how do we stop the violence?

Rove: Well, I wish I had an easy answer for that. I don't think there's any easy answer. We saw an act of evil, racist, bigoted evil. And to me, the amazing thing about this is it was met with grief and love.

And think about how far we've come. 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 bombing and here we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together grieving as one, united in the belief that this was an evil act.

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. I don't think it's an answer.

I think there were so many warning since here. A friend who knew of what was in Dylann Roof's heart, parents who didn't pay attention, a community that had given up on him, and a loner who had fallen into the clutches of racist organizations and had come to believe in their ideology and put things up on the Internet that we didn't give any credence to whatsoever.

And so, there were a lot of warning signs here and I wish that some of those people had spoken up and said, here's somebody who is in trouble and a danger to himself and others.

NEXT: John Oliver Wants to Make 'Revenge Porn' a Federal Crime. Why That's a Terrible Idea

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oomph like. . .Adolf Hitler?

    1. You know who else had…oh wait.

  2. After reading the whole answer, I’m going with option A, in the butt, Bob.

        1. They just call it culture in FLA.

    1. And, BTW, I have no doubt gun control freaks are gonna go with option A also. It’s gonna be all over the Facebooks and the Tweeters: “See??? Even Uber Republicmensch Rove thinks gun are bad!”

    2. I would guess that he is just analyzing the issue from the perspective of a cynical, amoral political strategist, since that is what he is.

  3. I blame Bush.

  4. Unless he has on his super sarcastic voice that doesn’t come across in the transcript, he’s saying repealing the 2A would make guns and, therefore, mass shootings disappear from our country.

    1. I think you have it reversed. My interpretation was that the only way to completely eliminate mass shootings would be to get rid of every single gun, which could only even conceivably happen in a world where the 2nd ammendment were repealed, and that no one, not even the most ardent gun control supporter believes that can happen, so we would be better off thinking of other ways to try to ameliorate the problem.

      Though it is Rove, so there has to be some evil subtext I’m not catching yet.

      1. completely eliminate mass shootings

        What a stupid fucking goal in the first place. Would these idiots rather be raped and slaughtered by the Golden Horde of the Khan? What the fuck is wrong with people that they think mass violence is some kind of modern phenomenon?

  5. The Republican party is circling the drain of history.

    1. Yes, with this birdshit-for-brains and other like him in the leadership, you are 100% correct, sir.

  6. I can’t think of very many things that the government can do in 2015 that would lead to no-shit armed rebellion. But repealing the 2A is probably one of them.

  7. If the second goes so go all the rest. A very good case can be made that the 2A is the single most important factor that sets our country apart from all the rest.

    I don’t remember who said it, but someone quipped in response to one of my comments in the last couple of weeks
    “When liberty arises the enemies of liberty rise to meet it”. Meet Karl Rove.

    A person’s position ont he 2A is a very reliable litmus test for their position on liberty in general.

    1. Never gonna happen. I grew up in urban upstate NY and we had guns. Outside the true blue base there is no support for this.

  8. “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,…”

    Shorter Rove: Reducing gun violence will be effected by the removal of guns from society. He doesn’t think this is the answer because he doesn’t think removing guns from society can be done. So basically until Americans can be made to give up their guns, there will be gun violence.

    Is he directly arguing for a repeal of the second amendment? No. But, this is no defense of it, either. In fact, he’s bought the premise of the kook left. And once that happens, there’s no stopping them, no matter how often you say “it ain’t gonna happen.”

    “Pragmatism” like this is no barrier to the left perusing their agenda. They are driving the philosophical and cultural agenda now. Think of all the things that thirty years ago people said wouldn’t happen and we now either have or are seriously considering.

    1. What he said is true: “the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce acts of violence *involving guns* is to basically remove guns from society.”

      But Rove also suggested it would take “some magic law” to do this. And he said “I don’t think it’s an answer.”

      If this quote is used to advance a gun-control agenda, it will be because people distort it.

      1. What he conveniently does not mention is that with all guns gone from society violence in general, murder and rape would increase exponentially.

        1. I had an jaw dropping conversation with two staunch female victim disarmament advocates I happen to be acquainted with.

          The older one was telling a story of living in Cambridge MA during a period of heightened racial tensions, and carrying a box-cutter in her purse to protect herself. Both agreed that knives were a safer weapon for a woman to wield than a gun.

          It was the triumph of wishful thinking over reason.

          1. That’s why every military still uses the bayonet. The rifle is so inefficient.

            1. The British successfully used Bayonet charges in the Falklands. There are tales of Argentine positions surrendering at simply overhearing the command “Fix Bayonets”

              Or I could have misheard things…

              1. I heard correctly (according to wikipedia) and apparently they kept on performing successful bayonet charges in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                1. Yes, cavalier, I fought in the Falklands as an unborn fetus.

                  1. Yes, cavalier, I fought in the Falklands as an unborn fetus.

                    Where did they pin the medal?

                  2. as an unborn fetus.

                    I read this as ‘unborn anus’. Which made the medal question funnier.

      2. I’m with you on this one, GKC. I used effectively the same argument this last weekend, and it had nothing to do with desiring a repeal of the Second Amendment. I was a bit clearer about it though, referring to “even if you could magically disappear every firearm from the planet (which is obviously impossible)”.

        Rove could have probably been clearer, but I think he was just saying that the only way to truly eliminate gun violence would be to wave a magic wand and eliminate all the guns. And short of a magic wand, that’s never happening.

  9. Why does every person in politics or the media either stay as they are or if the mask slips always turn out to be a leftist government loving piece of shit? What is disturbing about this is not that Rove appears to hate the 2nd Amendment. That is a bit surprising but not that important. What is disturbing is that there is never a Democrat equivalent of this. No Democrat ever goes right and turns out to be really in favor of freedom or small government. It just never happens. It only goes one way. If a public figure is not quite as they seem, their real self always turns out to be further left, never right.

    1. The Establishment in Washington is all about centralized power. It doesn’t matter which party they are in. Unlike the left, however, the guys and gals on the right have to adopt certain political postures in order to get elected by us. But, when they return to D.C., they are back to business as usual. Take the last election as support for this.

    2. People don’t seek power for the purpose of dismantling it. They seek power to maintain and expand it.

      “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

      ? George Orwell, 1984

    3. While I agree with your point to an extent, I don’t believe this was an example of Rove’s mask slipping.

      I listened to this exchange and you need to understand the context. Rove is addressing the kneejerk reactions to these mass shootings. Those reactions are typically some feel good, “Common Sense” “Loophole closing” legislation that continues the one-way ratchet of tighter restrictions and red tape for law-abiding citizens.

      Rove isn’t advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, he is arguing against people doing this piecemeal legislation. He is saying “Look, short of banning guns all-together, none of your legislation is going to have an affect. And since banning guns is off the table, let’s look for solutions other than gun control.”

    4. The message I get is not that Rove hates the second amendment or wants to repeal it necessarily, but that he probably has no principles at all and is just discussing what he sees as political reality. Political operatives like him almost never argue anything from principle. It’s all about what is politically possible. Viewed that way, his statement is at least somewhat correct.

      And if Overt is correct, he has a point (though one that I would have stated differently) that changing laws to make it slightly harder for a criminal or insane person to get guns won’t stop things like this and only a real gun ban/confiscation could have any significant effect at all.

  10. “Karl, whether you agree with the president on gun control or not, you certainly have to agree with him that we see these cases of mass violence way too often and we see them more often in the United States than in other advanced countries.”

    Karl, whether you agree with gun control or not, at least you’ll agree with the President’s phony pro-gun-control talking points, right?

  11. Reason is slowly but surely giving way to the clickbait method of blogging. And this is among the most clickbaity of them all. I feel baited because I clicked. Now I need a shower.

    1. with sudsy warm water? Go on…

    2. You’re spelling ‘bating’ wrong.

      Now I’m all flushed and need a shower, too.

  12. I think Rove’s remark about “some magic law” indicates he’s (to put it mildly) skeptical about gun control.

    That and the fact that he focuses on other way this latest tragedy should have been avoided.

    1. Not to mention the phrase “I don’t think it’s an answer.” There’s another subtle clue.

      1. He doesn’t think it’s the answer because he doesn’t think that it can be done. So, yes, he is not calling for a repeal of the 2nd A, but this is certainly no defense of it, either.

        1. I’m fairly sure I’ve seen similar arguments in Reason.

          Having said that, I don’t know his heart. It’s *possible* Rove is a squish who is sending up a trial balloon.

          But is this famous campaign professional really seeking to turn gun-rights people away from the Republican party?

        2. Exactly. It’s one thing to talk about the impracticality of repeal, but i would have been nice to hear a defense, as well.

          1. I think he sees guns as simply a cultural issue to get the base whipped up; I’m not sure he’s a principled gun-rights guy, so he doesn’t necessarily speak their language.

            But that doesn’t mean he’s dumb enough to alienate gun-rights people from his party.

            1. I think Rove is what progs imagine *all* Republicans to be – a cynical operative who uses cultural issues to get votes, even though he cares little for these issues in themselves.

              1. Yes, but how idiotic to play to the stereotypes held by both the GOP base and the leftists (and libertarians) at the same time. You’d think a political operative knowledgable about messaging would avoid such foot-in-mouth moments.

          2. Right, I don’t think Rove is trying to eliminate the 2A or even alienate the base. But this is not how you defend the 2A, not anywhere close. If you say that gun violence will only end when all guns are removed from society, first off that is a stupid statement, second off you have just ceded the main point to the left.

            Its not just that Rove and others are bad at defending liberty. Their “pragmatism” over principle is ineffective.

            And the left are not people with a shortage of “magic laws” to cook up and foist on us. With the help of the media, Hollywood and the institutions of education, such a law could be a reality here some day very soon.

            1. This is why I say the gun grabbers control the narrative at this point. If Rove is a friend of the 2A, then who needs enemies?

              1. As I say, I think he simply sees guns as one of a series of cultural issues Republicans can use to get votes. He probably has given up on defending marriage because he doesn’t have the votes any more; as soon as he decides that he doesn’t need the 2nd Amendment voters he’ll sell them down the river, too.

                But I doubt very much he is at that point – so he defends the 2nd Am – but he does it “pragmatically” because he simply doesn’t the gun-rights’ principled arguments.

              2. I get exactly what you are saying. I mean, he could use that stupid whiteboard, too!

                I personally think Rove is pretty horrible about so many other issues anyway, so the fact that he isn’t out there slugging away for the 2A comes as no surprise to me.

  13. My facebook wall lit up with some anti-gun stuff. One had a comedian from Australia who’s act pointed out that the main argument for gun ownership in America is “fuck-off, I like guns”. And I thought why isn’t that sufficient?

    1. I’m confused as to when the Australians became gigantic pussies (Naomi Brockwell and Invisible Furry Hand excluded, of course). I always thought of Australia as being kind of cool and anti-authoritarian, yet now they have some of the worst hate speech laws on the planet and are constantly bitching about guns.

      1. Australia was the default debate answer over on Gawker last week. “Well, if the Australians can do it, we can, too!” “But we’re not Australians, with their culture and history.” “Fuck you, evil hater.”

      2. What’s weird is that you’d think they’d want heavy weapons to fend off the deadly fauna.

        1. A lot of their deadly fauna is small – flamer weapons are a better choice.

          1. Ah, so the right to bear flamethrowers shall not be infringed.

    2. Saw it, it was pretty awful:

      http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8…..-jefferies

      Australian comedian Jim Jefferies was the victim of a home invasion once. He was tied up and beaten, and his girlfriend was threatened with rape. So you might think he’d sympathize with the idea that Americans want guns to protect their families. Quite the opposite…

      …He doesn’t see at all how a gun would have helped him when his home was broken into. “I was naked at the time. I wasn’t wearing my holster.” How exactly would a gun have protected him? he asks. Was he supposed to be crouched at his windowsill, gun cocked, waiting on high alert for intruders?

      “By the way. Most people who are breaking into your house just want your fucking TV! You think that people are coming to murder your family? How many fucking enemies do you have?”

      1. If I have the means to prevent them from taking my TV (operative word being MY), they why wouldn’t I use it? People can’t just help themselves to my shit.

      2. and here I thought Jefferies was just a lousy comedian.

        1. Apparently, you can have his TV if you so desire it.

      3. I can’t decide what’s worse: the straw man that guns will always protect you from home invasions like that or his conclusion that because a gun wouldn’t have helped him in that situation it’s stupid for anyone to think that.

        Like I said in the previous thread, brainless political comedy is bad for the people who embrace it because they lose all perspective and argumentative abilities.

        1. “…, or his conclusion that because a gun wouldn’t have helped him in that situation it’s stupid for anyone to think that.”

          Especially when there’s so much evidence that having a gun in this very situation saves lives.

          I very often like Jim Norton’s take on free speech.

      4. Somebody should send him a copy of riflemen so he can read all the stories about self defense.

        1. People like that tend to equate self-defense with vigilantism. They want government to have the monopoly on all violence, meaning that individuals should have no right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. That’s what government is for.

        2. no one ever stole Lucas McCain’s TV.

      5. Seriously. The cognitive dissonance in that piece was fucking amazing. Not 30 seconds after he tells the bit about his house being broken into by a two guys with hammer and machete, tying him up, cutting his head, threatening to rape his girlfriend, he asks (paraphrased) “What kind of world do you live in where you’ve got to be prepared like that all the time?”

        Um, the kind of world where people come through your window with a machete?

        WHAT THE FUCK?

        1. A world where the machete wielder believes there’s very little chance you’re armed.

        2. Truth be told I didn’t watch it. But I like shooting and I like the confidence that comes with becoming adept and competent at handling firearms. That is sufficient for me.

      6. What a moron. They probably just want your TV, so you should be unarmed. Of course, maybe they want to rape and kill you, but if that happens, you should just be happy that you’re a statistical outlier, I guess.

    3. “fuck-off, I like guns”.

      Seems like a good reason to me. There are, of course, several other good ones.

      It is just amazing how readily so many countries gave up their rights to be armed. In the UK and Australia at least (if I recall correctly), the population was largely disarmed and handguns severely restricted in response to mass shootings. The fact that Americans continue to say “no” under similar circumstances gives me some hope that more gun control will continue to be a non-starter federally and in most states.

      1. It’s especially funny when people try and claim that banning guns led to fewer murders since the murder rate barely changed before and after the gun bans. Australia’s murder rate did decline, but America’s murder rate actually fell by a higher percentage over the same period of time. Isn’t the fact that gun bans don’t have much of an impact on crime before and after the ban kind of evidence that this idea is really stupid?

        1. Isn’t the fact that gun bans don’t have much of an impact on crime before and after the ban kind of evidence that this idea is really stupid?

          Evidence has no place in arguments based on emotion.

    4. You can use this to reply to the Australian nonsense (copy and paste)


      NCPA: Australia: More violent crime despite gun ban

      –Begin Quote:
      Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

      * Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
      * During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
      * Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
      * Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
      * At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
      * Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
      –End quote

  14. I suspect they put Carl Rove on TV because they’re looking for an “even Carl Rove admits” moment – and they think they got it with gun control.

  15. As numerous commenters noted during the Ferguson riots there were elements that tried to whip the rioters into a frenzy and guide them into white neighborhoods and direct them at corporate entities. These far-left entities have always used mobs in that manner and in most other places they have used this tactic successfully. They can’t here. Rioters who were interviewed and asked about this said the reason they would not go into white neighborhoods was because they knew the people there were armed. If law-abiding citizens, and this is not restricted to whites of course, were not armed the left would beat the country to it’s knees in only a few years with mobs and riots, fear and intimidation. We would be lost.

    Someone wanting people disarmed and helpless says one hell of a lot about what they think of people, about the value they place on other’s safety and the value of their lives. The Colorado theater shooter claims one of his motives for the shooting was a deep, abiding hatred for humanity. I contend that gun-grabbers are motivated in a similar manner.

    1. I have been saying that for years. The only thing that keeps fascism at bay in this country is the fact that we are so well armed. As long as the populace is armed, fascist mob violence is a contract sport. They don’t go into the white neighborhoods because they know it would quickly end with a whole bunch of them ending up dead. The leftists fucking hate that. They want to be able to bully people with the threat of mob violence into going alone. This is why they are so obsessed with gun control.

      1. Yes, you are the first one that came to my mind. I knew it before, but you clarified it nicely.

        Also, Epi pointed out another factor. The country is too large and people are spread out too much for that tactic to work. That tactic works well in places where people are concentrated (corralled) in small places. Europe, Latin America, most of Asia etc. Cheap energy and Automobiles are largely responsible for that. I can live in the middle of nowhere because I can drive half an hour to hospitals and grocery stores at my pleasure.

        Nothing is more American than guns and cars.

        1. Nothing is more American than guns and cars.

          Amen to that.

            1. Well, if you want to get Technical…

  16. People like this penis-headed shit don’t give the framers of the Constitution enough credit. The Bill of Rights is a carefully crafted law as well as ideological statement. Each right flows into the next. They are separate, but for a whole.

    The 2A (and all the other As) were not thrown together willy-nilly. There’s reason and logic behind the entire thing. I personally believe (tiara and all), that the Bill of Rights is one of the most genius bits of law in the history of the world.

    1. Kaptious, I am really feelin’ you these days….

      What room are you stayin’ in?

  17. If he’s making a statement for argument purposes only, then yes, the most effective way to stop gun violence is to repeal the Second. Plus confiscate every one of the 310 million existing guns in private hands and expand the federal law enforcement apparatus to combat the resulting black market and smuggling.

    Then we all will live in a peaceful, verdant Eden.

  18. I’m not at all certain that the inner city gangs, the Montana militias, the hunters and target shooters, and ex-military are going to be first in line to turn in their guns. Why don’t the progs understand that they themselves may need to be armed if the “crazies” they fear ever manage to seize control?

    1. They imagine the cops and soldiers will protect them.

      1. Little do they realize a) the cops are incompetent boobs with little to no tactical training and b) most soldiers would probably side with the gun owners

    2. Why? Because they are useful idiots who will be shocked by the reality of the world they want.

      Tony demonstrated that nicely twice in the last month. First he was genuinely puzzled as to why school children would have their Scotch eggs confiscated as unhealthy food, and secondly when he seemed baffled and outraged about the brutality of the police state we have become.

      They really do think they can build Utopia. Countless historical examples of how that inevitably goes awry is lost on them.

      1. Countless historical examples of how that inevitably goes awry is lost on them.

        They had the wrong people in charge, that’s all.

  19. Rove is working for Georgie Schwartz now?

    Now I hate that fat fuck even more than I did before.

  20. Well the solution is obvious. Lock everyone in prisons surrounded by armed gaurds where weapons are illegal. Because no place is safer than a US prison. There. Solved.

  21. Slow news day, eh REASON?

    1. On a day when you thought you’d have plenty of clickbait from the Supreme Court – but since the Supreme Court only gave slim pickings today, it’s back to the slush pile of stories.

      1. “you” = “one” as in “oneself”

  22. OT:

    Don’t know if it’s been pointed out yet, but Popehat offers assistance to reason commenters targeted:

    The commenters targeted in the subpoena are probably worried about a knock on the door. That knock may come. I don’t think it will be accompanied by an arrest warrant, but it will be accompanied by petty thuggery and the threat of power, banal or not. Commenters: shut up. Ask to talk to a lawyer.

    And drop me a line: there are many defense attorneys outraged by this, and we’ll find you counsel, pro bono if needed.

    http://popehat.com/2015/06/22/…..more-24009

    1. I’m starting to think this “Ken White” is a good dude.

      1. He’s pretty fly.

        For a White Guy.

  23. The irony of using this incident to push gun control is that the crazy murderous asshole Roof laid out an argument against gun control in his manifest:

    I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight….

    Because he knew that he’d be shot down by people that could defend themselves so instead he attacked old people, that had a proclivity to non-violence. in a gun free zone .

    1. I forget who pointed this out, but Roof’s guiding emotion was fear. The guy didn’t go into the ghetto and shoot at people because he was a pussy and realized they’d shoot back. He claimed he was angry at black people for ‘raping our women’ (which is utterly absurd since most white women who are raped are raped by white men anyway), but he didn’t target the kind of black people who might be committing crimes or rapes, he targeted churchgoing, peaceful old people.

      1. I think it is a mistake to analyze Roof too much. The kid really is completely nuts. But yeah, like all his ilk he picked a soft target.

        1. I don’t know about that. Is he any more nuts than the average Islamic fundamentalist? As fucked up and stupid as his manifesto is, it seems a lot more coherent and sane than, for example, that of the Arizona shooter several years back. He comes off as more of a Breivik (murderous SOB with fucked up beliefs who committed terrorism to bring attention to them) than someone who is just disconnected from reality. He had an ideology and acted based on it, it was just a really messed up ideology. He doesn’t strike me as any more insane than any other terrorist acting on an ideological motivation.

          1. He does seem less nuts than the Arizona guy or the Colorado movie theater guy. The comparison to Islamic terrorists is pretty apt, I think. He put his life on the line because he was a true believer in some fucked up, wrong shit.
            I’d still agree that he is not really worth analyzing too much. There is no new lesson to learn here. We already know that there are racist nutjobs out there and that there are a number of somewhat organized white supremacist groups out there. And we already know that if someone really wants to get a gun and go murder a bunch of people, they probably will be able to.

            Other than the actual horrible crime, I find the most irritating thing about incidents like this is all the people who insist on learning some lesson or sparking some new national debate. Which is dumb. We already had those debates and the outcome is clear: racists suck, especially when they get violent, and a gun ban isn’t happening.

      2. I caught them when reading an excerpt of his manifesto. Dude is a total pussy and all but admitted it. He calls out other white supremacists for not having the guts to take action, and yet he was too scared to take action against any group of black people that might actually have had the capability to fight back against a gun wielding mass murderer.

    2. ^This x 1000

      I am sure the wise and insightful bobble heads that appear regularly on television will be pointing that out soon and expanding on it.

      See VG, it is comments like yours that have kept me coming back to H&R for years.

    3. Hey, he may be a homicidal maniac, but he ain’t *stupid!*

  24. Mass confiscation of guns would indeed run afoul of the Second Amendment, and that is not the only problem with that approach.

    Yeah, like the armed rebellion that would create.

    Most government control-freaks don’t get this, but many of the… uh… “Top Men” get it. That’s why they want it done incrementally. The boiling water and the frog and all that.

    1. In the early ’70, I think under Moonbeam, the state did a poll to find out people’s attitudes about gun confiscation. The poll showed that the state would lose nearly half of it’s national guard and police. They dropped it and took the incremental approach. Look where Ca is now.

      These fuckers have to have their noses punched every time they come at us. If anything they need to be pushed back further and further.

      ” In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” – Rand

  25. Oh Turd Blossom, you rascal you. Mitt Romney really did win in 2012. I believe you.

  26. Based on that photo I see Karl Rove is close to revealing his true form.

    Ultimately gun ownership is a part of American culture. It’s deeply rooted in the beliefs of many people who have never done anything wrong. If you want to make the War on Drugs seem minor in comparison when it comes to abuse, corruption, and skyrocketing victimless crimes penal population, you should repeal the Second Amendment and try to make them illegal. Pragmatism thankfully wins out in this case.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.