Breitbart Fail: Rove Does NOT Favor Second Amendment Repeal

Bait-and-switch of gotcha journalism still occurs, in great numbers from the Marginalized Media, but also in conservative and New Media sources from time to time. A conservative, a Republican pundit will make a statement, and the blogosphere will jump on it as proof of liberal pandering. This blog-blasting occurred last year, when Mitt Romney discussed "taking care of those here illegally" as though he favored amnesty.

Romney did not say that at all.

This "Blog First, Ask Questions Later" also occurred at great length against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his nuanced stance on illegal immigration.

Now, the latest attack claims that Bush 43 advisor Karl Rove now favors repealing the Second Amendment, or that "Violence will continue until the Second Amendment is repealed".

Before launching into an extended criticism, I recognize the deep fault lines between Rove and Tea Party activists around the country. Many conservatives have slammed Rove for standing by Establishment Republicans, and consider his connections with George W. Bush a liability rather than an asset (They should also consider his recognition for Tea Party support to win the US Senate). This analysis does not serve as a boost for Karl Rove, nor seeks to diminishing the concerns that he is a Big Government conservative. All of that is inessential.

Furthermore, I have great respect for Awr Hawkin's reporting for Breitbart, as he reports the stories about the saving graces connected with concealed-carry (the lives saved, the crimes prevented), which the Marginalized Media loves to bury.

Now, from Hawkin's anti-Rove article on Breitbart:

During the Sunday airing of Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Karl Rove how America can stop violent attacks like the one the country witnessed in Charleston, South Carolina.
Rove said “acts of violence” will continue, until someone can force America to “repeal the Second Amendment.”

He quickly added his belief that such a repeal is an impossibility, and therefore not a viable idea — yet.

That word "yet" is quite a teasing element, as though Rove is quietly plotting to strip away the right of gun ownership. If anyone has been following the gun-control fights in this country, they will see that the Second Amendment has won every fight. "Gun Grabbing" Michael Bloomberg lost many major elections he targeted in 2014 throughout the country. Even left-wing Democratic contenders like Bernie Sanders side with the Second Amendment. In Colorado, Democrats who attacked firearms found themselves getting shot down. Even in California, concealed-carry is on the rise.

Karl Rove

Now, the full transcript of Karl Rove's comments suggest a more nuanced response to dealing with gun violence. Here is Rove's answer to "Wallace's exact question":

KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: 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.

Rove was the first and only person to mention the issue of "evil". Conservative LA Radio Host Larry Elder also talked about the lack of fathers and Executive Director of Gun Owners in America Larry Pratt discussed "the evil in the human heart", which gun control legislation will never eradicate. This matter of human failings is essential to any serious policy debate, particularly gun control. James Madison recognized human frailty as the basis for a Constitution defined by checks and balances, with diffusion of government power and expansion of individual and local authority. Rove mentioned the matter of evil, and that matters a great deal. Rove's other statement deserves a second glance: "The amazing thing about this [the Charleston atrocity] is it was met with grief and love".

What amazing grace, that the victims' families could confront the assailant and say: "I forgive you." Let us also consider that President Barack Obama was surprised by the level of forgiveness from the families of the Charleston victims.

Rove continued:

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 [Baptist Church] 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.

Why won't Breitbart and other conservative sites highlight the strong, well-founded rhetoric demonstrating how far this county has come in fighting bigotry and violent racism?

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.

Boom. Rove was speaking of a fantastic scenario, a line of argument which a number of pro-gun supporters advance. Left-wing, gun-control proponents want to diminish violence and gun deaths. The number one proposal, then, would be to eliminate all firearms. Not going to happen. The legislative apotheosis for this utopian ideal would certainly include repealing the Second Amendment. Of course that would never happen. The recognition of gun violence in our communities

 I don't think it's an answer.

Awr Hawkins did not quote this statement. Rove does not favor repealing the Second Amendment. Not now, not "yet", not ever.

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.
Conservatives who care about ending gun violence and firearms massacres usually point to the need for great community investment, and better interventionist methods against men and women who pose a threat to themselves and to others. US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) relied on similar arguments to (rightly) justify voting against the Toomey-Manchin compromise bill in 2013. These measures will not stop the dangerously insane individuals in our cities from committing these snap atrocities.

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.

Rove never suggested "Let's repeal the Second Amendment" and never suggested that getting rid of that Bill of Right would ensure an end to violence.

Granted, well-connected Republican politicos have made the expansion of the federal government a priority, or they have simply ignore the pleas and plights of Main Street. Rove may in fact belong to that Insider Beltway club. However, criticism must depend on proper quoting and reference within context.

In the case of Hawkins' piece against Rove, that did not happen. Once again, Rove does NOT support repealing the Second Amendment.