“There are a lot of Social Media fasely implying that Fove was advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment. All he was doing was showing how laws against guns do not deter violence and stating that short of repealing the 2nd amendment which he said will never happen the gun laws are useless against a determined killer. So those who are trying to falsely accuse Rove need to pull in their claws.”
__________________________________________________________
That’s not quite an accurate assessment either. It was the use of his phrase “..and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the 2nd Amendment...”. This is as revealing of his intent as it could be. His syntax here is unmistakable: Rove is hoping for - through his own words - somebody rising to acquire enough “oomph” to do just that. Since he himself stated what would be required for repeal - “oomph” in this case - he sees the 2nd Amendment as a cause of violence and congress therefore must raise it’s “oomph” to stop it. It was Rove who linked gun violence and the 2nd Amendment in this cause-and-effect relationship on Fox News. Nobody else did. And it’s clear that he’s all for the “oomph” needed to repeal it. Otherwise, why sanctify an attempt at repeal with lacking enough “oomph” - which is clearly intended to mean COURAGE to repeal it. That may be lost on you with your comment, but the rest of us get exactly what he means. Which is no surprise. He’s a leftist, period.
“Ooomph” can also be easily interpreted as a condescending taunt against those who are pushing gun control. It was made as part of a factually correct answer.
Rove has enough legitimate issues for people to despise him for. Relying on a interpretation of a single word like “oomph” is a pretty weak, if not contrived, argument to make against his point here.
You read minds don’t you? (SARCASM)