“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 will 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,THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>
Why the hell would someone say say “THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN” if they are suggesting something they want to do?
___________________________________________________________
This is a direct quotation of what you said Rove said. Since I quoted directly, let’s not have anymore confusion. It’s clear your problem is comprehending SYNTAX. You know, sentence structure like use of nouns, verbs, and predicates?? Roves statement as said above CLEARLY shows he’s an advocate of 2nd amendment repeal based on his own linguistics. His statement of the problem - as he sees it - is that there is no “magic law” (yet) to eradicate events like Charleston. He says then that in order “dramatically reduce” shootings such at this, the only solution is to “remove guns from society”. So we have Rove assessing the problem (lack of a “magic law” to “dramatically reduce more Charlestons), and then declares what the solution to the problem would be (”remove guns from society). In terms of argumentation of debate points, this is what’s known as laying out the case. So in this paragraph you want to use to exonerate his corruption, he tells us what he thinks the problem is and what he thinks the solution would be.
It’s his use of the word “until” that gives away his cover. The word “until” is a preposition, and means “a word to indicate continuance to a specified time” (this is the Merriam-Webster definition). So Rove tells us we’re going to be subject to Charleston type events UNTIL the “specified time” that “somebody” gets the “oomph” to “repeal the 2nd Amendment”. He says it’s not going to happen - but he doesn’t say it’s not going to happen because of his own defense of principle behind the constitutional provision that the right to bear arms should be unabridged. He’s saying we’re going to have Charleston-type problems UNTIL somebody gets “oomph” (read: courage) and eliminates the 2nd amendment to remove guns from society (ahhh...his “magic law”, at last!!)
Your parsing of his last statement away from everything else tells us a lot about YOU! Trying to overemphasize “that’s not gonna happen” in isolation is an epic fail on your part. It’s trying to foist the notion he’s posing as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but you IGNORE everything he said before it and drop the context of his own words of the entire paragraph you quoted on his behalf. Far from a defense of the 2nd amendment, the whole context of this very paragraph YOU quoted indicates clearly this is a LAMENT from Rove that somebody - at present - lacks “oomph” to repeal it (if you were truly a 2nd amendment defender, why on earth would you ever utter what would be required to get rid of it???). Rove is lamenting that there will be no repeal (after all, he tells us the solution to “dramatically reduce” more Charleston type events - get rid of guns; apparently Rove has never heard of all the gun crime that happens in the heavily gun restricted Chicago). He’s not defending the 2nd Amendment. At all. And any idiot with half a brain can read this paragraph of his you quoted and understand that as clearly as the sunrise. Except of course, you.
Rove is worthy of all the hatred he brings upon himself. Whether he’s swindling private citizens out of cash for his Epic Fail Super PAC, or foisting yet another big-gubmint luvin’ Bush down out throats, he’s earned every bit of hatred he gets. Equally from both sides, I might add. Karl Rove’s 15 minutes of fame was over LONG ago - and it’s time for this worthless ass-clown to get off the stage and go back to his closet-case life.
You can BS all you want
Rove did not say what you said he said
My comprehension is just fine
Rhetorical device
In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Note that although rhetorical devices may be used to evoke an emotional response in the audience, this is not their primary purpose.
This above is what Rove used ...Im sorry you could not follow it