HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Bob Costas "clarifie...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:55 PM

Bob Costas "clarifies" his gun-control remarks made during an NFL game...

Bob Costas claims he supports the Second Amendment, but gives us thin gruel for any substance in that claim. He further opines in a manner which seems to show some ignorance of the issues.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/12/04/how-bob-costas-really-feels-about-guns-jovan-belcher-suicide-kansas-city-chiefs/1745491/

"Here's where I stand: I do not want to see the second amendment repealed. ... People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. ... Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don't see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should to have a virtual militia (bought by) mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? ... Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That's what I was focusing on (in the halftime segment)."

(1) Costas is correct that the Second is about "self-defense," but it is NOT about hunting; recently, states have had to shore-up the sport of hunting in their own individual constitutions since there is no protection in the U.S. Constitution.

(2) I'm not sure what he means by a citizen who "arms himself...in ways only police or military should." Is he concerned about possession of semi-auto weapons? What kind? How is this equivalent to the police?

(3) And I'm not sure what he means by having "...a virtual militia (bought by) mail order or gun shows. Not to strain a point, but militia are bodies of people. If they are violating laws, then report and investigate. If he has a problem with legal sales facilitated by the Internet, say so, but "mail order" has been banned since 1968, IIRC. If he has a problem with "gun shows," explain and provide examples of how a militia was somehow constituted by one.

(4) Of course, the sweeping prohibition is implied by: "Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there?" Study up, Mr. Costas, and you can answer your own questions. More importantly, you should ask: Why do you want to ban these weapons? Anyone who implies a legal ban, with criminal sanctions, is OBLIGATED to show how this promotes the general welfare, is beneficial to society, and is constitutional.

(5) It seems when debate, data and good research fails, just lay it on that Creature from the Id: Culture. So, deal with it, but go in with your eyes and ears open. We've heard these "mistakes" before.

7 replies, 870 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bob Costas "clarifies" his gun-control remarks made during an NFL game... (Original post)
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 OP
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #1
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #5
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #6
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #2
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #3
Clames Dec 2012 #4
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #7

Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:06 PM

1. I understood him completely and agree. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:14 PM

5. If you understand him, you realize that his comments are self-contradictory.

 

How can you agree with someone who doesn't agree with himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:26 PM

6. I think you mean that if I understand him the same way you understand him

then I would agree with you. Apparently we dont both understand him the same.

Let me put it a little different. I believe I understand what he is trying to say. Someone else may be able to quibble about his words or definitions, because they want to not-understand him. I say good for them.

We have a problem in this country that is exasperated by the gluttony of guns available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:17 PM

2. Here is a clip for you.

Notice the gun guy says that Costas was trying to set the stage for responsible gun ownership and that starts the slippery slope to something bad. Sounds like he said that he was against responsible gun ownership. WTF?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101784751

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:20 PM

3. NFL Football; spoiled rich kids club

 

1% ers with jock itch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

4. Clear as mud Costas.

 

He knows he stepped in it and now is looking to save face. Bet he wishes he'd just kept his trap shut and stuck to football instead of wading into something he is woefully under prepared to discus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:32 PM

7. He is misinformed. He claimed that James Holmes was wearing a bullet proof vest

 

and, based on that misinformation, concluded that returning fire would have been pointless. He mentioned something else that I found interesting though-steroid use in the NFL. Steroids are well known to cause severe aggression as a side effect. I have to wonder if Jovan Belcher was "roid raging" when he shot Kasandra Perkins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread