Bob Costas "clarifies" his gun-control remarks made during an NFL game... [View all]

[Eleanors38]

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"Here's where I stand: I do not want to see the second amendment repealed.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.