Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

How many times it can be fired without reloading.

[/quote]

If one insisted on killing his wife with a firearm it could easily be done with a single shot gun or rifle.

So why do you ask?

Would the KC Chief and his wife still be alive if he’d used a Ruger No. 1, a single shot rifle?
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point I made above, Push.

I said Costas was being stupid, that an NFL linebacker would have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a gun.[/quote]

I don’t understand. You said you were in favor of an assault weapon ban and that an assault weapon can be defined by how many times it can be fired without reloading. Then you implicitly admit that that is irrelevant to whether someone dies at the hand of a gun.

What gives?[/quote]

When you put it that way, I look like an idiot. But in my defense, the progression was a bit more logical:

I said Costas was an idiot and a killer is a killer whether he has a gun or a wooden spoon. I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.

Then DD respondedm then I responded to him, etc. It became a sorta tangent.

Anyways, yeah, Costas is being a dumbass here.

Guess Costas missed the story here in my town where a guy killed his dad, who was teaching at the local college, after he killed his dad’s girlfriend and then himself. He used a bow and a large knife. So I guess we should ban bows and knives. I guess he also missed the studies that show armed citizens make for a safer community.

I’m getting ready to go to bed Bob, somehow made it another day without using my guns to kill any other humans. May I be as lucky again tomorrow as I was today.

I actually love Costas when it comes to sports FWIW and used to always listen to his radio show.

An armed populace is an essential component of liberty. I am a firm believer in Machiavelli’s maxim “Before all else, be armed.” The 2nd amendment is indeed inalienable in my eyes. But where do we draw the line on what constitutes as appropriate weapon systems for a civilian to own? We have to bring into account that the “arms” mentioned in the Bill of Rights at the time were single shot small arms that while deadly, were dreadfully inaccurate and capable of only around 3 shot per minute in the hands of a trained soldier. (Correct me if I’m wrong here as I have little experience with period weapons) Tactical shotguns and handguns, including lawful concealed carry? Check, self-defense. Hunting rifles and shotguns? Check, recreation and low magazine capacity. Semi-automatic personal defense weapons/submachine guns and assault rifle platforms? Large capacity magazine, but an argument can be made for self defense. I myself own an AR. But how can one justify their right to own a modern weapon system that is not a small arm, and/ or capable of burst/fully automatic fire? When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability? In the same way our freedom of speech is realistically limited, preventing me from threatening you with physical violence or yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Essentially, where do my rights end and yours begin?

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.[/quote]

We agree on something!

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.[/quote]That is EXACTLY what the second amendment was ll about.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Realize I am not arguing against such weapons per say but am only posing the question as a catalyst for discussion. I am somewhat neutral on the matter and am hoping to get a sense of some of the arguments for/against. So the argument is that automatic weapons should be allowed as a check against tyranny? I can get behind that. *As I said earlier, I believe that the 2nd amendment is an essential component of liberty. In your opinion, should there be a line drawn on what arms a citizen can or cannot own? Is there a significant benefit of a assault rifle being capable of select fire outside of a somewhat narrow spectrum of combat scenarios?

From my civilian understanding, infantry mostly utilize semi-automatic fire because it is more accurate and conserves ammunition. (Outside of CQB and suppressive fire from a platoon support element using a crew served weapon, such as a M240 Bravo, ect.) Should I be able to acquire mil spec equipment without restriction? Again, I stress I am asking these questions for the sake of discussion, not because I adhere to the ill founded positions of anti gun lobbyists.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Realize I am not arguing against such weapons per say but am only posing the question as a catalyst for discussion. I am somewhat neutral on the matter and am hoping to get a sense of some of the arguments for/against. So the argument is that automatic weapons should be allowed as a check against tyranny? I can get behind that. *As I said earlier, I believe that the 2nd amendment is an essential component of liberty. In your opinion, should there be a line drawn on what a citizen can arms a citizen can or cannot own? Is there a significant benefit of a assault rifle being capable of select fire outside of a somewhat narrow spectrum of combat scenarios? From my civilian understanding, infantry mostly utilize semi-automatic fire because it is more accurate and conserves ammunition. (Outside of CQB and suppressive fire from a platoon support element using a crew served weapon, such as a M240 Bravo, ect.) Should I be able to acquire mil spec equipment without restriction? Again, I stress I am asking these questions for the sake of discussion, not because I adhere to the ill founded positions of anti gun lobbyists. [/quote]

I’m not in a position to argue specifics. I was just pointing out the purpose/intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability?[/quote]

In the exact same scenario that the founders intended of the 2nd Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Realize I am not arguing against such weapons per say but am only posing the question as a catalyst for discussion. I am somewhat neutral on the matter and am hoping to get a sense of some of the arguments for/against. So the argument is that automatic weapons should be allowed as a check against tyranny? I can get behind that. *As I said earlier, I believe that the 2nd amendment is an essential component of liberty. In your opinion, should there be a line drawn on what a citizen can arms a citizen can or cannot own? Is there a significant benefit of a assault rifle being capable of select fire outside of a somewhat narrow spectrum of combat scenarios? From my civilian understanding, infantry mostly utilize semi-automatic fire because it is more accurate and conserves ammunition. (Outside of CQB and suppressive fire from a platoon support element using a crew served weapon, such as a M240 Bravo, ect.) Should I be able to acquire mil spec equipment without restriction? Again, I stress I am asking these questions for the sake of discussion, not because I adhere to the ill founded positions of anti gun lobbyists. [/quote]

I’m not in a position to argue specifics. I was just pointing out the purpose/intent of the 2nd Amendment.[/quote]

In its purpose and intent, we agree. The 2nd Amendment is an essential component of liberty.

Prayers for Zoey

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
So during halftime last night Mr Costas went on a 90 second rant quoting from Fox Sports Jason Whitlock’s column about the Javon Belcher tragedy.

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

Now I think this is a horribly short sided view but more than that, was Costas correct to use halftime to present his viewpoint?

link for reference:

Of course there were a myriad of others I grabbed this one from my email.[/quote]

I think Bob needs to shut the fuck up and not use the wake of a tragedy as happened in KC as an excuse to go into a political rant in a forum that should be free from that crap. If Belcher stabbed his GF 50 times she’d be just as dead.
Choice of weapon was not going to stop what happened. Clearly what precipitated this event, was bigger than the choice of weapon. If he choked her to death and drove his car off a cliff nobody would feel any better.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In its purpose and intent, we agree. The 2nd Amendment is an essential component of liberty.[/quote]

For the record, I, too, agree with this. The 2nd wouldn’t be under any existential threat in an smh23 presidency.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Legion, I answered your question above but due to my delayed posting status for being some kind of malevolent TN poster it didn’t show up until just now.[/quote]

It’s all good. You’ll see I agree with the position if you read the rests of my post. I am just curious if/where y’all draw a line at any point in regards to specific weapon systems and the second Amendment.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]

Contradictory.

The second amendment is the right to militarily resist the government. NOT about personal defense. If you are in favor of allowing the government to have arms citizens cannot, you are not in favor of the second amendment.

The guys who wrote the constitution were in favor of civilians owning warships and artillery. A full auto rifle is nowhere near as deadly as weapons civilians were allowed to own when the second amendment was written.