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

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"Here's where I stand: I do not want to see the second amendment repealed.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

[rhett o rick]

1. I understood him completely and agree. nm

[TPaine7]

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?

[rhett o rick]

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.

[rhett o rick]

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

[Remmah2]

3. NFL Football; spoiled rich kids club

1% ers with jock itch.

[Clames]

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.

[trouble.smith]

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.