One of the great things about putting together a gun blog is that you never run short of material. There are always new heaters coming out, interesting gear, defensive gun uses and the like. Oh, and plenty of folks who’d be only too happy to deprive others of their right to all of the above. But once a while a zeitgeist-buster pops up that raises the conversational bar. This week, of course, it was Bobby Costas taking to his halftime pulpit to preach against the scourge that is America’s gun culture. And — no matter what Juan Williams may say — Bob’s POV has unleashed a torrent of response from both philosophers and fools furthering the national conversation on guns that our esteemed President had so earnestly asked for. So thank you, Bob Costas, for getting the ball rolling and showing that failing to get all your facts straight doesn’t have to be a barrier to open communication. And if you haven’t had enough yet, make the jump for still a few more links of note on the subject . . .
Jason Whitlock explains why he doesn’t think he should have to “shuffle off to the Big House” to talk to Bill O’Reilly about guns.
Seventy-five percent of the the aggressive young men in the NFL own guns.
The San Diego Padres’ GM is concerned about the “young boys” in Major League Baseball owning guns, too. Losing one of his pitchers for six months after a hunting accident (he was cut while dressing an animal, but still) seems to have set him off.
I read Jason’s rather long column, in which he attempts to dig himself out of his (constitutionally-allowed) hole. Best quote to sum it up: “(Guns) don’t protect us from tyranny. ” Nuff said.
Let the Padres just write into their contracts that the “athlete” may not own nor shoot a firearm of any type while their contract is in force. Let’s see who they will be able to get to sign with them.
I don’t agree with this at all because of the anti-trust exemption for baseball. This means that players drafted by that team would get screwed until they reached the end of team control. Basically, if you want to play pro ball, you have to play for the team that drafts you. No thank you.
Whitlock:
“I further argued that our Second Amendment is outdated. The right to bear arms no longer protects us from a government armed with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks, nuclear weapons and all the other knickknacks James Madison and Co. couldn’t envision when ratifying the Bill of Rights in 1791”
Tell that to the Libyans and Syrians. Or to the founders of the Ming Dynasty running out the Mongols with the “handgonne”. Or to the Spanish when running out the Moors with the arquebus.
+1, and double points for the arquebus reference.
Or the Vietcong. Or the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s. Or goddamn everyone involved in Afghanistan or Iraq in the past 10 years.
Unsavory characters, perhaps, and ugly, nasty fights, but they didn’t just roll over and die when faced with the mightiest militarists on the face of the Earth in their time periods.
Or some rag-tag provincial yokels with delusions of grandeur back in the late 1700s. You know, the founding fathers and the Continental Army. No tanks, but irregular warfare has worked for a loooooong time.
+1000
Whitlock has zero knowledge of history. Is that the norm for these people? Never mind, the answer is that obvious.
By “these people” I assume you mean relatively recent graduates of the public school system / modern university system who do not have an independently developed interest in history?
Yes.
My history teacher in college was a retired general. He commanded a tank under Patton in WWII. I ended up with a history minor, I liked his teachings that much.
That kind of learning is SO sadly gone…..
Yet another fool who thinks war will only take the form he wishes it to take, something on the order of “conventional warfare”.
Nobody mentioned Michael Collins. The ‘urban guerilla’ used handguns against the British might of ships, armor, and artillery. He succeeded where 7 centuries of “conventional” rebellion against British rule failed.
That presupposes that the government would be willing to use “stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks, nuclear weapons, and all the other knickknacks James Madison and Co. couldn’t envision” to put down civil unrest. That’s a pretty dubious proposition. Okay, tanks I can see, but if there’s an uprising, is the government really going to call down airstrikes with Hellfires or JDAMs on its own citizens? What a nightmare that would be for their credibility. If say, Seattle rebelled, would the powers in Washington DC really nuke it? Seriously?
The fact is if there were some sort of civil unrest that led to fighting in the streets, it will be with guns, and the better armed the populace is, the more hesitant the powers that be will be to take us down that road.
Hmmm, I don’t know….I can think of a few places that could be improved with a good nuking…
Hey! Even areas that are 80% liberal are still 20% something else. Help!
Google Attica or Move Philadelphia.
I’d have a lot more respect for you people if you took responsibility for the mass shootings in our gun crazy country, specifically Virginia Tech and that movie theater in Colorado near where those 2 kids got tired of being bullied a few years ago and over reacted a little. Admit you’re comfortable with mass murder to protect your so called right to bear arms and I’ll stop thinking you’re gutless cowards.
Mass shootings are no more the responsibility of law abiding gun owners than all rapes are your responsibility if you have a penis. But I will say I personally know a man who confronted and ensured the arrest of a knife wielding rapist, after calling the cops. I’m comfortable with his protection of this woman and I think you’re a nutless coward.
to be more clear. law abiding gun owners who put up political road blocks against gun control legislation bear responsibility for the mass murders that likely would not have happened with effective gun control laws. I assume you are comfortable with that as an acceptable price to pay for your perceived “right to bear arms” Sorry for the name calling in my previous post.
Thanks for recognizing my “sticks and stones” response to your post. But your assumption is lame. I, nor anyone is comfortable, or paying a price for the right to defend (you call it “right to bear arms”). Self defense is inherent to life. Opposition to gun control legislation is not responsible in any way for the actions of deranged persons. You cannot legislate sanity and if you could we would be living in a very different world.
I’ll accept the premise. Let’s view guns strictly from a utilitarian point of view. Gun take lives? Yes, but guns save many more lives than they take. QJ must be very new to this site to be completely ignorant of the research and many discussions of civilian gun ownership. To more accurately state QJ’s premise;
QJ sez,
“I refuse to educate myself on the true costs and BENEFITS of privately owned firearms, and I choose to view this issue only through my own narrow emotional prism, and gun owners are evil.”
QJ, if you are really only concerned about loss of life, you owe it to yourself to get educated.
BTW the typical meme is that gun owners are thoughtless quick-tempered hotheads, ready to pull the trigger over the slightest insult, I don’t really get the “gutless coward” thing.
surfed in following Bob Costas link from I don’t know where. The owner here doesn’t require an English drivers license and a copy of my electric bill to comment so I commented. I took back the gutless comment, try to keep up.
I don’t think guns save any lives, zero. Doctors save lives, often those of shot people. You don’t seem too articulate because you didn’t more accurately state QuietJim’s premise like you promised, you stated your opinion of what you think I think. Thank You Miss Cleo.
To set the record straight I think white gun owners who are not mobbed up are myopic knuckle dragging Neanderthals with serious penis extension/envy issues.
Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the Aurora “Batman” mass murder; all of them — like almost every such mass shooting every gun owner is somehow supposed to be ‘responsible for’ — in “gun free zones”.
Strange, isn’t it — how Holmes did not slaughter people on his campus, the usual scene where students turned madmen seek revenge for their frustrations? Instead, he chose the venue of a movie theater which had nothing to do with his failures and mental anguish, and victims completely unrelated to his school.
Could that be because his CUD campus was one of the few in the country which was NOT a “gun free zone”? Holmes was insane, not stupid. He did not want to have a ‘victim’ with a CCW disrupt his plans, so he substituted the feasible venue, the “gun free” theater, in place of the formidable “armed campus”.
The people who must be held ‘responsible for’ such mass shootings are not gun owners; it is the self-righteous, idealistic fools, who think that their dream of “No guns allowed, therefore everybody is safe” can somehow be legislated into reality.
Ok Long, that’s a theory, here’s another. The guy was dressed up like a character from the movie he was shooting people at. We are entering an era of themed mass murder.
” “No guns allowed, therefore everybody is more safe from nuts with guns” can somehow be legislated into reality.”-fixed your post
Seriously, “LongPurple”? You’re really feeding the beast here. You do know that most people who oppose your gun views sterotype you guys into Penis envy/extension nut jobs with “short man’s disease” Just sayin’
“To set the record straight I think white gun owners who are not mobbed up are myopic knuckle dragging Neanderthals with serious penis extension/envy issues.”
Gee thanks, Jimmy.
How kind of you to take back your “gutless coward” remark.
How stupid of you to offer more crap in its place.
So Holmes traveled past several other theaters with the same show, but without a “gun free policy”, to get to Cinemark on a whim. Sure.
“No nuts allowed, therefore everybody is more safe from nuts with guns, or knives, trucks, axes, bombs, etc.” There, fixed it for you.
To set the record straight, I think hoplophobes of any race who are not card-carrying ‘Socialists’ are woefully impotent self-appointed intellectual elites, with a Freudian fixation on symbolism that forbids understanding that “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.
**** OR ****
They are just trolls, whose ad hominem remarks should be given a suitable reply, then ignored.
DNFTT
“To set the record straight I think white gun owners who are not mobbed up are myopic knuckle dragging Neanderthals with serious penis extension/envy issues.”
Gee thanks, Jimmy.
How kind of you to take back your “gutless coward” remark.
How vile of you to offer more crap in its place.
“Batman” made him flunk his oral exam, so he took out his anger in a “Batman theme”, in a movie theater instead of on his campus. Right. So Holmes ignored several other theaters closer to his home with the same show, but without a “gun free policy”, to get to Cinemark on a whim. Sure.
“No nuts allowed, therefore everybody is more safe from nuts with guns, or knives, trucks, axes, bombs, etc.” There, now it’s fixed.
You do know that most people who oppose your gun views stereotype you guys as gay, pussies, or just projecting your own ‘shortcomings’ on others. Just sayin’.
To set the record straight, I think hoplophobes of any race who are not card-carrying ‘Socialists’ are woefully impotent self-appointed intellectual elites, with a fixation on psuedo-Freudian symbolism that forbids understanding that “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.
** OR **
They are just one of those fabled under-bridge dwellers, whose ad hominem remarks should be given a suitable reply, then they should be ignored.
“If say, Seattle rebelled, would the powers in Washington DC really nuke it?”
If Seattle rebeled and Starbucks coffee (or whatever hipsters drink) is as hot as McDonalds coffee, it might be in the best interest the goverment attack from a distance.
Pop, beware of splash damage.
Ba-dum-pish.
Ooo, beware of splash damage.
Ba-dum-pish.
Jason Whitlock in mho is a race hustler of the first order. And not the brightest bulb in the Fox sign, either. What makes him so special that Fox would sign him?
Fox provides equal protection for ignorant gasbags of all races, colors, creeds, and sizes. You know, fair and balanced.
An MSNBC fan, no doubt.
Whitlock==RACIST
I noticed that Costas was on O’Riely during his Back Pedal “Citizens Are Just Too Dumb To Understand What I Said Tour” Knowing Bill’s universal contempt for the US Constitution I continued to channel surf
I was particularly disappointed with Whitlock’s commentary. He usually has poignant and relevant articles about sports, and says things that most other journalists are afraid to say because of fear of being provacative.
However in this instance I heartily disagree with him. Sportswriters and sports show hosts especially are accustomed to giving opinions without any necessary facts using subjective terms (Tom Brady is the best quarterback in football). Then they argue these “facts” incessantly and end up right where they began.
That’s basically how we have Bob spouting the “fact” that Belcher and Perkins would still be alive minus the gun.
Somehow I find it better to listen to the opinions of Justices of the Supreme Court, than to give any weight to the opinions of a sportscaster.