Bob Costas goes on Gun Control tirade during Sunday Night Half-Time Show

[Don Vito Corleone]

Bob Cotas gave his non-apology apology.

it was similar to saying 'sorry I beat my wife in public, in private is better'

He said nothing that warrants any apology, nor did he "apologize" in anything like the fashion your analogy suggests. Instead, what he essentially said was that it was a mistake to have compressed a topic involving this level of nuance into such a short segment, because it didn't allow him to address it in a completely clear way. From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tas-calls-jovan-belcher-commentary-a-mistake/ -

Bob Costas said he made a “mistake,” violating his own rule of not trying to compress a nuanced topic into small bit of air time, with his controversial halftime commentary Sunday night on the murder-suicide committed by Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs the day before.

“My mistake is I left it open for too much miscommunication,” Costas said in a lengthy interview on “The Dan Patrick Show.” The 90-second weekly spot, he said, doesn’t offer enough time in which to adequately discuss the issue of “the football culture, the gun culture, domestic violence.”

“For a long time, I’ve been wanting to get off my chest my disgust with this idea that every time something tragic happens, no matter what it may be, that in any way touches sports, there’s a chorus of people saying, ‘you know, this really puts it in perspective.’ Which is a bunch of nonsense, because if that was true, we wouldn’t have to have that perspective adjusted every time the next tragedy occurs. It’s a bunch of nonsense,” Costas said. “And what I was trying to say was, that if you want some perspective on this, there are a number of issues related to this that we could begin to talk about and think about. The problem was that I didn’t have enough time to get to many of them. And that, I think, was my mistake, to be quite honest, Dan. A friend of mine in broadcasting pointed this out to me yesterday, and I agree with him. He said, ‘you violated your own rule.’ Because we have had this discussion before: I’ve always said, if you’re going to get into touchy topics, nuanced topics, make sure that you have enough time to flesh them out … or save them for forums where you do. In this particular situation, the timeliness of it was, if you’re going to comment on it at all, it had to be this Sunday.”

* * *

I find it continually irritating that this forum so often devolves into a kind of group-think mentality where no dissenting voices can be permitted. There are altogether too many people here who lack the ability to discuss things in earnest without just marginalizing voices they disagree with. The level of discussion here disappoints me altogether too often for my taste.

 

[Geosurface]

I am equally baffled by people giving a flying fuck about sports, and people thinking that some particular individual dude (whom I had never heard of before this) doing some crazy shit, calls for any sort of "perspective" or soul-searching, or reevaluation of anything. I think the only proper reaction to a news story like this, if one must have a reaction at all, is "well damn, that sucks."

 

[TerryMathews]

I am a liberal and I accept that we've gone to far down the road as far as guns have gone.

That being said I believe that people like the shooter who attacked a Congreswoman in Arizona and the Batman movie shooter are an indication of failures where reasonable utilization of existing regulation could have helped.

And perhaps failures in other aspects of this society where they could have been helped before they went totally bonkers.

That being said it would suck to be shot to death. Unless I guess I sustained massive damage to the head from a shooter behind me. Then I probably would never know what hit me.

FTFY

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I find it continually irritating that this forum so often devolves into a kind of group-think mentality where no dissenting voices can be permitted. There are altogether too many people here who lack the ability to discuss things in earnest without just marginalizing voices they disagree with. The level of discussion here disappoints me altogether too often for my taste.

We find it continually annoying that an issue that is so clearly not up for discussion keeps coming up. A large majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is not up for discussion. If you don't like it, go start a Dickheadtatorship elsewhere. We live in a Democracy and the people living here aren't as stupid as you, and the idiots who run this country, want to think they are.

 

[Geosurface]

We find it continually annoying that an issue that is so clearly not up for discussion keeps coming up. A large majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is not up for discussion. If you don't like it, go start a Dickheadtatorship elsewhere. We live in a Democracy and the people living here aren't as stupid as you, and the idiots who run this country, want to think they are.

:thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

We find it continually annoying that an issue that is so clearly not up for discussion keeps coming up. A large majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is not up for discussion. If you don't like it, go start a Dickheadtatorship elsewhere. We live in a Democracy and the people living here aren't as stupid as you, and the idiots who run this country, want to think they are.

If you believe these two statements make any sense side by side, then I pity you.

 

[Geosurface]

If you believe these two statements make any sense side by side, then I pity you.

Basically everyone who jacks off about democracy only likes it so long as it's leading to what they want and agree with being codified in law.

Very few are honest enough to admit this.

 

[xj0hnx]

Now that's funny.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

If you believe these two statements make any sense side by side, then I pity you.

Indeed. The comment you quoted goes precisely to my point.

In aggregate I find the quality of discussion here has either grown progressively worse since the inception of this forum, about a decade ago, or I have just grown tired of its persistent groupthink, lack of real discussion, and, lately, increasing tolerance of overt racism. This place has become a real cesspool, populated largely by simpletons and creeps. It makes me sad.

 

[sao123]

I am a liberal and I accept that we've gone to far down the road as far as guns have gone.

That being said I believe that people like the shooter who attacked a Congreswoman in Arizona and the Batman movie shooter are an indication of failures where reasonable regulation could have helped.

And perhaps failures in other aspects of this society where they could have been helped before they went totally bonkers.

That being said it would suck to be shot to death. Unless I guess I sustained massive damage to the head from a shooter behind me. Then I probably would never know what hit me.

Reasonable regulation?

How about,
it shall be unlawful to kill or attempt to kill another human being.

Isnt that reasonable? didnt stop this guy.

He didnt obey that first law. what makes you think he will obey the second law which says:
"It shall be unlawful for you to own or posess a firearm."


<<Oh... well in my perfect world of regulations, Firearms would be restricted and rare, and no one would be able to find them or buy them, because only police and the army would have them.>>

Apparently you've never heard of the black market? ... and the mexicans and columbians who deliver drugs and stolen cars...they will begin bringing guns and sell them for a profit as well. firearm elimination isnt possible.

Speaking of laws... we also have reasonable regulation on speeding, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, and other drugs... what percent of the population actually obeys them all? Something like 17%.


legislation isnt the answer, its the problem.

 

[TerryMathews]

Reasonable regulation?

How about,
it shall be unlawful to kill or attempt to kill another human being.

Isnt that reasonable? didnt stop this guy.

He didnt obey that first law. what makes you think he will obey the second law which says:
"It shall be unlawful for you to own or posess a firearm."


<<Oh... well in my perfect world of regulations, Firearms would be restricted and rare, and no one would be able to find them or buy them, because only police and the army would have them.>>

Apparently you've never heard of the black market? ... and the mexicans and columbians who deliver drugs and stolen cars...they will begin bringing guns and sell them for a profit as well. firearm elimination isnt possible.

Speaking of laws... we also have reasonable regulation on speeding, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, narcotics, and other drugs... what percent of the population actually obeys them all? Something like 17%.


legislation isnt the answer, its the problem.

The reasonable regulation, at least in the case of Holmes, would have been for his psychiatrist to report him as mentally defective to NICS as was his ethical duty so that Homes would fail a gun store background check.

 

[xj0hnx]

The reasonable regulation, at least in the case of Holmes, would have been for his psychiatrist to report him as mentally defective to NICS as was his ethical duty so that Homes would fail a gun store background check.

I don't like that, it puts pretty much every veteran that went to war at risk, at the mercy of some psychiatrist.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't like that, it puts pretty much every veteran that went to war at risk, at the mercy of some psychiatrist.

Yes, it does and under the Obama administration "mentally defective" has been expanded to include those receiving VA financial assistance. http://rehberg.house.gov/news-relea...hts-for-vets-clears-house-of-representatives/

Setting aside how we feel about that law, it is in place and would have caught Homes if his Dr had discharged his duties properly.

More laws won't help if we aren't enforcing existing ones on the books. I would be in favor of one though that made Holmes's Dr criminally liable for his actions.

I would also be in favor of anything that gets Dr. Phil off the air. Just saying.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

If you believe these two statements make any sense side by side, then I pity you.

It very clearly does make sense to anyone who is paying attention, especially when taken in context with the post I was responding to.

My point was that this really is not up for discussion because it is not the 50/50 issue people like Costas and the rest of the gun control morons pretend that it is. The split probably more like 80/20 and thus you cannot come around and say I don't know why this is not up for discussion, because we live in a Democracy. The fact that we live in a Democracy tells you that if you try to join the 20% in an argument you're going to have an Atlas-like uphill battle.

How is that so hard to understand? And YOU pity ME?

/facepalm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It very clearly does make sense to anyone who is paying attention, especially when taken in context with the post I was responding to.

My point was that this really is not up for discussion because it is not the 50/50 issue people like Costas and the rest of the gun control morons pretend that it is. The split probably more like 80/20 and thus you cannot come around and say I don't know why this is not up for discussion, because we live in a Democracy. The fact that we live in a Democracy tells you that if you try to join the 20% in an argument you're going to have an Atlas-like uphill battle.

How is that so hard to understand? And YOU pity ME?

/facepalm

So areas in which there is an 80/20 gap are not open for discussion and can't be mentioned in public? Your understanding of the Constitution on which this country was founded is laughably contorted and inaccurate, and/or you are a brain-dead simpleton. In either case, I myself do not pity you, because you are not worthy of my pity. You are, in any event, one of the people who are contributing to the irrelevance of this forum.

 

[Geosurface]

Something tells me there are plenty of things in our DEMOCRACY that DVC doesn't consider up for discussion like reinstating slavery, removing the right of women to vote, or repealing the civil rights act.

I agree on those and consider removing any constitutionally guaranteed right to be off the table.

Btw DVC, do you make any posts anymore that don't include bemoaning the state of the forums?

 

[TerryMathews]

Something tells me there are plenty of things in our DEMOCRACY that DVC doesn't consider up for discussion like reinstating slavery, removing the right of women to vote, or repealing the civil rights act.

I agree on those and consider removing any constitutionally guaranteed right to be off the table.

Btw DVC, do you make any posts anymore that don't include bemoaning the state of the forums?

Or how about Affirmative Action? More people think that is antiquated than those who believe the 2nd amendment is.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

So areas in which there is an 80/20 gap are not open for discussion and can't be mentioned in public? Your understanding of the Constitution on which this country was founded is laughably contorted and inaccurate, and/or you are a brain-dead simpleton. In either case, I myself do not pity you, because you are not worthy of my pity. You are, in any event, one of the people who are contributing to the irrelevance of this forum.

I very clearly said in my post that you are welcome to discuss it but it will be an uphill battle. Learn to fucking read.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Something tells me there are plenty of things in our DEMOCRACY that DVC doesn't consider up for discussion like reinstating slavery, removing the right of women to vote, or repealing the civil rights act.

I agree on those and consider removing any constitutionally guaranteed right to be off the table.

Btw DVC, do you make any posts anymore that don't include bemoaning the state of the forums?

I don't think anything should per se be off the table for discussion, regardless of its lack of popularity. I do think, however, that when people post in a way that demonstrates their ignorance, stupidity, and/or racism, it is fair game to point that out. You happen to be an excellent example.

Do you make any posts that don't involve allegations that black people are stupid/uneducated and/or disposed to committing crimes? How many hundreds of hours do you think you have spent this year worrying about/researching/posting/creating videos, audio files/cartoons/diagrams about the Trayvon Martin case? I expect it has been, minimally, 1,000 hours. You should apply for a grant from the Zimmerman defense fund.

I don't really care what you think about the state of these forums, because a) you have been here a very short period, and b) you have yourself greatly lowered the quality of discussion here through your open bigotry and obsessiveness about your personal hero George Zimmerman.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I very clearly said in my post that you are welcome to discuss it but it will be an uphill battle. Learn to fucking read.

No, you wrote:

We find it continually annoying that an issue that is so clearly not up for discussion keeps coming up. A large majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is not up for discussion. If you don't like it, go start a Dickheadtatorship elsewhere. We live in a Democracy and the people living here aren't as stupid as you, and the idiots who run this country, want to think they are.

"Learn to fucking read" your own posts.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, you wrote:



"Learn to fucking read" your own posts.

Watching your thread, is the reason I never participate in anything 2nd Ammendment related or anything to do with Israel.

 

[Blackjack200]

Indeed. The comment you quoted goes precisely to my point.

In aggregate I find the quality of discussion here has either grown progressively worse since the inception of this forum, about a decade ago, or I have just grown tired of its persistent groupthink, lack of real discussion, and, lately, increasing tolerance of overt racism. This place has become a real cesspool, populated largely by simpletons and creeps. It makes me sad.

I think it's a reflection of the level of discourse in our society in general. Look at the responses to the thoughtful column in the New Yorker about the story.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...costas-and-jovan-belcher.html?currentPage=all

Apparently you've never heard of the black market? ... and the mexicans and columbians who deliver drugs and stolen cars...they will begin bringing guns and sell them for a profit as well. firearm elimination isnt possible.

You mean the Mexicans and Columbians who are buying guns here with drug money and smuggling them back across the border?

Or are you suggesting that they'll grow guns next to their Marijuana and coca fields?

Btw DVC, do you make any posts anymore that don't include bemoaning the state of the forums?

DVC is one of the few members that makes this forum worth reading. It's honestly astonishing that he continues to post here.

 

[zinfamous]

It very clearly does make sense to anyone who is paying attention, especially when taken in context with the post I was responding to.

My point was that this really is not up for discussion because it is not the 50/50 issue people like Costas and the rest of the gun control morons pretend that it is. The split probably more like 80/20 and thus you cannot come around and say I don't know why this is not up for discussion, because we live in a Democracy. The fact that we live in a Democracy tells you that if you try to join the 20% in an argument you're going to have an Atlas-like uphill battle.

How is that so hard to understand? And YOU pity ME?

/facepalm

80/20 split?

link?

even if that is the case, your rebuff that such a split makes that minority argument valueless in a democracy makes me pity you even more.

Man, all those people throughout our history that believed in their minority opinions...what a bunch of assholes.

 

[emperus]

This is the text of the 2nd amemdment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I see no text that says that Guns can't be regulated. In fact the text calls for a "well regulated" militia. Like other rights so enumerated by the 2nd amendment and which we as a society limit (yelling Fire in a crowded theater), I don't see why we can't regulate guns which by it's design is a device to kill/wound.

But like others in this thread. I am often disheartened by the lack of thoughtfulness on this board.

 

[buckshot24]

Would regulations "infringe" upon the people's right to bear arms?