Home > 1st Amendment, 2nd amendment/guns/weapons > Bob Costas: The Giant Uproar

Bob Costas: The Giant Uproar

December 4th, 2012


ARLINGTON, Texas — NBC broadcaster Bob Costas used his halftime segment on “Sunday Night Football” to advocate for gun control following this weekend’s murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, causing an immediate debate on social media.

In a segment about 90 seconds long, Costas paraphrased and quoted extensively from a piece by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock.

After praising the column, Costas said: “In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Belcher shot and killed Perkins, the mother of his 3-month-old daughter, on Saturday morning, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and committed suicide in the parking lot of the team’s practice facility.

It seems that far too many people are now calling for Costas’ ouster.  Apparently some feel that that their 2nd amendment rights are more important than Bob Costas’ 1st amendment rights.   Predictably, Fox News was alive with the glimmer of hope that Costas would be fired as they baited their viewers to react.  Host after host examined and discussed Costa and Jason Whitlock, who was heavily quoted by Costas, from every angle.

Syndicated radio host Lars Larson called for Costas to be fired over the comments.  Megyn Kelly and Kristen Powers both argued somewhat in favor of Costas, but the fight was on most places.

Most conservative hosts and commentators  closed the day with a strong suggestion that Costas and Whitlock be fired.  What on earth for?  Is it illegal to call for stricter gun control?   This bully behavior is scary.  Now the gun crowd has become the thought police.


Bob Costas is sort of a new national folk hero for having the guts to stand up to those who would silence those of us who don’t think that guns are the answer to every problem.  There are 2 sides to this one and those who feel moderate gun control is reasonable are not going to back down any more.  Let’s see if 1A trumps 2A.

Is it politically incorrect to speak out in favor of moderate gun control?  Apparently so, according to the gun folks.  Gun folks, get over it.


  1. December 4th, 2012 at 07:41 | #1

    Whitlock didn’t call for moderate gun control. He calls for total hand gun banning.

    But this thing with Costas IS overblown. He let his emotions take over his mouth and he absolved the murderer and blamed the inanimate object. Words have consequences. If this murder had been done with a knife, there would be no calls for knife control. Fox is running it because no one else is and it gets ratings. The 2nd amendment blog/activist world is also running hot. If Costas can call for restrictions on a right, people can call for his firing. However, that’s not a 1st amendment violation. For that to happen, the government would have to infringe on his rights….kinda like what he was asking for in regards to my 2nd amendment rights.

    If people speak of moderate gun control….a) define moderate b) realize that whatever that definition is….it’s wrong because some want more and some want less. C) any call for gun control is a political action which will get push back. Costas introduced politics into a football game. So..welcome to the brawl, Mr. Costas.

    Now…do I think all this heat is a good idea. NO. If he had been chastised and then ignored, this would be gone now and there would be even less publicity for the idea of gun control.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 08:24 | #2

      Chastised? By whom? He can have any opinion he wants. You can have your rights denied. Whitlock wasn’t the speaker. Costas was. I don’t care if Whitlock called for all guns to be banned although I see no indication he did. Perhaps you could find that for me in a msm publication? If he did, then he did and that is is right to do so.

      Costas usually gives commentary at half time.

      NO it isn’t wrong. Walking around like Rambo is wrong. Its an attention seeking behavior at best.

      If if if. the murder wasn’t done with a knife. Why are you and Lars Larson playing the what-if game? It sounds like both of you want to control what other people think. Its very obvious that you want to control what they say.

      Let’s go back to chastising Bob Costas? Who is going to chastise him and what gives them that right? NBC? [raising an eyebrow] I don’t think NBC wants to unleash theh hounds of hell on themselves.

      Truly, if you think that politics were just introduced into a football game, you need to go to more sporting events. So the gun crowd is now suggesting that nothing of importance can be discussed at half time? [another raised eyebrow]

      This idea that 2A opinion is untouchable is over. I have had a slow burn since the VA Tech massacre. I think what pushed me over the edge was the call for arming students. Yea right. DUH!

  2. Cato the Elder
    December 4th, 2012 at 08:44 | #3

    OK Moon, remember all the times you told me I just didn’t get something because I’m a male? Time for me to tell you the deal..

    Nothing personal against Costas or anything, he’s certainly entitled to his views although I always thought he was kind of a weenie and out of place calling Sunday night games. For guys, the NFL is like a second church. When we guys attend the church of football, we like the commentary to be of football and about football, forever and ever, amen. The last thing we want to hear is a riff on AIDS awareness or gun control at halftime. If we wanted that, we’d be tuned to MSNBC with the rest of the metrosexuals.

    Costas desecrated the church of football with his diatribe. If he wanted to have an on air attack of conscience he could have gone and booked himself on the View or similar touchy-feely environment. Keep your social commentary out of my church, we’re trying to practice our religion here. And P.S. this isn’t the first time something like this has happened with NBC. If I were the NFL I’d seriously rethink that Sunday night contract if the network can’t commit to staying on topic and leaving their politics at the door when they step into the broadcast booth. Time for Costas to have his pass to the locker room revoked.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 09:34 | #4

      Ah ha, I see that the ladies aren’t entitled to football and that it is a God-given MALE pass time. Now as far as I am concerned, other than the Redskins, you can have pro football. I prefer ACC football. But them’s my roots.

      I am going to actually give you half points on that one though on a couple of conditions–1. that shooting hadn’t just happened. It couldn’t be ignored. If it was going to be ignored then the game shouldn’t have been placed. 2. Admit you go to a misogynistic church.

      If he had launched into sequestration or the election, I would agree with you. I once got furious over the Eagles–recording artists, not football players, butting in to a concert I have paid a fortune to attend to blather on about what to do about Manassas Battlefield and Disney…so I feel your pain. I still hate Don Henely, 20 some years later of the subject.

  3. December 4th, 2012 at 09:33 | #5

    @Cato the Elder


    Grand Inquisitor
    Heresy Office
    Church of Football (American Division)

  4. Cato the Elder
    December 4th, 2012 at 09:53 | #6


    No, we welcome Women to our congregation as well as long as they are true believers.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 11:19 | #7

      The wimmins sure got left out in your first description of your church.

  5. Cato the Elder
    December 4th, 2012 at 09:55 | #8

    Oh and as an aside RG III has officially been advanced to the position of Bishop as opf yesterday.

  6. Censored bybvbl
    December 4th, 2012 at 10:25 | #9

    Ha ha. I’m an atheist when it comes to the high church of football. To me, sports are to be played, not watched from a couch. (Although the communion of snacks is appealing.)

    Faux News is the National Enquirer for old folks. It probably gives them their needed aerobic exercise by getting them to hyperventilate over one issue after another.

  7. punchak
    December 4th, 2012 at 10:42 | #10

    Not a lot of suicides are committed with knives, I don’t think.

    Why can’t we all agree on the fact, that a 3 month old baby would still have parents, had her father not been in possession of a fire arm, whether he had permit or not.

    To me, it’s as simple as that!

    • December 4th, 2012 at 11:50 | #11

      I have always thought guns gave some people a false sense of security. At least with a knife, you know you are going to have to get your hands dirty.

  8. Censored bybvbl
    December 4th, 2012 at 10:47 | #12


    Every week, if not daily, we can read about some man (usually) killing his wife, child, girlfriend, or co-worker with a gun. These people are not defending their homes or hunting for food or recreation.

  9. blue
    December 4th, 2012 at 12:02 | #13

    It sounds a lot more like an interview for a job with MSLSD than any serious commentary. That guns cause crime is a liberal article of faith. There is no data to support that and there is a large body of work pointing to the fact that the presence of guns reduces crime. You might as well confiscate pencils to reduce hate crime or amputate mens fists to prevent spousal abuse. Blaming the tool of choice or opprtunity is stupid. She was shot 9 times. That was a rage that would have otherwise transferred into stabbings or punches. I noted one article that said that 50 percent of burgleries are committed in Britian in the home and while the residents are at home. In the US, its less than 13 percent – mostly because the guns are largely kept in the homes and its a much higher risk effort. Would be in my house.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 12:51 | #14

      No one is really debating the merit of what he said. We are speaking of his right to say it. Apparently is you disagree with the gun cronies you shouldn’t have first amendment rights from what I have picked up on.

      I had to laugh at MSLSD. What on earth do you think of Fox News? Is that Faux Kool Aid? bwaaahahahahahaha

  10. punchak
    December 4th, 2012 at 12:21 | #15

    In this particular case, the gun was the cause of a crime. The crime was MURDER!
    The gun was NOT used in self defense, was it? It was used to kill a human being, a mother, who most likely did not put up, or was given a chance to put up, a fight against the shooter.

    FYI / I am NOT blaming the gun. I’m blaming the person who used the gun.
    For pete’s sake, don’t you get it?

  11. blue
    December 4th, 2012 at 13:16 | #16

    The idea that these people would still be alive if a gun was not present is – in this case – not supported by the facts. The rage exhibited here suggests that some other method would have replaced the gun– perhaps a football thrown by a professional at her head. My point was that there is no evidence that the presence of guns increase the probability of crime. In fact, the availability of guns, or the possibility of the presence of guns has been shown repeatedly to reduce crime.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:05 | #17

      I don’t agree or disagree Blue. He is dead and so his his gf. My point, and only point is really why can’t Costas say what he thinks and feels, regardless of whether we agree or not?

    • December 4th, 2012 at 18:35 | #18

      I actually haven’t said these people would still be alive. I haven’t thought about it, to be truthful. That’s a big what-if. My outrage was over the gun crew all jumping all over Costas and demanding that he be fired because he said something they didn’t like. He disagreed with their canon law. He didn’t insult anyone. He didn’t call anyone a slut. He just voiced his opinion about guns.

      The reaction from the gun crew spoke volumes and it wasn’t positive.

      As a gun owner myself, I have heard all the tired old arguments trotted out. It all depends on the circumstances, luck, skill of the gun owner. There are very few incidences that are alike and can be used as a model.

      Most of us are tired of the number of gun deaths each year. Most gun fanatics are

  12. BSinVA
    December 4th, 2012 at 13:27 | #19

    Why then are a majority of big city police chiefs in support of gun control? As an aside, your assertion that “the rage exhibited here suggests that some other method would have replaced the gun” is no more supported by facts then Moon’s assertions.

  13. Cato the Elder
    December 4th, 2012 at 13:28 | #20

    Moon-howler :
    The wimmins sure got left out in your first description of your church.

    That’s completely unfair, Moon. Like I said, wimmin folk are welcome among us as long as they can follow five simple commandments (we simplified it from 10).

    1.) Thou shall not let my beer glass run empty.

    2.) Thou shall not badger me about trash, grass-cutting, gutter-cleaning, changing the oil in your car, or any other chore until the divine rituals are complete.

    3.) Thou shall not make meaningless conversation. This includes, but is not limited to, how your day went, your mother’s most recent illness, the latest Pampered Chef event you attended or office gossip. Questions about the rituals are fine and encouraged. Commentary on the coloring of the vestments is not.

    4.) Thou shall not cheer for the other team.

    5.) Thou shall endeavor to ensure that all members of my congregation are properly nourished at all times. If we desire wings from BWW, then it will be so. If pizza is desired then that shall also be so. You will cheerfully execute this duty as it is an honor.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:06 | #21

      Good luck with finding a woman who will buy into all your Bull snort, CAto. :mrgreen:

  14. December 4th, 2012 at 13:43 | #22

    Costas QUOTED Whitlock and agreed with him. As for chastising him….Pro 2nd Amendment football fans and viewers will chastise him.

    Because they are politicians that support CONTROL. The same police chiefs want to be able to do all sorts of things that are against the Bill of Rights.

    The gun was NOT the cause of the murder. The killer was the cause of the murder.
    and suicide rates do not increase or decrease in relation to access to firearms, per CDC databases.

    He would have killed himself in another way.

    Gun control does not work.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:09 | #23

      You don’t know what he would have done, Cargo. That is pure speculation. Guns produce a certain psychology that might not have been present if he didn’t have a gun. That, at this point, is simply an unknown.

      I would have a whole lot more respect for gun enthusiasts if they just said they really like guns and didn’t try to cook the books on why they are good things to have.

      I don’t think guns are good or bad things. They are tools whose main pbject is to kill. Once we get past that, perhaps we can talk.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:12 | #24

      Gun control doesn’t work….well…it depends on your desired outcome. How about preventing gun running from Virginia to NYC. NY seemed to think our 13 guns a year/1 handgun per month rule really but back on their illegal weapons sales. That sounds like gun control to me.

      Preventing sales to known mentally ill patients seems like it prevents nuts from waving around guns. isn’t that gun control?

      Not selling to children? That’s gun control in my book.

      You don’t like gun control. Lets me honest. Does it work? It will never work totally. It cuts back on illicite gun usel.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:14 | #25

      more Cargo–most police chiefs are not politicians. Most support gun control. They don’t want every yahoo in the world who fancies himself a good shot out there hot dogging. That’s pretty much what happened with what’s his name….it escapes me at the moment. Guy with the broken schnozzle.

  15. blue
    December 4th, 2012 at 13:58 | #26


    Well, if you empty a clip into somebody you are really out of control. Zimmerman only fired once (pretty sure) and judging from the official pictures released just today – that would not have been my reaction. As to police chiefs, that is another long discussion which IMHO has to do with pride in their abilities to control crime, concern for their officers (ask any officer what is the most dangerous and they will tell you domestics calls), problems in securing guns so that they don’t end up stolen and used in crimes, and the problems of urban crime and the total disregard for human life that we too often see — among others. If you could really eliminate guns from this country, I suppose banning them could give them (the government overall and the police particularly) the edge – which is, I guess the British argument- but really only among otherwise law abiding citizenhs most often in a domestic dispute

    • December 4th, 2012 at 16:19 | #27

      I don’t want to ban guns. I want rules and laws that make for a safer society. They might not be the same in Nevada as here.

  16. punchak
    December 4th, 2012 at 14:35 | #28

    Yeah, perhaps he would have fixed up some ropes at the stadium, (in front of the persons who were there,) and hung himself (while they, of course, were watching).

    That’s another way to kill oneself. Guns are great facilitators for suicide. I know – my brother-in=law did it. My daughter’s father-in-law did it. So don’t give me no jittyjive about how access to firearms do not increase or decrease suicide. It’s a fact and the CDC can keep its database however it pleases.

  17. BSinVA
    December 4th, 2012 at 15:50 | #30

    @ Cargo. Every so often you come up with reasoned and sound counterpoints. Your explanation of why Chiefs of Police support gun control really missed the mark. I’ll give you another chance to try to explain their positions. Good luck.

  18. middleman
    December 4th, 2012 at 16:27 | #31

    What I want to know is: what does Bob Costas know about Benghazi, and when did he know it? I think John McCain needs to get to the bottom of this scandal and see how it ties into President Obama!!

  19. BSinVA
    December 4th, 2012 at 16:40 | #32

    And Kim Kardashian too !

  20. Starryflights
    December 4th, 2012 at 17:19 | #33

    Experts: Reducing Suicides Means Gun Restrictions
    Dec 04, 2012
    Stars and Stripes | by Nancy Montgomery

    About two years ago, Chiarelli read a medical journal article sent to the Pentagon’s upper echelons by Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The article described how voluntary means restriction in a group of people with an extremely high suicide risk had reduced the suicide rate — to zero.

    Chiarelli wanted to try it.

    “Quite frankly, all I was trying to get done was the ability of our folks to ask the (potentially suicidal) person about his weapons and make a recommendation that they would separate themselves from the weapon — turn it in, give it to a friend — until the suicidal feelings passed.”
    But it wasn’t possible.

    “I was told by my lawyers that even that would cause issues,” Chiarelli said. “I was told there would be huge problems with the NRA.”

    Commanders typically disable or take the firearms of deployed troops identified as potentially suicidal, but they do not have that authority with private firearms kept off base.

    Last year, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied Republican legislators to include in the annual defense authorization bill a measure barring commanders from collecting information about troops’ personal weapons. The law was widely interpreted to mean that commanders could not ask about the weapons or suggest they be stored elsewhere. The NRA said it was defending Second Amendment rights.

    “I think it’s ridiculous,” Chiarelli said. “Nobody was infringing on anybody’s Second Amendment rights. We weren’t going to go out to their house and confiscate weapons.”
    Last week, Chiarelli was joined by more than a dozen senior retired generals and admirals who sent a letter to Congress to amend the law they said “dangerously interferes” with the ability of commanders to help troops, according to The Washington Post. “The law is directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives,” the letter said.


    Bob Costas was correct. The easy availability of handguns is detrimental to our society, including the appalling suicide rates of our young military veterans. The time for national gun control is long overdue.

  21. Rick Bentley
    December 4th, 2012 at 17:21 | #34

    middleman is onto something. I would also like to know where this fits into the war on Christmas nthat the “SP”s are waging. And whether the White House is attempting to erode gun rights so as to enable Romney’s “47%” to demand larger gifts through force.

  22. Rick Bentley
    December 4th, 2012 at 17:21 | #35

    I was for the ban on assault weapons. Gun control to the point of banning single-fire weapons, no.

  23. Rick Bentley
    December 4th, 2012 at 17:23 | #36

    The Va Tech shooting was a perfect demonstration of why we shouldn’t ban guns or ban concealed weapons. One guy with a gun strolled around killing at will, and everyone else was powerless.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 18:38 | #37

      There is far too much alcohol on that campus to have students armed. I grew up in a college town. Far too many college kids are too emotional and too immature for that responsibility. Everyone? of course not.

  24. Starryflights
    December 4th, 2012 at 17:32 | #38

    And what about our young veterans who are blowing their heads off at the rate of over one a day? To hell with them? Even military leaders believe action is needed, but the damn gun lobby keeps getting in the way.

    @Rick Bentley

    • December 4th, 2012 at 18:36 | #39

      Military leaders want some gun control in that case, Starry. I read the same thing I think.

  25. December 4th, 2012 at 19:48 | #40

    Gun control is about control. The military is about control.
    Suicidal people will commit suicide regardless of access to a firearm. CDC statistics have shown that repeatedly.
    Gun control advocates want those vets that seek help to have their 2nd Amendment rights restricted without adjudication in a court.
    Base commanders have the power to restrict weapons off base…it happened in Alaska. If a persons is suicidal enough that their commander can judge that he/she is a danger, then all he has to do is order said military member to a psych eval and order them into a hospital or into quarters on base for observation. Problem solved in getting him away from his guns and all within the existing powers of the military, WITHOUT setting a legal precedent that can be used to restrict arms.

  26. Censored bybvbl
    December 4th, 2012 at 20:21 | #42

    Guns offer a cowardly way of killing someone.The murderer doesn’t have to wrestle with his victim or stab him/her repeatedly. He can sit in a car or shoot from a distance. He can shoot from across a room or across a field. He doesn’t have to man up (yeah, it’s usually a guy).

  27. December 4th, 2012 at 20:37 | #43

    Please tell a 5″ tall, 110 lb woman being attacked by a 250 lb man that she’s cowardly.
    Or the person crippled by disease or accident.

    Or…hey…I’m out of shape, 50 years old, and haven’t had a fight since grade school. Now, someone breaks into my home or attacks/mugs me, I’m supposed to wrestle them?

    Or go read some of this woman’s background and blog and call her a coward.

    Murderers are ALWAYS cowardly, no matter the type of weapon. They have the surprise and the advantage, usually an unarmed victim.
    Get real.

  28. Censored bybvbl
    December 4th, 2012 at 20:52 | #44


    Your examples are not the rule.

  29. kelly_3406
    December 4th, 2012 at 21:10 | #45


    Military leaders have not advocated gun control as a way to prevent suicides. Having taken “suicide training”, I can tell you that guns are not even mentioned.

  30. December 4th, 2012 at 21:20 | #46

    @Censored bybvbl
    Actually, self defense with a gun is the rule. There are way more uses of a gun for self defense than for crime. Even the gun control groups have acknowledged that. Estimates at the LOW end place over 200,000 defense uses per year.
    And actually your statement makes no sense because it is the rule…for me. I can’t fight my way out of a paper bag. That’s why guns were invented.

    But, let’s take your idea and run with it. Please, tell me what a 5 ft tall woman…say 75 years old, can do against a criminal that does a home invasion. Tell me of another equalizer. Because its not the rule, whatever that may mean….she’s to be left defenseless? Just because you may not have needed a firearm for defense does not mean others don’t.

    • December 4th, 2012 at 23:15 | #47

      Bwaaahahahahahaha….Cargo…stop. I just sputtered snapple tea on the screen. re: fighting your way out of a wet paper bag.

      Thank you for making my evening.

  31. Censored bybvbl
    December 4th, 2012 at 21:37 | #48


    I can think of a few instances (if that many) in PWC where a homeowner has fired a gun in self defense in the past year but the newspaper has many instances each month where guns are used in robberies or shootings. I can’t think of single friend of mine who has so much as had to take a gun from the rack, drawer, or glovebox for any reason whatsoever.

  32. December 4th, 2012 at 21:44 | #49

    @Censored bybvbl
    And thank God for that. Most defensive uses don’t involve shots fired.

  33. December 4th, 2012 at 21:49 | #50

    Hit submit by accident

    I can think of at least 4 friends, besides myself, that have used a gun as self defense. Said gun, in my case, kept some people honest, late at night. Never left my pocket where it was visible.

  34. December 4th, 2012 at 23:19 | #51

    No one has even addressed the question of the post…..why are people trying to limit his speech. Isn’t he entitled to his opinion?

    He is on all the cable channels tonight…I am just not listening. Other things going on.

  35. December 5th, 2012 at 00:08 | #52

    I’m sorry. I thought that I said that earlier.
    He is entitled to his opinion. Words have consequences. People are turning off the the TV or his show and letting his bosses know. Some have asked for him to be fired. I think that’s too much. They are NOT asking the government to stop him from speaking. He can state whatever he wants.

    Just like Hank Williams, Jr. lost his job because people didn’t like what he said, even though he was not representing the network at the time. Or Rush Limbaugh was asked to leave NFL because they didn’t like his politics AND he said something that upset the reporters. Or the demands that Ted Nugent be forced to step down from the NRA.

    Words can have consequences. Now Costas is saying that he broke his own rule. Never talk about nuanced subjects when all you have is 90 seconds. Oops. He hasn’t changed his mind…and hasn’t said that he was wrong, mind you…so opinions about his opinion are being expressed.

    Welcome to the 2nd Amendment battles, Mr. Costas. And you thought the NFL was rough…..

    • December 5th, 2012 at 04:16 | #53

      What you reallly mean is no, he isn’t entitled to his opinion. “Letting his bosses know” pretty much says it all. Pleadse, dont compare what he said to what Hank Williams Jr said. Nugent was very offensive. He didn’t just give his opinion about gun control. He insulted the President of the United States. Surely you see the difference? I don’t remember what Rush said. He is offensive with every word….

      I doubt that anyone but gun people begged for Nugent to be fired. I liked him right where he was.

      Cargo, why can’t people like gun control? He was polite. He expressed his opinion. He insulted no one. Now I see the gun folks as bullies.

      I plan on being much more vocal from here on out. I will consider it standing up to bullies.

  36. Cato the Elder
    December 5th, 2012 at 05:28 | #54


    Some years back, Rush was on ESPN, which always struck me as odd, not to mention irritating. If I want to listen to Rush (and sometimes I do) I know where to find him. What I do NOT want to see is his ample mug invading Sports Center. We go to those channels to get away from BS political commentary, not to have it creep in under the door like so many cockroaches. ESPN was right to bounce him, just like NBC Sports would be right to bounce Costas here. Sports channels are like federal wetlands – it’s the last place that we animals can go to escape. Save our habitat.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 08:13 | #55

      What exactly did Rush say? I remember he was not flattering about Donovan McNabb’s talent but was there something else? I am not sure he should have been fired for just the McNabb remark. Probably not the smartest thing to say but it wasn’t fire-worthy.

      There are no uninvaded wetlands. Adjust.

  37. December 5th, 2012 at 07:44 | #56

    He is entitled to his opinion. Other people are entitled to object to it.

    Costas was very polite. He also advocated gun control, which is a political position to restrict the rights of people. So, they took offense and exercised THEIR rights to express their displeasure. Just because you agree with him does not mean that he gets a free pass. I didn’t have a problem when the other people lost their jobs. That’s show biz. Their words offended enough people or the network bosses and they were let go. OR their supporters outnumbered the complainants, as in ol’ Nuge’s case, and he was supported.

    Why can’t people like gun control? Because it restricts rights. It doesn’t work. It gives too much power to the government. There is no definition for “reasonable.” For every person like you that wants “reasonable” restrictions (whatever that means) there are persons that want to completely ban guns from law abiding people.

    @Cato the Elder
    Rush was not booted for politics. He was booted for stating that the sports reporters were giving McNab a pass on the quality of his playing. Which was true. Truth hurts. But, hey…that’s show biz.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 08:32 | #57

      I wish you gun folks had the same respect for those of us who oppose restrictions on reproductive rights.

      I am actually not believing what I am reading. You and the gun gang want people fired who don’t agree with them? That’s horrible.
      Nugent and Williams both made really ugly remarks about the President if I recall. That is a huge difference for just expressing an opinion about gun control.

      I don’t think Rush should have been fired about his remarks. I hate Rush. But I will defend his right to say what he said. He doesn’t get a pass. Why did Costas’ words offend anyone? You might not agree but offend? He said nothing ofensive.

      I have never talked to a single person who wants to ban all guns. That is your imagination. Most people other than the gun gang want some restrictions on guns. That encludes many gun enthusiasts.

      After hearing this one, that people need to be chastised for expressing their thoughts on gun control, I am even more more concerned. So when do you all start shooting those of us who don’t agree with you? You are more than willing to take away someone’s employment.

  38. December 5th, 2012 at 08:05 | #58

    Costas “explains” what happened. Said he made a mistake. And then double-downs on opining that Americans should not have common firearms.


    Perhaps he just needs to be better educated on firearms and the 2nd Amendment. He seems to be speaking from ignorance rather than malice.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 08:39 | #59

      Oh bull snort. Put the shovel away. You are just sounding more and more like some sort of nut burger who doesn’t allow people their own political opinions.

      He said he made a mistake–not for thinking what he thought but for trying to express his opinion in such a time restraint.

      He had every right to say what he said and to quote Whitlock. Whitlock had every right to his opinions also. i would say that he probably sees more gun destruction than the average bear. Surely you don’t think ‘gun ownership’ has been a good thing for inner city inhabitants?

  39. BSinVA
    December 5th, 2012 at 08:07 | #60

    @ Cargo – I take it that you are not in favor of the government controlling guns because that gives “them” too much power. How about stop signs ? How about the requirement that you have your address posted on or near your house? How about the requirement that you be tested for competence before driving an automobile? How about the laws that require restaurants to have health inspections? How about required safety inspections for cars? How about State police stopping trucks for mandatory safety inspections? How about the VOSHA required open trench shoring requirements? How about the military’s rules for wearing safety glasses when wiring bomb fuses? I hope you do understand that each of these infringements on our Constitutional rights is for our own physical and economic well being. What are your positions on these encroachments on our fundamental liberties?

  40. blue
    December 5th, 2012 at 08:23 | #61


    Starry, its not fair to have two handles on this site.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 08:33 | #62

      Starry doesn’t have but one handle here. Same with BS. Do you have more than one, Blue? I would allow it, you know.

  41. Censored bybvbl
    December 5th, 2012 at 09:07 | #63


    Bwahahaa! Don’t give up your day job!

  42. Rick Bentley
    December 5th, 2012 at 10:30 | #64

    “What exactly did Rush say? I remember he was not flattering about Donovan McNabb’s talent but was there something else?”

    He said McNabb wasn’t a particularly great quarterback, but that he got a lot of hype from fans and from coaches because everyone wanted to see a black quarterback do well. In retrospect, I see a grain – just a grain – of truth in this. McNabb was indeed hyped beyond what he really was. Probably his color was a factor.

    But generally football fans, coaches, and commentators are fairly color-blind. Nobody appreciated Limbaugh bringing his whole spiel about affirmative action into their Sunday pregame show.

  43. Rick Bentley
    December 5th, 2012 at 10:41 | #65

    On the narrow subject of McNabb, he was/is a big f***ing baby who tries to use race to his advantage, mostly behind the scenes speaking to reporters, instead of expecting to be treated on his merits. He had commentators whining for years about how if he played in a city other than Philadelphia he would have been embraced more. Which is crap. The good folks in Philadelphia put up with watching this guy being stupid (i.e. not knowing tie games existed) and not always trying to win (the infamous relaxed strolls during two-minute drills) rather than to look cool. When he came here the general mood there was “Now you guys will see what we’ve been talking about”. And we did.

    McNabb actually is kind of a poster child for black entitlement. He whined behind the scenes like an immature child, while simultaneously trying to project an air of nobility/dignity/strength. But, when it’s all said and done, he’s judged on his merits. He was exposed by his stays in Washington (as a baby and as someone more concerned with image than winning) and in Minnesota (where he threw a fit, gave up on his team, and asked them to release him mid-season – which they did – thinking he was still a valued commodity). His lack of character is evident; he won’t be in the Hall of Fame.

  44. December 5th, 2012 at 11:54 | #66

    I am still concerned that the 3G folks think it is perfectly ok to have someone fired just because they believe that there should be some gun control.

    This really puts them in a very bad light. I just see the 3G’s as bullies now. Funny, no one will talk about it other than Cargo who just dug a deep hole with his own shovel.

    I would never demand that someone be fired simply because they weren’t pro choice. I might if they advocated shooting up the supreme court or an abortion provider but not for having beliefs that weren’t pro choice. People are entitled to their own beliefs.

    I have seen a political candidate fired from his job for being pro choice. He was also kicked out of the Knights of Columbus. This is simply for having an opinion….that the govt. shouldn’t decide deeply personal reproductive matters. UFB.

  45. December 5th, 2012 at 12:15 | #67

    I didn’t say that he said that what he said was a mistake. That’s why I posted the link. But at the article, he reiterates his stance against guns. That’s all.

    They do have a right to say it. I, and others, have the right to disagree. Notice, I have not stated that he nor Whitlock should lose their jobs.

    And no, guns in the hands of CRIMINALS instead of law abiding folk in the inner city has not been good for black people. Notice…most inner city areas are in gun controlled areas, like Chicago, Baltimore, New York, DC……

    Really, those are encroachments on our liberties? Driving is considered to be a privilege. Stop signs are safety equipment. The requirement to have your address posted is an encroachment….how so? Also, some residences outside of city areas DO NOT have addresses posted, I know…I had to find them for the census.
    All of the things things are not an enumerated right, acknowledged by the Constitution, that existed prior to the Constitution.

    @Rick Bentley
    Nope…that was it. He stated that McNabb was being overrated by the reporters. He basically said what you just did. And the funny thing is that McNabb didn’t care. He said that the publicity was great. He wanted Rush to stay.

    I dug a deep hole? Did I call for is ouster? No. I said that no one is infringing on his 1st Amendment rights. Show biz is all public relations and if you anger enough viewers you lose your job. He angered some viewers. That is not infringement. Asking the government to punish him IS infringement. That hasn’t happened.
    Personally, I think that best thing to do is take him shooting and educate him.

    No one else is probably talking about it because Marin and I are the 2nd Am. people here and he’s not around, apparently.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 13:10 | #68

      He self deported before the election like pokie did. I am innocent.

      You shoveled 3G types.

      Let me say I would fire Rush from the human race if I could. I know that isn’t possible so back to reality. I don’t hink he should have been fired over his words. He was articulate, wasn’t sputtering and slobbering like he does now, and made a case for his opinion. Was it smart to say, probably not. But he was expressing his opinion about a player. Now for me to defend Limbaugh…..

      I don’t know why anyone could call for Costas’ ouster. He is perfectly within his rights to feel the way he does. People who disagree can…well disagree.

      Now if he had gone on shouting and threatening people…whole different story. Same with insulting anyone.

  46. BSinVA
    December 5th, 2012 at 13:39 | #69

    I think possessing a gun is a privilege unless you are in a government sponsored military or police unit. I currently defend gun ownership for responsible, trained, and law abiding private citizens. I do not condone or defend gun ownership by criminals, the mentally ill, those with a history of violence, children and youth, alcoholics, or the untrained. If you agree but believe your Constitution provides the right of gun ownership for the insane, the criminals, etc., you and I need to sponsor an amendment to change the Constitution.

    If those exclusions make sense, then the only way to monitor and enforce them is to register guns.

  47. Steve Peterson
    December 5th, 2012 at 13:42 | #70

    Free speech?

    “We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)


    I know that this is somewhat apples v.s. oranges but some D’s are (and have been) asking for restrictions on “free speech”. Just sayin

  48. December 5th, 2012 at 14:12 | #71

    You were almost perfect. Except for calling it a privilege.

    What would you consider the civilian that can outshoot the standard law enforcement officer, have a better safety record in general, educates the populace on gun safety?

    Also, how would registering law abiding guns keep criminals from getting them? All it does is provide a way to control private, law abiding citizens.

  49. BSinVA
    December 5th, 2012 at 14:28 | #72

    If that person is sane, law abiding, non-violent, over 18, I would consider him eligible to possess a firearm. By the way, criminals were once law abiding and law abiding persons can become criminals (in the blink of an eye). Registering weapons gives the public a chance of detecting when someone has violated his or her privilege of gun possession. Now that I think of it, I believe all firearms ought to be owned by the people and not individuals. If you meet the public’s criteria for possession, then you may possess their firearms. If you cannot, or will not comply, then you get to cower on your closet with a baseball bat.

    What about our Constitutional amendment to clear all this up?

  50. BSinVA
    December 5th, 2012 at 14:30 | #73

    The 2nd amendment give the right to bear arms to the people and does not mention individual rights.

  51. December 5th, 2012 at 15:00 | #74

    All of the rights in the Bill of Rights applies to the individual. The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT to the people. The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd, especially restricts the power of the government to restrict an existing right.

    The People are the individuals, as opposed to the states or the federal gov’t. The entire point to to keep firearms outside the control of government. Registering weapons does nothing. Crooks don’t register weapons. Your definitions for owning a handgun is exactly what a law-abiding person is defined as. CCW’s have a lower crime rate than law enforcement, Mayor Against Illegal Guns, and the general population.

    But if you want to introduce an amendment repealing the 2nd, go ahead. That’s how it should be done. Be aware that the ratification of the Bill of Rights was necessary for the states to join the union. Many states refused until it was added. If its gone, does that change the nature of the contract.

    The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution. No government should have the power to disarm the populace. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

  52. December 5th, 2012 at 19:13 | #76

    The militia is made up of individuals.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 21:18 | #77

      So is the army. So is the police force. So is a classroom. All groups of people are made up of individuals. What is your point?

  53. December 5th, 2012 at 19:19 | #78

    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.

    So, basically, this says that for the security of a free state… for the state to remain free, armed citizens, organized and well trained, and cognizant of their rights and responsibilities, are necessary.

    Of course, the authorities stopped utilizing militias and deemed them unecessary after federalizing said militias…. while not actually removing the need for them or outlawing them. The use of militia to enforce gov’t edict is a double edged sword, if said gov’t is acting tyrannical.

    While the various gov’t do not use a militia anymore, that does not allow them to violate my right or need to be armed.

    • December 5th, 2012 at 21:22 | #79

      So basically it says what it SAYS, not what you want =it to say.

      It is an ambiguous amendment.

      it always has been. The courts will nudge it this way and that….

  54. Cato the Elder
    December 5th, 2012 at 21:15 | #80

    Rick Bentley :
    “What exactly did Rush say? I remember he was not flattering about Donovan McNabb’s talent but was there something else?”
    He said McNabb wasn’t a particularly great quarterback, but that he got a lot of hype from fans and from coaches because everyone wanted to see a black quarterback do well. In retrospect, I see a grain – just a grain – of truth in this. McNabb was indeed hyped beyond what he really was. Probably his color was a factor.
    But generally football fans, coaches, and commentators are fairly color-blind. Nobody appreciated Limbaugh bringing his whole spiel about affirmative action into their Sunday pregame show.

    Bingo, winner winner chicken dinner. You’re hired to comment on the game. If a player kind of sucks, then say that and tell us why you think so from a perspective of their abilities or lack thereof. If you can’t do that without a political bias, then don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

  55. Cato the Elder
    December 5th, 2012 at 21:17 | #81

    Moon-howler :
    A militia of one? Doesn’t sound very powerful.

    Remember the DC sniper? That dude was just an average shot with a little kid spotting for him, and remember the hell he caused?

    • December 5th, 2012 at 21:24 | #82

      I would say that was a militia of 2. he did wreak some havoc, didn’t he?

  56. Cato the Elder
    December 5th, 2012 at 21:20 | #83

    ” I can’t think of single friend of mine who has so much as had to take a gun from the rack, drawer, or glovebox for any reason whatsoever.”

    Geez. They never go to the range? :mrgreen:

  57. punchak
    December 5th, 2012 at 23:30 | #84

    Costas was on the Bill O’Reilly show tonight. He was good. Got nasty old Bill to shut up and listen for several minutes. Costas was serious, he was convincing and he shut Bill upp for several minutes. Now, that’s quite something.
    Oh, joy!

  58. Censored bybvbl
    December 6th, 2012 at 08:57 | #85

    @Cato the Elder

    Not any more . The old sharpshooter in the group no longer has such sharp vision.

Comments are closed.