Bob Costas

[11cracker11]

Because no one wants a paranoid, anti-social, misfit in a tin foil hat, who tries to convince people on a college football board that they should distrust the government, to own an assault weapon?

Keep in mind that the "governments" that our founding fathers feared were based on birthright, not popular elections. They rejected the notion that merely being born into the proper family was mandate for you to be a ruler. I would venture to say that their views on a popularly elected government would likely be less harsh.

So it is OK for Bob Costas to use halftime of a football game to espouse his views on gun control/culture but it is not OK for me to express my views on guns and our culture in the Bob Costas thread(which is a discussion about guns and our culture)? If I spoke about this in the Diaco NOT going to BC thread you might have a point, but you are just a little bitch who doesn't like my opinion.

Many of our founders would be viewed today as paranoid, anti-social and misfits. That is what made them great, plus they actually had balls something our generation and you specifically know nothing about. You are a big government pussy that thinks the founders would be happy with a "popular elected" government that controls the purse strings and doles out goodies in return for votes. The founders of our country would have revolted over a personal income tax yet we just hand over up to 50% of what we make to the government and have people like you say "move along, nothing to see here, they were elected, fair and square".

 

[phork]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Why should the government have more powerful weapons than the people they supposedly work for? I understand many people on this board like being dominated by politicians and police officers who are obviously smarter and better at making decisions than they are. It is unfortunate how many sheep and lemmings we have been left with in this once great country. Why do the cops need AK-47's? Why do most cops have high and tight hair like they're dealing with insurgents in Afghanistan? Once again, if a police officer is allowed to have a weapon then any law abiding, qualified American citizen with the financial resources should be allowed to own that same weapon. I guess I believe in freedom and many on this board believe in servitude.

Freedom is a matter of perspective my friend. Regardless of what weapon you own, the government owns tanks & blackhawk choppers, should private citizens be allowed to have these as well? I don't know too many police depts that actively deploy AK47s, so not sure where you get this from. There is nothing that you can say that will alter my thought process in regards to a private citizen owning an AK47 or their ilk.

Trust me when I say that if the government decided to usurp power in the country, they wouldn't be too concerned with a "Red Dawn" scenario with bands of "Wolverines" dispersed throughout the country. Paranoid tin foil hat guy would be easier to snuff out quietly than in a barrage of gun fire.

Now saying that, I am not against guns, or your right to have them. I know tons of people who are avid hunters and recreational/professional shooters. I've always want to head to the range and check out my mad Doom skills, but lets keep it within reason.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So it is OK for Bob Costas to use halftime of a football game to espouse his views on gun control/culture but it is not OK for me to express my views on guns and our culture in the Bob Costas thread(which is a discussion about guns and our culture)? If I spoke about this in the Diaco NOT going to BC thread you might have a point, but you are just a little bitch who doesn't like my opinion.

Many of our founders would be viewed today as paranoid, anti-social and misfits. That is what made them great, plus they actually had balls something our generation and you specifically know nothing about. You are a big government pussy that thinks the founders would be happy with a "popular elected" government that controls the purse strings and doles out goodies in return for votes. The founders of our country would have revolted over a personal income tax yet we just hand over up to 50% of what we make to the government and have people like you say "move along, nothing to see here, they were elected, fair and square".

Point 1: You are talking about it. Some people are disagreeing. Who told you that you couldn't post?

Point 2: A couple of great moments here. Don't like the response, call person a name. Very nice.

You likely have some points. It's a discussion worth having. But, you can't expect a real discussion when you just curse at people and call them names.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Guys, I know this is a hot topic, I knew that when I posted the video, but lets not let our convictions take over our ability to be civil.

 

[NYMIKE6]

It's estimated that 500,000 people die a year from Medical Mistakes. 300,000 die from Cancer. 35,000 die from automobile accidents.

20,000 die by firearms. half of those deaths are either accidental or justifiable homicide.

Look at it any way you want. All i know is that the bad will always find a way to get their hands on guns, I just want a fighting chance.

 

[irishpat183]

My biggest issue is private citizens owning crap like AK47s. Is there a need for someone to own one of these guns?

Yes. because maybe I enjoy shooting it. I'm trained and use it responsibly


How many AK-47 deaths have there been in the US this year?? Or is it just more of a "preventive" legislation that you're after?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

It's estimated that 500,000 people die a year from Medical Mistakes. 300,000 die from Cancer. 35,000 die from automobile accidents.

20,000 die by firearms. half of those deaths are either accidental or justifiable homicide.

Look at it any way you want. All i know is that the bad will always find a way to get their hands on guns, I just want a fighting chance.

If less than 10,000 people die by firearm, what are the chances that you will even be in that situation?

Does anyone honestly believe that they are going to survive going against a tyrannical U.S gov't with assault weapons in the 21st century...

Let citizens have assault weapons because it won't make a difference in a doomsday scenario.

 

[NYMIKE6]

If less than 10,000 people die by firearm, what are the chances that you will even be in that situation?

Great perspective... Heres the truth to this, 90% of the time people that are "murdered" actually put themselves in the situation from poor judgement. Random acts of violence are very rare.

So stay away from people that are into illegal activities, and the your chances of getting shot drop drastically.

 

[DSully1995]

It's estimated that 500,000 people die a year from Medical Mistakes. 300,000 die from Cancer. 35,000 die from automobile accidents.

20,000 die by firearms. half of those deaths are either accidental or justifiable homicide.

Look at it any way you want. All i know is that the bad will always find a way to get their hands on guns, I just want a fighting chance.

Those numbers really put it in perspective but another thing is, just like the joker said , millions of deaths from starvation / war are shrugged off because its all part of the plan, but 2 people dieing causes national news

 

[irishpat183]

It's estimated that 500,000 people die a year from Medical Mistakes. 300,000 die from Cancer. 35,000 die from automobile accidents.

20,000 die by firearms. half of those deaths are either accidental or justifiable homicide.

Look at it any way you want. All i know is that the bad will always find a way to get their hands on guns, I just want a fighting chance.

Exactly.

And the way the media explodes on these types of cases (Blecher, Movie theater shooting) makes it seem like it's the norm. It's not.

 

[irishpat183]

If less than 10,000 people die by firearm, what are the chances that you will even be in that situation?

Does anyone honestly believe that they are going to survive going against a tyrannical U.S gov't with assault weapons in the 21st century...

Let citizens have assault weapons because it won't make a difference in a doomsday scenario.

So lets just all lay down any hope we have and submit? Nice plan.

 

[DSully1995]

So lets just all lay down any hope we have and submit? Nice plan.

With the NDAA, fire your AK all you want, aint gonna stop drone missils from the government, if they wanted to

 

[NYMIKE6]

Exactly.

And the way the media explodes on these types of cases (Blecher, Movie theater shooting) makes it seem like it's the norm. It's not.

Just imagine is someone with a concealed weapons permit would've been carrying in that theater? My opinion, less people would've been shot.

Bottom line... Let's take a step... GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE!!!! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!

 

[irishpat183]

Guns are absolutely dangerous in the wrong hands....but so are a lot of things. Which is why I don't understand the need to create stricter gun laws.

You have to ask yourself...Who will the new law affect?

 

[irishpat183]

With the NDAA, fire your AK all you want, aint gonna stop drone missils from the government, if they wanted to

Understood. But better than just standing there throwing bats and knives at it.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

So lets just all lay down any hope we have and submit? Nice plan.

Laying down-standing up-sitting down... I don't know how big a difference it makes when a bomb is dropped on you.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

The fact is, there is a large proponent that would like to disarm this country. And no matter what your political view, it is a very serious and real agenda.

I give you the example of amendment S.A. 2575. This is an amendment to the Cyber Security Act bill of 2012. The bill was designed to enhance security measures for government and some non-government agencies in an attempt to protect our cyber security and intelligence measures from being breached.

The bill failed to pass because many businesses affected by it did not find the additional costs to do so viable. Regardless, the S.A. 2575 amendment was sponsored by Mrs. boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. schumer and Mrs. Feinstein.

You may be asking yourself 2 questions right now, why haven't I heard about this bill/amendment, and, what does it mean?
I'll answer both for everyone now.

You didn't hear about it because it was a back door amendment attempting to take away some very important firearm rights. This amendment was snuck into a cyber security act even though it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with cyber security.
This an an amendment directly targeted at vastly limiting your 2nd amendment rights.

Here is what the amendment says in a nutshell( and I encourage you to read it for yourself). No one will be allowed to purchase or transfer the sale of any firearm deemed "high capacity" of 10 rounds or more ammunition that can be fed into any semi-automatic firearm.

FVCKING REALLY!!!
That's 75% of the firearms I own!

Apparently the left now considers a standered .45 with a 14 round clip to be considered "high capacity".
What the fvck was an amendment like this doing in a cyber security act bill in the first place!?

For those of you who don't think the far left are trying to come for our firearms, you should really take a good hard look at what your party is really trying to do.

 

[irishpat183]

The fact is, there is a large proponent that would like to disarm this country. And no matter what your political view, it is a very serious and real agenda.

I give you the example of amendment S.A. 2575. This is an amendment to the Cyber Security Act bill of 2012. The bill was designed to enhance security measures for government and some non-government agencies in an attempt to protect our cyber security and intelligence measures from being breached.

The bill failed to pass because many businesses affected by it did not find the additional costs to do so viable. Regardless, the S.A. 2575 amendment was sponsored by Mrs. boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. schumer and Mrs. Feinstein.

You may be asking yourself 2 questions right now, why haven't I heard about this bill/amendment, and, what does it mean?
I'll answer both for everyone now.

You didn't hear about it because it was a back door amendment attempting to take away some very important firearm rights. This amendment was snuck into a cyber security act even though it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with cyber security.
This an an amendment directly targeted at vastly limiting your 2nd amendment rights.

Here is what the amendment says in a nutshell( and I encourage you to read it for yourself). No one will be allowed to purchase or transfer the sale of any firearm deemed "high capacity" of 10 rounds or more ammunition that can be fed into any semi-automatic firearm.

FVCKING REALLY!!!
That's 75% of the firearms I own!

Apparently the left now considers a standered .45 with a 14 round clip to be considered "high capacity".
What the fvck was an amendment like this doing in a cyber security act bill in the first place!?

For those of you who don't think the far left are trying to come for our firearms, you should really take a good hard look at what your party is really trying to do.

There goes my FNP .45 tact with a 15 round clip...

 

[FLDomer]

The fact is, there is a large proponent that would like to disarm this country. And no matter what your political view, it is a very serious and real agenda.

I give you the example of amendment S.A. 2575. This is an amendment to the Cyber Security Act bill of 2012. The bill was designed to enhance security measures for government and some non-government agencies in an attempt to protect our cyber security and intelligence measures from being breached.

The bill failed to pass because many businesses affected by it did not find the additional costs to do so viable. Regardless, the S.A. 2575 amendment was sponsored by Mrs. boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. schumer and Mrs. Feinstein.

You may be asking yourself 2 questions right now, why haven't I heard about this bill/amendment, and, what does it mean?
I'll answer both for everyone now.

You didn't hear about it because it was a back door amendment attempting to take away some very important firearm rights. This amendment was snuck into a cyber security act even though it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with cyber security.
This an an amendment directly targeted at vastly limiting your 2nd amendment rights.

Here is what the amendment says in a nutshell( and I encourage you to read it for yourself). No one will be allowed to purchase or transfer the sale of any firearm deemed "high capacity" of 10 rounds or more ammunition that can be fed into any semi-automatic firearm.

FVCKING REALLY!!!
That's 75% of the firearms I own!

Apparently the left now considers a standered .45 with a 14 round clip to be considered "high capacity".
What the fvck was an amendment like this doing in a cyber security act bill in the first place!?

For those of you who don't think the far left are trying to come for our firearms, you should really take a good hard look at what your party is really trying to do.

There goes my Ruger 10/22

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I feel you guys. There goes my Bersa .380, Glock .40 and .45

 

[phgreek]

The fact is, there is a large proponent that would like to disarm this country. And no matter what your political view, it is a very serious and real agenda.

I give you the example of amendment S.A. 2575. This is an amendment to the Cyber Security Act bill of 2012. The bill was designed to enhance security measures for government and some non-government agencies in an attempt to protect our cyber security and intelligence measures from being breached.

The bill failed to pass because many businesses affected by it did not find the additional costs to do so viable. Regardless, the S.A. 2575 amendment was sponsored by Mrs. boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. schumer and Mrs. Feinstein.

You may be asking yourself 2 questions right now, why haven't I heard about this bill/amendment, and, what does it mean?
I'll answer both for everyone now.

You didn't hear about it because it was a back door amendment attempting to take away some very important firearm rights. This amendment was snuck into a cyber security act even though it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with cyber security.
This an an amendment directly targeted at vastly limiting your 2nd amendment rights.

Here is what the amendment says in a nutshell( and I encourage you to read it for yourself). No one will be allowed to purchase or transfer the sale of any firearm deemed "high capacity" of 10 rounds or more ammunition that can be fed into any semi-automatic firearm.

FVCKING REALLY!!!
That's 75% of the firearms I own!

Apparently the left now considers a standered .45 with a 14 round clip to be considered "high capacity".
What the fvck was an amendment like this doing in a cyber security act bill in the first place!?

For those of you who don't think the far left are trying to come for our firearms, you should really take a good hard look at what your party is really trying to do.

I know they are...those you cite and their tactics are the most vile ...and I wish nothing but misery for each person...but here is my view. I don't recalibrate my own sense of proportion and logic to offset someone elses warped a$$. I fight them, and I keep my sanity.

I'm not particulalry wound up about ARs etc. I don't like that much fire power available to civilians, but its there. I do think laws are ill equiped to deal with weapons and munitions heretofore not seen by most people, and if we do not start to think in a way that is reasonable as judged by us, we, normal rational gun owners... when those next breed of weapons show up on the scene, we'll regret it. we'll lose credibility and ultimately ground if we throw away common sense in the face of idiots like those you cite. We play into the characature they create...and we lose.

just my opinion...just how I approach it...

 

[kmoose]

So it is OK for Bob Costas to use halftime of a football game to espouse his views on gun control/culture but it is not OK for me to express my views on guns and our culture in the Bob Costas thread(which is a discussion about guns and our culture)? If I spoke about this in the Diaco NOT going to BC thread you might have a point, but you are just a little bitch who doesn't like my opinion.

Many of our founders would be viewed today as paranoid, anti-social and misfits. That is what made them great, plus they actually had balls something our generation and you specifically know nothing about. You are a big government pussy that thinks the founders would be happy with a "popular elected" government that controls the purse strings and doles out goodies in return for votes. The founders of our country would have revolted over a personal income tax yet we just hand over up to 50% of what we make to the government and have people like you say "move along, nothing to see here, they were elected, fair and square".

I never said I was talking about you............ paranoid much?

 

[kmoose]

The fact is, there is a large proponent that would like to disarm this country. And no matter what your political view, it is a very serious and real agenda.

I give you the example of amendment S.A. 2575. This is an amendment to the Cyber Security Act bill of 2012. The bill was designed to enhance security measures for government and some non-government agencies in an attempt to protect our cyber security and intelligence measures from being breached.

The bill failed to pass because many businesses affected by it did not find the additional costs to do so viable. Regardless, the S.A. 2575 amendment was sponsored by Mrs. boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. schumer and Mrs. Feinstein.

You may be asking yourself 2 questions right now, why haven't I heard about this bill/amendment, and, what does it mean?
I'll answer both for everyone now.

You didn't hear about it because it was a back door amendment attempting to take away some very important firearm rights. This amendment was snuck into a cyber security act even though it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with cyber security.
This an an amendment directly targeted at vastly limiting your 2nd amendment rights.

Here is what the amendment says in a nutshell( and I encourage you to read it for yourself). No one will be allowed to purchase or transfer the sale of any firearm deemed "high capacity" of 10 rounds or more ammunition that can be fed into any semi-automatic firearm.

FVCKING REALLY!!!
That's 75% of the firearms I own!

Apparently the left now considers a standered .45 with a 14 round clip to be considered "high capacity".
What the fvck was an amendment like this doing in a cyber security act bill in the first place!?

For those of you who don't think the far left are trying to come for our firearms, you should really take a good hard look at what your party is really trying to do.

Look, I understand your point. There are a lot of whackos out there who would love nothing more than to get rid of every gun in the universe. But don't stoop to their level and take the equally whacko position that we should have absolutely no limits on firearms possession. I think that is what those who are talking about assault weapons bans are saying, is that they are ok with limited restrictions.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Look, I understand your point. There are a lot of whackos out there who would love nothing more than to get rid of every gun in the universe. But don't stoop to their level and take the equally whacko position that we should have absolutely no limits on firearms possession. I think that is what those who are talking about assault weapons bans are saying, is that they are ok with limited restrictions.

I'm probably in the minority of gun rights activists. I actually think a few stricter laws here and there would do us all good. I lived in Florida for 17 years and I was surprised to find out that there is no law for transfer of registration through 3rd party gun sales. I think that's ludicrous!
I feel that if you're purchasing a firearm through a dealer or private party, you should still have to adhere to the same criteria to own one.
By no means am I stooping to the whacko's level, but when the left is undeniably trying to take my basic household firearms that are used to protect my family, yes, I have a major problem with that.