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.
Unacceptable.
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.
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.
A militia of one? Doesn’t sound very powerful.
The militia is made up of individuals.
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?
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.
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….
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.
Remember the DC sniper? That dude was just an average shot with a little kid spotting for him, and remember the hell he caused?
I would say that was a militia of 2. he did wreak some havoc, didn’t he?
” 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?
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!
@Cato the Elder
Not any more . The old sharpshooter in the group no longer has such sharp vision.