27 votes

Bob Costas On Hand Guns During Half Time Show (Video)

So while watching the football game tonight, i was shocked to see Bob Costas use a football players suicide to spew anti gun rhetoric during the half time show. Anyone else catch this?

http://youtu.be/NjbUf4GZrMk

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

voted down

"a 100 years with guns never solved the car problem."
that statement has no relevance to anything , anything at all

people are murdered everyday by various means

guns are just tools , tools for protecting your life from being taken by others.

Agreed, not all people should have access to guns but who are you or any other Bureaucracy to say who should and should not have access to protecting their lives with lethal force.

"I do think we need to change our Culture which reveres and worships guns." ???

you should start this by boycotting/banning any and all movies that contain any amount of gun violence.

Without guns in our society there would be no such thing as a movie industry

"we will all ultimately remain defenseless."
take zen and shove it.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Guns are probably the most efficient self defense mechanism

"The pro-gun argument seems to be based on self-defense. But why is the certain fatality and murder by guns the only means of self-defense? Are there not other means of self-defense? How about Mace? a Home Security System?, Martial Arts training? etc."

A car is not the only means of transportation. How about a bicycle? A motorcycle? A skateboard? A bus? Walking or running?

Each person can choose what form of transportation is most efficient for them, based on their lifestyle.

Just like each person can choose what means of protection is most efficient for their lifestyle. Neither mace, martial arts training, nor a home security system could probably have protected anyone at the theater shooting in Aurora, Denver.

Sic Semper Tyrannus

the weapons of the

the weapons of the police/military can and is often times taken over by the resistance.

If you were standing in the same room with our founding fathers, they would have told you to get the hell out.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Forget rational arguments...

Forget rational arguments against this nitwit. We all understand that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect the right to hunt and shoot targets. Plain and simple, the 2nd Amendment is the PERIOD after the 1st Amendment. If you don't have the 2nd, you will never be secure in the 1st.

That said, let's talk about this from a different angle. How about the fact that this little man with his make up whose only value in life is that he has spent a lifetime accumulating useless knowledge of sports is now going to give me a lecture on something like gun control. I bet he's waking up to some negative feedback this morning but congratulating himself for being so brave to take a stand for what's right even if it is not the best career choice. Really brave, Bobby. You've really put your neck out there with NBC sports taking a controversial stand. I'm sure all of your elite friends in the media are going to look at you funny the next time you're bumping elbows at a socialite charity event. You are so admirable.

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

Cyril's picture

+1

Exactly right. Period.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

There is something really wrong with this country

Does Bob realize that premature death due to having played in the NFL is as certain as the sun rising in the east?
Does Bob realize he makes his living promoting the most violent sport on earth?
Does Bob realize that, being an NFL linebacker, one or two good hits to her head would have produced the same results?
Does Bob realize said linebacker did not get those concussions from shooting guns - he got them playing football?

Bob - football kills a lot of people and injurs countless kids. Work on banning that first.

That being said - I love the NFL - and am really pissed because the Packers play on Sunday night this week and now I am torn - do I watch or sit out in protest. Above all else he is an asshole for burdening me with this dilema.

tasmlab's picture

Ooh chills

You just gave the mental image of what damage an NFL inside linebacker could do to a woman just with his bare hands. Dude is trained to bring down the likes of Frank Gore with his arms. I'm sure he didn't need a gun.

Except to kill himself of course.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Let's ban spoons...

...because of the obesity epidemic.

That Wouldn't Work

People will find a way to eat (or overeat) with or without spoons. You can't change behavior that easily.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Lets just ban football

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/nfl-neurodegenerative-d...

Clearly this type of violence is not caused by a gun, it's the concussions that lead to neurodegenerative brain disorder. I wonder what Bob Costas would think about that?

Belcher had no history of concussions

We shouldn't be "banning" anything.

If you want to point the finger to explain off field violence, start with steroids, performance enhancers, and childhood environment.

Anti Football Hysteria

There is nothing wrong with football other than progressives hate it.

Progressives hate it because it is a very masculine, right of passage sport so they will do anything to get it banned and replaced with something that promotes docile, submissive, pussified men.

According to the Mayo clinic, injury rates for youth football are no higher than for other sports. Soccer actually has a higher rate of injury.

I was just being facetious, i don't want to ban football

I would like to ban "pussified" sports announcers who take a tragic occurrence like this and use it as a soap box to further a political agenda.

great point...

great point...

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

If Belcher's girlfriend had...

...*defended* herself with a gun against a knife-wielding Belcher, I wonder if Costas would have given a halftime rant in favor of the right to self-defense.

It's a good point but...

...it still misses the key point. The 2nd amendment isn't about protecting citizens from other citizens. It's about protecting citizens from government.

"Other citizens"...

...includes 'government'.

Let's ban automobiles too,

Let's ban automobiles too, since so many die each year. Then, we'll also need to ban alcohol....again. Then...can't have people texting and driving...so let's ban phones.

The only people who are ever in favor of gun bans are pansies.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Why ban phones?

Just ban text. That'll kill several birds with one stone.

he should be fired

Hank Williams JR was fired for speaking out against Obama, this is no different.

Send in your complaints

It's called freedom of speech.

It only pisses you off because he and others in the MSM have that freedom and you don't. You have freedom to mumble to your neighbors, friends and family but he has freedom to speak his mind to millions from his propaganda pulpit. Freedom of speech is a joke.

And I bet that everyone here who gripes about what he said will still support him the next time "their" team is playing on his station.

What a lost cause.

Wow! I didn't realize how many here support Bobs pulpit.

So you down voters agree that these people should be able to express their opinion at will from their special pulpit while you have no real freedom of speech at all. WOW! That's all I can say.

No wonder we are is such bad shape.

Yes

Would you prefer there be no pulpits or no opinions? That's all you're left with.

The self regulating system is fine. If the guy puts out a bunch of opinions that are risking or alienate viewers, he gets fired. End of story there.

Eric Hoffer

No!

So you prefer special privilege.

You agree that man made corporations should have more freedom of speech.
You agree that CEOs should have more freedom of speech and be able to meet with the governing bodies to form new legislation to their own gain while the best you can hope for is to leave a message with some voice mail.
You agree that special interests should have more freedom of speech by lobbying government for handouts while you haven't the time because you have to work and pay taxes for the government to give them.
You agree that news media should have a greater freedom of speech and report the news with whatever slant they see fit while you struggle to get truth by reading between the lines.
You agree that Bob Costas should have a greater freedom of speech by injecting his political opinions to millions who just wanted to watch a game and yet they have no way to rebut what he says.

You say "The self regulating system is fine. If the guy puts out a bunch of opinions that are risking or alienate viewers, he gets fired. End of story there."

Where do you see that the system is working fine? The only time I see anyone get fired is when they speak the truth or say something politically incorrect. Costas alienated a majority of Americans with his asinine comments but perhaps you are right and the viewers he was addressing agree with him. They are just a bunch of armchair warriors after all.

Sigh

You're being an idiot. Stop setting up straw men and telling me I agree with them.

First things first:

There is no right to freedom of the press WITHOUT A PRESS.

Would you like your speech to have the same impact that a sportscaster has? Awesome. START A SPORTS NETWORK. Heck, become a sportscaster if you want to take the lazy route. Quit whining that no one will give you the microphone that they built.

You're acting like everyone should for some reason be forced to listen to you. You know who listens to sportscasters? People who watch sports.

What you're proposing is utopian socialism. "Everyone gets 5 minutes on the radio today!"

Man made corporations have just as much freedom of speech as you have. You know what they have that you don't? An audience that listens to them. How do you propose to build that audience? By forcing people to listen to you at gunpoint? By holding the guy with the audience at gunpoint and making him say what you want?

I'm sorry, but that's not how freedom works.

So lets go down your sorry little list and bust it apart piece by piece.

You agree that man made corporations should have more freedom of speech. They don't, what they have is an audience that you don't have.

You agree that CEOs should have more freedom of speech and be able to meet with the governing bodies to form new legislation to their own gain while the best you can hope for is to leave a message with some voice mail. My lawyer just met with President Obama. He shared some concerns I have. What efforts have you made to meet with governing bodies? Why should they respect what you have to say? What impact do you have on the country? The rest of what you're saying doesn't have to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with government overreach, so I'll ignore it as it doesn't pertain.

You agree that special interests should have more freedom of speech by lobbying government for handouts while you haven't the time because you have to work and pay taxes for the government to give them. What you're describing isn't freedom of speech, it's bribery. Stick to the topic at hand please. You should be able to give congressmen a million bucks for all I care, as long as they're forced to be bound and vote by the constitution. Why do you think no one gave Dr. Paul any lobbying time?

You agree that news media should have a greater freedom of speech and report the news with whatever slant they see fit while you struggle to get truth by reading between the lines.

You don't like the news? Start your own broadcast. Start blogging. Start writing. You're not even on a national broadcast, and you're writing slanted garbage already. If you can't stay unbiased here and not toss around straw men, how do you expect anyone to believe you'd be unbiased on the national stage?

You agree that Bob Costas should have a greater freedom of speech by injecting his political opinions to millions who just wanted to watch a game and yet they have no way to rebut what he says.

The fallacy you're trying to propose is that because Bob Costas is heard by more people, that equals more freedom of speech. For instance, millions listen to Alex Jones, he obviously has more freedom of speech. This is incorrect. What you're talking about is REACH and AUDIENCE. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Just because no one wants to listen to your whining doesn't mean you have less freedom of speech.

Where do you see that the system is working fine? The only time I see anyone get fired is when they speak the truth or say something politically incorrect. Costas alienated a majority of Americans with his asinine comments but perhaps you are right and the viewers he was addressing agree with him. They are just a bunch of armchair warriors after all.

Uhhhh... why yes. I am right, most likely. If his parent company gets a bunch of people writing letters and it becomes news and looks bad for the company, he's going to be getting less work. Sports broadcast companies don't want political crap on their broadcasts. They want sports. People who watch sports don't want to hear it. Figure half the people listening disagree with the guy and it makes them angry or stop watching. That's what loses contracts. Your job as a sportscaster is to talk sports. Get outside sports enough and the boss replaces you with some other sports "used to be a contender" type with a nice voice.

Eric Hoffer

Knock knock.

Can't you comprehend the direction of a conversation? I'm not going to spell out every little thing to you. I will just reiterate so maybe you can come out of your feeble little mind just a bit and get a clue.

Corporations should not even exist let alone have the special ear of our government. And for you to say that corporations and other special interests do not have more say in our government shows your ignorance. Corporations and special interests should have no say in our government.

You say the lobby is bribery which may be true but the fact is that no one should be able to lobby the government for special attention. Whether it is bribery or not is mute. How can politicains pander to special interest and be constitutional much less libertarian.

Mass media has long been used to sway the masses. I doubt you understand that since you are very narrow in your thinking and seem to fixate on just certain aspects. I have not once complained that I don't have an audience yet that seems to be your angle. So instead of trying to pry open your little mind and injecting the ability for comprehension I will just say that the abuse of power by mass media is perhaps the number one cause of this countries demise.

And you again can't stop fixating on a single way of thinking. If you want to hear views on this or comments on that then you can watch The View, listen to Alex Jones or watch some other talk show or documentary or whatever. But when news anchors and dipshyt sportscasters start pushing their opinions then that is intended for one purpose only. But you can't see the difference. And I mean YOU.

I'm not even going to address your condescending straw man argument. Oh, and I'm sure that your representative listens just as much to you and your special interests as he does for GM, Exxon Mobile, Dupont, Goldman or any other fake people.

If you understood that your vote IS your freedom of speech then perhaps you could understand the jest of my argument. But I don't think you are capable. If you weren't such a jerk I would try to educate you better.

Oh boy

Can't you comprehend the direction of a conversation? I'm not going to spell out every little thing to you. I will just reiterate so maybe you can come out of your feeble little mind just a bit and get a clue.

Sorry guy, I'm not psychic, I'm not privy to the babble that goes on inside your head, I only see what nonsense spews out of your fingers.

Corporations should not even exist let alone have the special ear of our government. And for you to say that corporations and other special interests do not have more say in our government shows your ignorance. Corporations and special interests should have no say in our government.

Lets break this down, because you don't seem to do so well with English. Maybe it's a 2nd language for you? Not a big deal, but we'll work on it. Corporations are a contract entity between willing individuals. If your claim is that people shouldn't be able to form binding contracts to form groups, then I don't really know what to say in context of what we're talking about. I'm talking about freedom of speech, and you're off on a tangent about how companies shouldn't exist. Perhaps start a new thread on this?

As to your claim that I've said corporations and "special interests" (basically, anyone with lots of cash) don't have more say in government, I'd like you to pull the quote on that. What I've said is that bribery =/= freedom of speech. Do you understand the difference? I noticed you're not talking about freedom of speech here anymore, but your hatred of lobbying. I do notice that you've failed to acknowledge the point that no one lobbied Dr. Paul because he was true to the Constitution.

Why should corporations and "special interests" have no say in government? Do groups of people not have common interests? Should they not work to promote their interests? I love how you talk about corporations like they're anything other than a legal representation of a group of individuals.

You say the lobby is bribery which may be true but the fact is that no one should be able to lobby the government for special attention. Whether it is bribery or not is mute. How can politicains pander to special interest and be constitutional much less libertarian.

Uhhh... so you're saying you shouldn't be able to call your congressman and tell him you don't like a bill? To give your arguments for why a bill is unconstitutional? How about to say, "If you vote for this unconstitutional bill, I will vote for your competition." Is that legal in your world? How about, "If you don't vote for this bill, I will donate to your competitor's re-election bid." Is that fair play? You're trying to put limits on speech, and then claim it's only "evil corporations" that are using that speech.

The word is MOOT, btw, not mute. Points can't be silent, they can however be irrelevant or inaccurate. You do realize you can pander to libertarians and still be within the constitution right? I again raise the point of Dr. Paul: If we vote for and elect moral individuals, then lobbying becomes a moot point. If the guy you're giving lots of money to still votes for the constitution, you eventually stop throwing money down the drain on him.

Mass media has long been used to sway the masses. I doubt you understand that since you are very narrow in your thinking and seem to fixate on just certain aspects.

Certain aspects of... what again? Sentence structure for the win right? As to mass media to sway the masses, think about this: What other way do you sway the masses without media? Think of all the things that are classified as media and have been throughout time. Mass media is probably the ONLY way to sway the masses, short of word of mouth and hoping for the best right?

I have not once complained that I don't have an audience yet that seems to be your angle. So instead of trying to pry open your little mind and injecting the ability for comprehension I will just say that the abuse of power by mass media is perhaps the number one cause of this countries demise.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're seeing a guy in a nice house, looking at your shack and saying, "No one should be allowed to live in a nicer house than anyone else, it's not fair to the rest of us!" Let me try again in case you missed it: "No one should be allowed to broadcast their opinions to lots of people, it's not fair to the rest of us who can't broadcast our opinions to lots of people."

I'm not sure how you're not seeing this. You may be new to the Liberty train or something, maybe a prior Nader supporter bent on the corporation hate? I really don't know. As to the abuse of power, I can't even fault the media for this crap. I CAN fault the people who eat it up, watch sports all day, and haven't cracked a book in years. Often times, people deserve what happens to them. We have a country where it's impolite to talk about politics and where we're supposed to cheer the government no matter what atrocities occur, as long as the atrocities happen to people far away. You don't think we asked for this? 100 years of voting is how we got so far screwed here. Don't blame Fox news. Blame the people who WATCH Fox news. Blame the people who vote based on what the television tells them. Blame the people who can't be bothered to think for themselves long enough to objectively look at what our country does every day.

And you again can't stop fixating on a single way of thinking. If you want to hear views on this or comments on that then you can watch The View, listen to Alex Jones or watch some other talk show or documentary or whatever. But when news anchors and dipshyt sportscasters start pushing their opinions then that is intended for one purpose only. But you can't see the difference. And I mean YOU.

I notice you keep up with this fixation talk, but you never actually explain what this "single way of thinking" is. If you mean "logically" then guilty as charged!

So your complaint isn't that people on TV get to spout their opinions... it's that it ruined a sports broadcast? "They can have all the free speech they want, unless it's during football because that's my time!" That makes... well not sense. I'm not sure what it means I guess. I'm sure your hypothesis is that there's some sort of dark conspiracy where the guy was forced to say what he did, or that he was paid to, but in reality we have a long history in this country of commentators saying stupid things politically or just going off on political tangents. It doesn't happen often, but usually when it does the retribution from fans is swift and the person gets punished either with a smack from management, a fine, or a pink slip.

I'm not even going to address your condescending straw man argument. Oh, and I'm sure that your representative listens just as much to you and your special interests as he does for GM, Exxon Mobile, Dupont, Goldman or any other fake people.

Now how is that fair? I demolished all of your straw man arguments one by one, and you just make a vague wave at accusing my argument of being a straw man? Then you accuse ME of being condescending? Come on pal. You've got a real chip on your shoulder about companies. Do you feel the same way about small businesses or is it just when they get large that you hate them? You do realize that people actually run and manage these companies right?

If you understood that your vote IS your freedom of speech then perhaps you could understand the jest of my argument. But I don't think you are capable. If you weren't such a jerk I would try to educate you better.

Wait... so given that, how does the sport caster have "more freedom of speech" than you? Does he get multiple votes or something? Gets to cycle through the voting booth 3 or 4 times? Voting isn't freedom of speech, it's voting. Speech is quite different. You might claim voting is a form of speech? Best I can see. Obviously there are forms of speech that do not include voting.

As to the "jest" of your argument, I really wish it was in jest, but after reading it I think the gist of what you're writing here is composed of fallacious and illogical babble.

Eric Hoffer

When people start worrying about grammar

then you know they have lost the argument. So I'm not going to waist my time with any more of your drivel.

You can't even see how you are brainwashed and you definitely can't comprehend the scope of what is going on around you. You are beneath me and not worthy of my time. When you learn to think outside your little box then maybe we could converse on a higher level. I should have known you were incapable of meaningful conversation when your first response was filled with insult.

The only thing worse than an idiot is an idiot who thinks he is smart. IDIOT. But I'm sure if your sentence structure is correct no one will notice.

Cough

Whoa, lets leave your body style out of this. I don't want to hear about your waist. Honestly, talking about your body is a "waste" of time. Sorry, couldn't help myself here.

You can't even see how you are brainwashed and you definitely can't comprehend the scope of what is going on around you.

"Rather than address your points, I'll just say you don't understand me." I'm sorry guy, but I'm not psychologically trained in aberrational thought, so understanding you takes a bit of work.

You are beneath me and not worthy of my time.

More, "I don't know how to address your points so I won't."

When you learn to think outside your little box then maybe we could converse on a higher level.

Even more, "I don't like logical thought, so I'll pretend logical points don't have merit."

I should have known you were incapable of meaningful conversation when your first response was filled with insult.

Even more, count them, 4 excuses in one paragraph for not addressing the points presented. Sorry about the insults, but I find it annoying when someone presents a bunch of points that they claim I agree with by extension. If it helps, I stand by them not as insults, but as accurate assessment of the person at the other end of the keyboard.

The only thing worse than an idiot is an idiot who thinks he is smart. IDIOT. But I'm sure if your sentence structure is correct no one will notice.

Someone's upset. Of course, you'll notice I only nailed you for sentence structure the one time, when it rendered your limp-wristed attempt at a point completely unknowable. To quote you, "I doubt you understand that since you are very narrow in your thinking and seem to fixate on just certain aspects." The problem here is you never define the certain aspects. Of thought? Of your point? Of some illogical tooth fairy that you've presented the group? I'm sorry to try and make you a better writer out here in public, but until you actually learn to type out the words you want to say, you're going to be beating your head against a wall.

Just go through, try and refute the points, and have a good time. That's what I did, I even went through every one of your goofy straw man attempts, and in return you just try and pretend it never happened.

Eric Hoffer

You are blind

and ignorant. Knock knock, is any body home.