Do you think Bob Costas should be fired for the Gun Control comments he made at Half Time, on NBC's Sunday Night Football?

by Scalded Eagle Posted 2012/12/04 15:56:19

Related Topics: Opinions, Football, Gun Control, Nbc, Gun, Costa, YouTube, Watch

Read all 969 opinions

I think the Left has gone too far, with their opinions this time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v;=B1ijk...

+69

Trance 2012/12/05 13:10:06

+13
If you are going to fire Hank Williams JR, then Costas should be as well
>> See Replies

More polls by Scalded Eagle

princess 2012/12/28 04:18:54

Absolutely.

reply
kat 2012/12/13 07:39:05

NO. Is the NRA so powerful that they can't withstand one commentators opinion? Don't we still have free speech anymore?

reply
CommieH... to kat 2012/12/13 09:32:43

The 2nd amendment protects your 1st amendment right to free speech, as well as the rest of your rights & the Constitution itself

reply
kat to CommieH... 2012/12/18 20:10:56

+1
Your statement really made me think about whether I could agree with you or not on this one. I've spent some time reflecting on what you wrote. 1st Not sure its quite true - cause as a military spouse I am biased as I'd like to credit the military in large part for protecting all of the above. However, if any part of what you stated is true, I think it's only half-true, because on the flip side historically that same 2nd amendment has been used to deny free speech (Dr. King) as well as the rest of our rights (civil rights - goodman, chaney and schwerner)

reply
CommieH... to kat 2012/12/18 21:43:25

You're correct in as much as the military protects us & the Constitution (as per the oath we take when we enlist) But look at it this way. If the gov decided to take away your 1st amendment right, (like they did Dr. Kings), & the liberals have been attempting to stifle us as far as speaking the truth about them for years, & the gov/prez told the military to arrest & jail anyone who was speaking out against them, what would the military do? Lower ranking members have to follow orders of the upper echelon. (Think Kent State during the Vietnam war) How far up the chain of command would we have to go before we find an officer that would make the decision that this order is against the Constitution? And then what would happen? The military would probably be divided with some thinking the prez/government was right, & the other half thinking he & the prez & gov were wrong. What happens then with a divided military? A coup? Another executive order? I think the authors of the Constitution & the amendments got it right, because they had just gone through this & knew what the pitfalls were.

As for this---> "because on the flip side historically that same 2nd amendment has been used to deny free speech (Dr. King) as well as the rest of our rights"
Could you expound on that statement for me as I ...&

You're correct in as much as the military protects us & the Constitution (as per the oath we take when we enlist) But look at it this way. If the gov decided to take away your 1st amendment right, (like they did Dr. Kings), & the liberals have been attempting to stifle us as far as speaking the truth about them for years, & the gov/prez told the military to arrest & jail anyone who was speaking out against them, what would the military do? Lower ranking members have to follow orders of the upper echelon. (Think Kent State during the Vietnam war) How far up the chain of command would we have to go before we find an officer that would make the decision that this order is against the Constitution? And then what would happen? The military would probably be divided with some thinking the prez/government was right, & the other half thinking he & the prez & gov were wrong. What happens then with a divided military? A coup? Another executive order? I think the authors of the Constitution & the amendments got it right, because they had just gone through this & knew what the pitfalls were.

As for this---> "because on the flip side historically that same 2nd amendment has been used to deny free speech (Dr. King) as well as the rest of our rights"
Could you expound on that statement for me as I may not clearly understand what you're saying? If you mean armed police/military used guns to stifle Dr King, you're absolutely right, but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment because it wasn't "free citizens" such as you or I that was subverting Dr Kings 1st amendment right. It was the government & the LEO.
(more)

reply
kat to CommieH... 2012/12/19 17:00:03

Your reasoning is sound. I think that a 'coup' is exactly what would happen but for the wisdom of the framers in limiting the ability of the executive by first giving Congress control of the purse; and secondly because we have civilian control of our military. As for Dr. King & Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, who all were exercising their right to free speech and also to peacefully protest policies they deem unjust - when they were shot down. Literally shot down - by private citizens exercising their right to bear arms. Using 2nd amendment right to suppress the freedoms of others is not a novelty in this country, whether it is the government marching Native Americans off their resource rich ancestrial lands to reservations on arid baren land (Oklahoma) Government has shown its willingness to abuse some citizens. Even without Government involvment there have always been those who are willing to exercise their rights at our expense. Beginning with Aaron Burr (who would have been our 3rd president) but for Alexander Hamilton breaking the tie in favor of Jefferson. As you no doubt know, Hamilton was shot and killed by Burr, who then fled the country to what is now Ohio. From there he worked for years with the Government of Mexico, trying to destablize and overthrow this country. Such treasonous acts by a would be president, shows how great a debt we owe Alexander Hamilton for choosing Jefferson instead..

Nice chatting with you. I must return to work now..

reply
CommieH... to kat 2012/12/19 19:16:42

I agree, except for the fact that James Earl Ray, nor any of those other murderers were exercising their 2nd amendment rights. They were not. They may have legally owned their weapons according to the 2nd, but the Constitution does not, nor does the 2nd, give them the right to commit murder. It only guarantees free citizens the God given right to own & bear those arms, but not to violate any laws. BTW I'm sure you've researched the killing of Dr. King & you're aware of the conspiracy theory due to what the witnesses stated that were with Dr. King at the motel. His entourage don't think Ray was the assassin because the shot didn't come from where Ray was proven to be. They all said the shot came from a different area.

reply
kat to CommieH... 2012/12/20 04:46:28

Yep - Its been a while but I have heard about the conspiracy - and the mysterious "Raoul". While I don't buy the lone gunman theory, Ray is the only convicted murderer in the case. We are almost in agreement except that for me its hard to separate the concepts of bearing arms from using arms - as they are so interelated. I agree with you that they were violating the law in using guns to commit murder, but that was kind of my point. There are always fringe elements who are willing to do exactly that.

reply
CommieH... to kat 2012/12/20 05:00:01 (edited)

Well, the reason I state it that way is because of other laws that Congress, as well as state legislators have written since the Constitution & the 2nd amendment, such as no felons, or ex-felons are allowed to posess a weapon, & murder being illegal. Because of "laws", the 2nd amendment only gives a law abiding citizen the right to own/posess a gun/weapon, but still doesn't give them the right to commit murder.
Having the right to bear arms & then using them for a crime are two different things (when it comes to breaking the law with the weapon).

reply
Louisa - Enemy of the State 2012/12/10 22:28:07

I don't think he should be fired for giving his opinion but he should be reprimanded for doing so while he is on the air as a sportscaster. If he wishes to call a radio talk show on his own time, that's his business. But no one should be able to use their on the air jobs to express personal opinions on controversial issues.

reply
kat to Louisa ... 2012/12/17 00:19:53

Strangely after the "Newtown, CT" elementary school massacre, I've heard alot of commentators speak in the same vein as Mr. Costa, with no public outcry.

reply
Louisa ... to kat 2012/12/17 23:53:02

+1
But a commentator is within their realm. A sportscaster is a sportscaster. There's way too much personal opinion expressed in the media. Frankly, who gives a damn what a sportscaster thinks. Or a commenter for that matter.

reply
kat to Louisa ... 2012/12/18 20:01:16

+2
You're right that there is way too much personal opinion that passes for newsworthy in the media. Sadly, I think its because people have become to lazy to think for themselves and form their own opinions. They rely too much on the personality of the news pundits. I think thats why I'm drawn to sites like these. Its refreshing to see that there are people out there who can give a reason for why they believe something - whether you share their view or not.

reply
Louisa ... to kat 2012/12/18 20:16:32

+1
People were 'programmed' to not think for themselves. In decades before the 50's there was lots of discussion in colleges. By the 60's......questioning 'authority' was discouraged. The professor knew best! I really don't believe that people are just "too lazy", I think they have been indoctrinated to follow and to not question!

Right now Facebook is suspending accounts of those questioning whether the most recent school shooter acted alone. Personally, I'm bored with conspiracy theories but to prohibit this kind of 'creative' thinking borders on communism in the 40's and 50's.

reply
kat to Louisa ... 2012/12/19 17:07:36

+1
Suspending? Funny that didn't make the news - or if it did, didn't stay long. To think I was just alarmed this morning by news of (Facebook owned) Instagrams change in its policy - making your photo their property to sell. Scary isn't it. Too much power concentrated in too few hands....

reply
BoomLover 2012/12/10 00:15:14

+1
Yep! Fully agree, he should be fired...talking out of his rosy red, and making just about as much sense....

reply
MWD#1 2012/12/09 13:39:05

+2
Cowboys' Brent charged in death of teammate in car crash that killed Jerry Brown. Will Bob advocate vehicle control?

reply
Red 2012/12/09 02:40:04
ur XLNC 2012/12/08 18:39:12

No, but it is annoying when a 'celebrity' uses their platform to express their political stance. I will give Costas credit for an articulate argument. Unfortunately, he agreed with and made assumptions about what would or would not occur if the gun wasn't available. The actions of the killer/suicide strongly suggest that the deaths would have occurred with a different device if the gun wasn't available.

Using a gun is like having encyclopedic knowledge........it is NOT what you have or know.....it is HOW YOU USE IT! There are many uninformed opinions and it is past time for the uniformed to learn some FACTS!

reply
mal 2012/12/08 12:51:54

+2
yes. bad uninformed move. had no place in the sports world broadcast..

reply
hatter 2012/12/07 06:52:21

+1
What a mommas boy.

reply
Jamey 2012/12/07 05:59:15

I don't think he should be fired. He made his opinion public, which was a step over the line of his duty as a broadcaster, but I don't think it merits job loss. He learned from it, I'm sure.

reply
rk 2012/12/07 05:31:54

+1
yes

reply
Patriotic 2012/12/07 04:08:10

No, it's his opinion and it's a free country.

reply
Paige 2012/12/07 01:24:47

+1
Typical left-wing garbage!

reply
CommieHunter 2012/12/06 23:15:52 (edited)

+2
I'd fire the little whine ass biotch just for his little man attitude & thinking that his opinion actually counts for anything. There's a member on SH that spent 4 hours with Bob "the pus bag" Costas & said (paraphrased) he ain't much!!
He's just a know nothing arrogant little imbecile with an overinflated ego of self importance that outranks his double digit IQ...

reply
OPen Minded 2012/12/06 20:22:55

I think Bob Costas is wrong, and NBC should discupline him for the outburst. Firing is kind of harsh, tho.

reply
Charles White 2012/12/06 19:20:58 (edited)

+1
HELL NO! ! ! at no point did Costas used the word gun control. What he stated from a report he was reading that if the player did not have a gun just maybe his girlfriend and himself would be alived today and that would be true. This is a subject the Nation should be talking about and why is the right to own gun need to be defended if it is a good thing. Anything that is good people don't have to defended it.

reply
ღ♥ღ ℒea... to Charles... 2012/12/07 00:34:12

+1
does it really matter he was reading from a report?

reply
Charles... to ღ♥ღ ℒea... 2012/12/07 21:05:09 (edited)

Yes it do matter cause the context is important. That why the right is all bend out of shape cause they took Costas statement out of context. What he stated was true and I agree whole hearthy with his conclusion.

reply
ღ♥ღ ℒea... to Charles... 2012/12/08 00:32:29

+1
how was it taken out of context?

reply
Charles... to ღ♥ღ ℒea... 2012/12/08 20:21:34 (edited)

He never stated anything about gun control on the air,,,He stated that if the player did not have a gun his girlfriend and himself would maybe alive today. I agreed with that statement cause it is true.

reply
ღ♥ღ ℒea... to Charles... 2012/12/09 01:12:56 (edited)

+2
it was inappropriate. He should have stuck to condolences only.

reply
Charles... to ღ♥ღ ℒea... 2012/12/10 01:19:40

I disagree, I think it was very appropriated because gun violent is reality here in America and especially with young American. Because of his statement American are now having this debate. I believed it is about time we take a hard and serious look at hand guns and assault weapons bans.

reply
CommieH... to Charles... 2012/12/10 02:00:28

+1
If you think hand gun & so called "assault" weapons bans are a good thing, then you should take a hard look at North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, or Germany under Hitler... When guns go, freedom soon follows... It's just a simple matter of looking at history both past & present.

reply
Charles... to CommieH... 2012/12/10 02:39:41 (edited)

Please the policemen, state troopers, nat'l guard and military got more powerful weapons to swipe out the whole Nation if need be and we as citizen don't stand a chance if the gov't which to attack it citizen. By banning handguns and assault weapons will not take away your right to bear arms. I believed We the People have become more advance to protect ourselves and property without the used of weapons.

reply
CommieH... to Charles... 2012/12/10 03:10:42

+1
What makes you think that policemen, state troopers, national guard or our military will fire on Americans defending their rights to freedom under the Constitution?

reply
Charles... to CommieH... 2012/12/10 18:58:09

These people are trained to follow orders. Example Davidian compound in Waco Tx, Marital Law in New Orleans during katrina and New York and New Jersey cause by sandy, , , don't put you trust in the government to profect you and your family during a nat'l emergency.

reply
CommieH... to Charles... 2012/12/10 19:50:06

+1
When I enlisted into the military, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign & domestic. I can still remember the words like it was yesterday. Have they all forgotten this, or did the oath mean nothing to them?

reply
Charles... to CommieH... 2012/12/10 20:44:04

We have Citizens in TEAM OBAMA, Congress, The Court Systems, Goverenors and State Officals, Mayors and County officals have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution but failed to keep it as we speak. So why do you believed most of these people will do the right thing, when they already think they are during the right thing. If an order is giving most of these people will do their best to care it out.

reply