Costas getting ripped for anti-gun speech.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Mike M (the other one)

They also violated his right to the 1st amendment by doing so.

No they did not. It always amazes me how little people truly understand the 1st amendment.

[duke0476]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

No they did not. It always amazes me how little people truly understand the 1st amendment.

^^^^^^^This^^^

[Morning Star]

Originally Posted by duke0476

Take away guns!! Take them all away!!

That is the easiest answer to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.

It is a way to make people think they are doing good by advocating what they think is right. It is an easy out.

How many of these celebs etc. spend their time volunteering to helping "people". To donate money to social programs that would get to the root of these problems.

Yes, gun violence will increase and violent crime will also continue to increase. But not because guns exist and not because any other weapons exist but because socially, economically and morally our entire system is effed up.

Show me the real statistics out there. Show me how many elderly live on peanut butter sandwhiches and no heat because they can't afford to live and they can't work.

Show me how many of these gun crimes are commited by fatherless children that are raised on the streets because either whoever is raising them is addicted to drugs or is working 16 hr days just to put food on the table.

As parents, neighbors, friends and as a society as a whole everyone needs to be held accountable for what they do to affect their own lives and the lives around them. That is our job as human beings. No one feels accountable for anything anymore, there is always something else to blame.

Take guns away but don't fix the issues that cause people to want to or need to use those guns in the first place......makes perfect sense.

I agree very much with this..Gun control makes no difference..Guns don't kill people people kill people.

[bengalfan4life27c]

I personally support a assault weapons ban. why would you need to kill a deer or defend your self with an assault weapon? answer you wouldnt. Yet when an ordinary citizen like james holmes can have more fire power than an average citizen that could only afford a handgun that cant even legally protect himself inside the theater the you have a problem. It takes alot less effort to kill someone with a gun than any other method.

[Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

I agree very much with this..Gun control makes no difference..Guns don't kill people people kill people.

Guns kill people. This statement is tired and untrue. Yes, it is a person that pulls the trigger, but a gun is an instrument of death, and should not be in the hands of someone that has not taken dozens of hours of training, and psychiatric evaluations to assess their proper ability to own one.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

2: Liberals are pushing for gun control so no one in the US has firearms that way they can fully take over the country with minimal rebellion from citizens and do what they want with the country. (i guess they do understand that)

Being a liberal who has supported the 2nd Amendment, I beg to to differ.

[coachmcneil71]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

I agree very much with this..Gun control makes no difference..Guns don't kill people people kill people.

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Being a liberal who has supported the 2nd Amendment, I beg to to differ.

I'm with these fellers!

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

I agree very much with this..Gun control makes no difference..Guns don't kill people people kill people.

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Being a liberal who has supported the 2nd Amendment, I beg to to differ.

Originally Posted by coachmcneil71

I'm with these fellers!

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

Liberals are pushing for gun control so no one in the US has firearms that way they can fully take over the country with minimal rebellion from citizens and do what they want with the country. (i guess they do understand that).

There are 270 million guns in this country. Even if it were possible, which it isn't, to find them all, it would take the military (staying at home and not engaged in wars hither and thither), and the combined police forces of the entire country the next 15 to 20 years to round them all up. And that's if they were surrendered peacefully without a question asked.

Some people don't need to smoke anything. How I envy.

[Shake n Blake]

Good. He deserved to be ripped.

No one wants to hear his liberal left wing agenda.

Knives, bows, decorational swords, rocks, hammers, night sticks, nunchucks, garden tools (etc...etc) can all be used to kill someone. It's not the gun. It's the person behind it.

I've never owned a gun myself and I have no interest in owning one for protection. It's just not for me. That said, I respect the rights of other responsible Americans who feel the need for protection.

I simply think it's un-American to tell others what they can and can not think, and to take away fundamental rights that have existed since the birth of this country.

There will always be murderers. Stop trying to use it as an excuse to take people's rights away.

[33]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

Costas wont be let go because he is pushing a Left Wing Liberal agenda in gun control.only reason Hank was fired was because he was anti obama. what liberals dont understand is

1: banning guns or gun control wont solve the problem. criminals still have guns and never follow the law and keeping the people who are responsible from owning them , so this leaves homes open for all sorts of crime.

2: Liberals are pushing for gun control so no one in the US has firearms that way they can fully take over the country with minimal rebellion from citizens and do what they want with the country. (i guess they do understand that)

this world can not be a patty cake type world where everyone is peaceful. never gonna happen.

And conservatives want to go to war with every country besides us, with every citizen carrying a m60 light machine gun.

See how going over the top sounds stupid? Not every liberal is for taking guns away, or want to take over a defenseless America.
I am a liberal, who is pro 2nd amendment, and proud of that fact.

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

Guns kill people. This statement is tired and untrue. Yes, it is a person that pulls the trigger, but a gun is an instrument of death, and should not be in the hands of someone that has not taken dozens of hours of training, and psychiatric evaluations to assess their proper ability to own one.

exactly, a gun itself can not kill someone or something untill someone picks it up and pulls the trigger so people kill people, guns dont unless a person has the intent to kill.

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by 33

And conservatives want to go to war with every country besides us, with every citizen carrying a m60 light machine gun.

See how going over the top sounds stupid? Not every liberal is for taking guns away, or want to take over a defenseless America.
I am a liberal, who is pro 2nd amendment, and proud of that fact.

i know that not all liberals support taking all the guns away just as not all conservatives (me included) support going to war with every other country. i was against the war in iraq. still am. we should have focused all our time on bin laden and not hussein who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

but when the last 2 liberal presidents supported assault weapons bans, where would the bans stop ?

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Being a liberal who has supported the 2nd Amendment, I beg to to differ.

we have had our differences before lol, not getting into it with you Mr. Fife

[shaolinghost]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

but when the last 2 liberal presidents supported assault weapons bans, where would the bans stop ?

Fully automatic weapons simply serve no purpose in a modern society. When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights, they had muskets that took minutes to reload after every shot. Having a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute isn't needed anywhere outside of full scale war.

Assault weapons aren't used for hunting, and they aren't used for home protection(in America). They're used for one thing: killing other people. If you've got a personal problem that requires the use of a fully automatic weapon then, well...you should probably re-evaluate your life choices.

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by shaolinghost

Fully automatic weapons simply serve no purpose in a modern society. When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights, they had muskets that took minutes to reload after every shot. Having a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute isn't needed anywhere outside of full scale war.

Assault weapons aren't used for hunting, and they aren't used for home protection(in America). They're used for one thing: killing other people. If you've got a personal problem that requires the use of a fully automatic weapon then, well...you should probably re-evaluate your life choices.

its not just fully autos, you already cant get those unless you are a class 3 firearms dealer, but semi auto rifles, AR15, Galil, AK47s are still legal to purchase and should be but wouldnt be under the ban. im a responsible gun owner so why shouldnt i be able to own one? heck, ive owned 3 and ive not went nuts and killed anyone. under the assault weapons ban, everything short of single shot rifles and shotguns would be banned because guess what, that bolt action rifle i use to go deer hunting with can and was used as a sniper rifle at some point in time .

btw, i would have used anyone of my AR15s i had as protection if i needed to. id rather have a mag of 30 rounds to save my life as opposed to the 3 slugs ohio says you can only have in your shotgun at one time. not one gun or specific group of firearms can be classified as home protection. in my opinion any gun you can get ahold of legally to protect you and your family from getting killed is a good home defense weapon. actually in ohio, you can use an AR15, SKS, AK47, PSL or Dragunov to hunt if it is rodents you hunting such as coyote, boar or anything of that nature.

i do agree that no one outside of the military should own a fully auto, but the ban includes much more than fully automatic weapons.

i agree to disagree if you do:) , just a difference of opinion here and i respect that.

[shaolinghost]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

its not just fully autos, you already cant get those unless you are a class 3 firearms dealer, but semi auto rifles, AR15, Galil, AK47s are still legal to purchase and should be but wouldnt be under the ban. im a responsible gun owner so why shouldnt i be able to own one? heck, ive owned 3 and ive not went nuts and killed anyone. under the assault weapons ban, everything short of single shot rifles and shotguns would be banned because guess what, that bolt action rifle i use to go deer hunting with can and was used as a sniper rifle at some point in time .

btw, i would have used anyone of my AR15s i had as protection if i needed to. id rather have a mag of 30 rounds to save my life as opposed to the 3 slugs ohio says you can only have in your shotgun at one time. not one gun or specific group of firearms can be classified as home protection. in my opinion any gun you can get ahold of legally to protect you and your family from getting killed is a good home defense weapon. actually in ohio, you can use an AR15, SKS, AK47, PSL or Dragunov to hunt if it is rodents you hunting such as coyote, boar or anything of that nature.

i do agree that no one outside of the military should own a fully auto, but the ban includes much more than fully automatic weapons.

i agree to disagree if you do:) , just a difference of opinion here and i respect that.

Yeah, I've got no problem with that. Gun ownership really isn't an issue I care about too much anyway. If you want to own a semi-auto weapon with rounds that aren't armor piercing(no civilian need for those) then it's all good with me.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by shaolinghost

Fully automatic weapons simply serve no purpose in a modern society. When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights, they had muskets that took minutes to reload after every shot. Having a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute isn't needed anywhere outside of full scale war.

Assault weapons aren't used for hunting, and they aren't used for home protection(in America). They're used for one thing: killing other people. If you've got a personal problem that requires the use of a fully automatic weapon then, well...you should probably re-evaluate your life choices.

Just one point of correction. A fully trained musket loader as was the case during the American Revolution and the American Civil War or previous wars, can load and reload and fire three shots per minute. Another fact is an 1858 Colt 44 Cal., sidearm which holds six rounds, just as an example, has basically one difference with modern weapons in that it does not have a double action assembly. Meaning you have to pull the hammer back for each round to be fired. Otherwise, it is just as deadly as any handgun made today. It will produce far more damage to the target than a 9mm semi-auto with steel jacket rounds.

A 44 cal., soft lead round will flatten out on impact with a solid object like your body and upon striking bones it produces a deadly effect of mangeling the bones it may contact rather than breaking them cleanly. It is the reason so many amputations took place during earlier wars. The soft lead rounds were far more likely to cause horrible wounds compared to modern steel jacket rounds which tend to pass through body and bone more cleanly. (Does not take into account hollow point rounds which are more like the Civil War rounds except they are made to shatter upon impact).

Point being, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they may not have known about automatic firing weapons, but they certainly had their share of weapons which killed efficiently and or caused mutilitations of the victims. And it isn't just the Founding Fathers, every four years, mostly eight with exceptions like FDR, we have a new President, essentially a new Congress and Senate, and a continuous revolving Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is still there, still valid, and still a legal precedent of jurisprudence.

[Stewee28]

Lets all take a minute and recall Mr. Nail in Head from Happy Gilmore.....

---- Guns Don't Kill People.....People Kill People!! ----

All kidding aside, the only reason I possess a gun, is for protection of my family and of myself. Conceal and Carry are becoming popular and for some, it is important to have for many (for those who live in the country away from the law, taking on vacation). The leaders of this country are crazy if they think they are going to take guns away from the Free. In the words of Si (from Duck Dynasty), "It aint gonna happen, JACK!!"

I like Bob Costas, but I believe he made a HUGE mistake by opening his mouth on this issue, especially 24 hours after a horrific murder-suicide and he was on national TV. Hank Williams made the same mistake and got fired for it; has since made a song about it (Keep The Change). Ted Nugent got blasted for his words on a talk radio / tv show. Who knows what will happen to Bob. I doubt he gets canned. They make tell him to take a nice long vacation until this blows over.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by shaolinghost

Fully automatic weapons simply serve no purpose in a modern society. When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights, they had muskets that took minutes to reload after every shot. Having a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute isn't needed anywhere outside of full scale war.

Assault weapons aren't used for hunting, and they aren't used for home protection(in America). They're used for one thing: killing other people. If you've got a personal problem that requires the use of a fully automatic weapon then, well...you should probably re-evaluate your life choices.

we are gonna want a lot of fully automatic weapons when china gets ****** because we arent paying them. Lots of news about the current administration is gonna let the country go over a fiancial cliff....

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

we are gonna want a lot of fully automatic weapons when china gets ****** because we arent paying them. Lots of news about the current administration is gonna let the country go over a fiancial cliff....

Well one correction. The current Congress appears as if it is going to allow us to go over the fiscal cliff that "they" created all upon their own last year when they authorized Sequestration. They did it not the Administration.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Just one point of correction. A fully trained musket loader as was the case during the American Revolution and the American Civil War or previous wars, can load and reload and fire three shots per minute. Another fact is an 1858 Colt 44 Cal., sidearm which holds six rounds, just as an example, has basically one difference with modern weapons in that it does not have a double action assembly. Meaning you have to pull the hammer back for each round to be fired. Otherwise, it is just as deadly as any handgun made today. It will produce far more damage to the target than a 9mm semi-auto with steel jacket rounds.

A 44 cal., soft lead round will flatten out on impact with a solid object like your body and upon striking bones it produces a deadly effect of mangeling the bones it may contact rather than breaking them cleanly. It is the reason so many amputations took place during earlier wars. The soft lead rounds were far more likely to cause horrible wounds compared to modern steel jacket rounds which tend to pass through body and bone more cleanly. (Does not taken into account hollow point rounds which are more like the Civil War rounds except they are made to shatter upon impact).

Point being, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they may not have known about automatic firing weapons, but they certainly had their share of weapons which killed efficiently and or caused mutilitations of the victims. And it isn't just the Founding Fathers, every four years we have a new President, essentially a new Congress and Senate, and a continuous revolving Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is still there, still valid, and still a legal precedent.

I haven't seen any of the nut bags, that kill people, carrying black powder guns

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by THEBURG

I haven't seen any of the nut bags, that kill people, carrying black powder guns

There have been some murders with black powder weapons. I don't know the statistics, google it. And ofcourse hunting accidents, reenactment accidents (someone forgets and leaves a live round in the gun - it's happened), or the usual knot head who leaves a loaded weapon somewhere for a kid to pick up. There have been far more suicides with black powder weapons however in the various reenactment communities, (Civil War, Revolutionary War, French and Indian War, and so on). One advantage to using black powder weapons though not well known is, you can't trace the bullet.

The soft lead round flattens out upon impact and is essentially changed into a flattened out blob of lead which can't be traced. In addition, it depends on if the black powder weapon used has a rifled barrel.

Rifling did not really come into mass use until about the time of the American Civil War. Rifling makes the weapon far more accurate by spinning the bullet on the way to the target making the weapon more accurate and with further distance, but leaves markings on the bullet. Snipers which really came into existence during the American Civil War using rifled barrels were deadly at ranges up to a full mile away. About that same time, scopes came into use. But rifling is what allows modern forensics to trace the bullet to a particilar gun. Rather like a finger print. If the barrel is not rifled, the bullet cannot be traced. However a soft round conical bullet is difficult if not impossible to trace since the soft lead even though fired from a rifled barrel, flattens out upon impact. Not quite like a soft lead round bullet, but it still tends to flatten out over all and make it problemmatic to trace back to the rifled barrel it came from.

Rifled barrels also applies to artillery. When artillery pieces were produced with rifled barrels, artillery guns became deadly accurate at much further ranges. The next adaptation was the use of exploding rounds first used in mass during the Civil War. But that's straying from the point.

Same thing applies for a hollow point round. It can't be traced because it shatters upon impact.

Aye, whadda they teach these kids now-a-days...