Honestly people is this seriosly not the latest attempt on banning football. It's all over I honestly think football will cease to exist in my generation. Any thoughts on what's going on will help spart a nice healthy debate.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Do you think Bob Costas suffered a concussion in the past.
- Thread starter V.Lats97nsx
- Start date
I think he's an idiot. Not much debate in that.
"Do you think Bob Costas suffered a concussion in the past."
Maybe he played Football?
Maybe he played Football?
His (Costas) comments, on a variety of topics, seem right on the mark to me.
I think it was it the microphones fault in Costas fault, if he didn't have one he wouldn't of said something that stupid.
Interesting. I only heard about this because Dave Ramsey ranted about it yesterday on air. Who cares what a sportscaster has to say about a political topic? He gets paid to provide commentary on sporting events, he should leave politics to the political commentators. I found it odd that Dave Ramsey talked about it too, he should stick to personal finance on his radio show.
Costas is a moron and he should read the link below.
This guy killed his daughter, dog, and himself as revenge towards his ex-wife. Maybe we should ban the sale and purchase of hoses as they can be used to kill.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/11/3...ggle-with-davie-dads-apparent-murder-suicide/
This guy killed his daughter, dog, and himself as revenge towards his ex-wife. Maybe we should ban the sale and purchase of hoses as they can be used to kill.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/11/3...ggle-with-davie-dads-apparent-murder-suicide/
Also.
Ha-ha-ha, exactly!
I tune in to NFL for football, not some ding-a-ling's social commentary.
Agree with you, DocL.
Irrespective of the (in)validity of his comments, his right of free speech is defended by law. The law that forms the foundation of that right protects the rights of others to bear arms. Curiously, when the law that protects free speech dissolves, it may be the weapons he disdains that helps to re-establish the laws we cherish.
Both are rights that are beloved and time-honored by our country. However, one of them, at it's core, inherently protects the other as necessary in the security of a free state. When this gets taken away, or in any away infringed, there is no obstacle, except it's own good conscious, for govt to strip away other rights and become something that is neither by the people or for the people.
Just my .02.
Both are rights that are beloved and time-honored by our country. However, one of them, at it's core, inherently protects the other as necessary in the security of a free state. When this gets taken away, or in any away infringed, there is no obstacle, except it's own good conscious, for govt to strip away other rights and become something that is neither by the people or for the people.
Just my .02.
Very nicely stated.
You guys weren't paying attention.
Costas didn't say anything about gun control. Nothing.
He just quoted a few words about a regrettable event written by Jason Whitlock at Fox Sports.
Costas didn't say anything about gun control. Nothing.
He just quoted a few words about a regrettable event written by Jason Whitlock at Fox Sports.
by quoting him he basically agreed with him, and Whitlock the next day said the nra is the new kkk. Someone put up what Clerks said, I'm not good at putting up videos.
Imagine a hypothetical USA, where guns were rare, with strict gun control laws. Do you think the country would devolve into a totalitarian state? Do you think the country would turn its army on its people like Syria?
Not sure what that has to do with football, but I'm curious!
Not sure what that has to do with football, but I'm curious!
Last edited:
Many generals from the WWII period through today have said invading the U.S. by land is impossible because its civilians are so well armed. I do not think it makes a difference whether the "invading" army wears a U.S. flag or any other. While I do live in Texas, I am in a (the) blue county and a heavily liberal area. Despite that, almost every male I know has at least one gun. One out of 3 has what anyone from western europe would classify as a full blown arsenal (AR15's, shot guns, and rifles easily capable of being sniper rifles, etc.).
Not in my lifetime will those men willingly give up their arms - it ain't going to happen. The mere mention of it causes an uproar. I think it absolutely makes a difference and helps us maintain the tiny bit of the old cliche - a government should fear its people, not the other way around.
Hope though we may, what reason do we have for thinking that human nature and self-interest, the root cause of conflict, will ever become something other than it is?
Will the present form of govt. and the rights acknowledged and afforded to citizens remain unchanged for so long as the small want to become great, the strong dominate the weak, or the desire to live on? Society agrees to live according to laws, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. How effective will such laws be w/o enforcement?
Laws unsupported by force soon fall into contempt and the final arbitrar of force is, very frankly, arms.
Will the present form of govt. and the rights acknowledged and afforded to citizens remain unchanged for so long as the small want to become great, the strong dominate the weak, or the desire to live on? Society agrees to live according to laws, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. How effective will such laws be w/o enforcement?
Laws unsupported by force soon fall into contempt and the final arbitrar of force is, very frankly, arms.
I understand the purpose behind the right to bear arms. And the question really isn't a question of conservative/liberal ideology. Its more a question of what we may think of ourselves and what a possible future can hold. Perhaps I should wait for other responses, but neither of you really answered my question.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 5 August 2011
- Messages
- 401
If the US government wanted went to war with civilians, the civilians would get rolled. 2nd amendment doesn't protect you from the weaponry the government has, no Red Dawn here.
In other news, this non news is still non news.
In other news, this non news is still non news.
Someone should tell the Afghans about this.
The current commander and chief would have a very hard time convincing the active military to attack its own people let alone any President in the past. Lincoln had to rely on immigrants straight off the boat. Modern military does not go by blind faith in its command. JMO
Meh. That possible future is made of millions upon millions of variables and constraints. But it's not a linear optimization model. You want to know what we think of ourselves and I say it's unreasonable to think of ourselves as anything other than human. Bound by the same emotions, desires, ambitions, good, and evil...the same now and since creation.
Surely, there would be many civilian casualties if such a situation were to occur. However, in modern terms I wonder if Mubarak thought the same? Or today, if Morsi thought along the same lines as he fled Cairo? Or in the days of the America Revolution, if King George III thought the same?
Let's say Costas was wrong in quoting Whitlock, he might come out in Sundays game and apologize, but the pawn has been placed. One thing that got me was when he said we don't know if the murder was connected to football. I love the 2nd amendment but what happens when football becomes to dangerous to play. I will revert this topic back to its original point. When do you guys think it will be extinct. In my hometown they recently got rid of pee wee football.
Last edited:
I agree. Also, the vast majority of military and ex-military personnel are the ones who so devoutly espouse gun rights... so if a commander oredered the military to confiscate all weapons, you'd wind up with a mutiny or a straight up revolt of military personnel against the government that (used to) command them.
Then the current leader of the revolt would become the next President/Monarch/Dictator or whatever and times would be very tense...
It would be a bloody battle, for sure... but "the government" is made up of it's people, who, if they renegged while in possession of access to military weaponry and equipment would surely steal some of it to fight back with (see my comment above). There are plenty of ex-military personnel in America who have been trained to fight and win, who know the tactics of the current military and who can train others to fight along side. It would not be swift or easy victory for the government unless some Air Force pilot could be convinced to decimate this country, thereby eliminating the very people the government was trying to enslave/control etc.
Every cop I personally know is in favor of gun rights, though I am aware of some police chiefs who are anti-gun...
Then the current leader of the revolt would become the next President/Monarch/Dictator or whatever and times would be very tense...
It would be a bloody battle, for sure... but "the government" is made up of it's people, who, if they renegged while in possession of access to military weaponry and equipment would surely steal some of it to fight back with (see my comment above). There are plenty of ex-military personnel in America who have been trained to fight and win, who know the tactics of the current military and who can train others to fight along side. It would not be swift or easy victory for the government unless some Air Force pilot could be convinced to decimate this country, thereby eliminating the very people the government was trying to enslave/control etc.
Every cop I personally know is in favor of gun rights, though I am aware of some police chiefs who are anti-gun...
Last edited:
As things currently stand, the government could not do it. Too much land, and guerrilla warfare tactics will win out. Civilian access to lots of good weaponry and military fractures that will side with civilians would make it impossible. The government would have no way to hold anything for any length of time without losing somewhere else.
- Joined
- 5 August 2011
- Messages
- 401
Yes because your weaponry would do great against tanks and anything flying at some altitude or some velocity.
Guerrilla tactics are effective at taking out a few soldiers are not efficient trades, wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for a military organization.
Biggest hindrance would simply be convincing an army to fight against the people it was supposed to protect.
Guerrilla tactics are effective at taking out a few soldiers are not efficient trades, wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for a military organization.
Biggest hindrance would simply be convincing an army to fight against the people it was supposed to protect.
Similar threads
- Sticky
