OPEN LETTER TO BOB COSTAS

[METL]

PDinDetroit originally posted this.. but frankly, I think it deserves its own thread!!!     Good find Paul!!!   I've posted this to my FB and am going to post it everywhere i can.  Bob Costas should be ASHAMED of himself... and if he's not, he should at least be SHAMED by everyone else.....

I think it should be seen by everyone!!!

Open letter to Bob Costas and the other idiot who apparently said NRA = KKK


http://doubleplusundead.com/2012/12/03/an-open-letter-to-bob-costas-and-jason-whitlock/

Gentlemen: I see that you have chosen to use the horrific crime of the murder of Kasandra Perkins to express your belief that guns are the problem, not the men who wield them. I am utterly certain that you believe that you have the moral high ground on this matter. I am equally certain that such a belief is appallingly wrong, not to mention terribly misogynistic. Why do I say this? Because had your desires on gun control been in place, I would not be alive to be writing this now.

I have an Ex. I have an Ex who, in the process of becoming my Ex, made credible threats to kill me. Why did I believe these threats were credible? Because among the primary reasons why I left him were that he had anger control issues, that he was a problem drinker well on his way to full blown alcoholism and that the things he was throwing at me were getting ever closer to my head. I decided to leave before finally snapped and actually hit me. He was displeased by this and made such displeasure known.

Do you know what kept me safe? Not some piece of paper. Not a judge tut tutting at him and shaking his/her finger and telling him to leave me alone. Not the police, who, after all, would only be able to respond once he had caused me harm. No, what kept me safe was my Glock. What kept me safe was my Glock and the fact that he knew I had both the ability and the will to empty a clip into his chest if he made good on his statements that if I did not come back, I would not see the next week. He never tried to do any of the things he screamed he would because he knew that not only would I defend myself but that I could. My Ex was nearly a foot taller than me and, at the time, had about 150 pounds on me. If he had been able to get close enough to me to harm me, there were very few options I had to protect myself. But with my Glock, well, I would be able to stop him before he got that close. I am alive today because he knew that if he tried to make that otherwise, there was a better than even chance he would be the one lying there in a pool of blood instead of me.

You want to take that from me. You want me to be unable to defend myself. You want to leave me vulnerable to those out there who look at a five foot tall fat girl and think “victim”. You want me to be unable to protect myself when there is no one else around to do so. You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security.

Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.

I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.

Alive despite you,

Alexandria

[CrossPistols]

I love the part where Bob states that this would never have happened if he had no access to a gun. True he probably wouldn't have shot her...Maybe just stabbed her or beat her to death. Bleeding hearts are so disconnected.

[fsr402]

Here is another one.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/kansas-city-chiefs-jovan-belcher-suicide-murder-no-reason-to-take-away-rights-120512

The burning embers of the Twin Towers had a way of being invoked when a particularly dicey part of the Patriot Act needed selling 11 years ago.

BEARS REPEATING
Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher would be alive if there had been no handgun in their home, Jason Whitlock says.

This was the smart play. Watering down constitutional rights is not easily undertaken. So scaring Americans and then using that fear to explain why this egregious assault on their rights is for their own good is genius. This is exactly why the right protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures of Americans is no longer absolute, thanks to the Patriot Act, and a right to a speedy and public trial by jury was only days ago finally reaffirmed in the Senate, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) so eloquently arguing, “If we relinquish our rights because of fear, what is it exactly, then, we are fighting for?”

Yes, tragedy is a dangerous time for the Bill of Rights because somebody is always there to wave a flag or an orphaned baby and use that to explain why we need to voluntarily give up rights our Founding Fathers so wisely gave to us. And so it is with this Jovan Belcher tragedy.

The Kansas City Chiefs linebacker gunned down his girlfriend — the mother of his baby — and then killed himself, leaving a 3-month-old girl without parents. That this is a tragedy is inarguable. That this is some sort of referendum on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms is absurd.

My esteemed colleague, Jason Whitlock, argued just that in a very thoughtful column, noting “What I believe is, if (Belcher) didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” NBC analyst Bob Costas used this as a jumping off point to proselytize during halftime of “Football Night in America” about perspective in sports and the dangers of guns.

The problem with intelligent, impassioned, well-reasoned arguments is how seductive they are. It is easier to blow off the crazy guy screaming “ban all guns” than journalists such as Whitlock or Costas who are arguing rather convincingly how the Second Amendment threatens our liberty rather than enhances it.

What I know for sure is the distinguished senator from Kentucky is right. And his impassioned defense of the Sixth Amendment on the Senate floor last week needs to be Googled and viewed by everybody calling for a gun ban in response to the Belcher tragedy

“We have nothing to fear that should cause us to relinquish our rights as free men and women,” Paul said. “I urge my colleagues to reject fear, to reject the siren call for ever more powerful government.”

This is not simply about guns. This is about rights. It is a slippery slope from doing something in the interest of public safety to giving up what we hold dear. The slope is greased with fear, with a self-righteous belief that we know better than the framers of the Constitution. And it is all based on informal fallacy.

The idea that if we just ban all guns Kasandra Perkins does not die and a 3-month-old baby is not orphaned is the very essence of a stated premise that fails to support its proposed conclusion. Yes, guns are dangerous and people such as Belcher sometimes use them to do awful things. What I believe in my heart is Jovan Belcher was going to find a way to wreak havoc that day whether he had a gun or a knife or only his fists. And even the potential to stop him is not justification for willingly handing over rights guaranteed to us.

If this makes me a gun nut or a wing nut or a preachy PITA, I am OK with those labels. Although, I prefer Constitutionalist.

There are not a lot of us left — not absolutists, at least.

Conservatives argue for limiting the right to a speedy trial because terrorists are dangerous. Liberals argue for taking away my right to bear arms because people like Belcher use them in unspeakably horrific ways. Hell, the mayor of New York wants to take away my right to buy a big cup of Coke while in his city because obesity has become such an epidemic. Where does it end? Taking away free speech, freedom of the press? Restricting our right to peaceably assemble? Whittling away our very liberty?

Liberty and democracy are not the same things.

Democracy means the majority decides what rules govern us. Liberty is the idea that we all have certain rights that cannot be taken away, not even by a majority. These are the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence, and when we give them up voluntarily, for whatever reason no matter how altruistic, what we find is all we have done is given more rights to the government that were intended for us.

Doing so makes us less safe, not more.

So I absolutely believe in “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” just as I do the right to a trial by jury and freedom of religion. And as tragic as this Belcher murder-suicide story is, as much as my heart breaks for that little girl, the answer is not taking away or willingly giving up the right of Americans to bear arms.

Because if we give up our liberty for the mirage of safety, what really have we won?

[lljj]

Jovan Belcher killed the mother of his child his only child he was a sick minded man somebody know it they just sat and did nothing to help him some people just because they have a high paying job some of them don't need gun,knife,stick,cooking tools or a pen. The gun didn't kill her or him he did and if you think that the gun did it you need to be locked in a padded room because guns don't talk to people or move in the air and shot. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE,PEOPLE KILLS PEOPLE. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins and killed him self when he saw the police he just didn't want to pay for his crime.

[bagz013]

Bob Costas is a media puppet!

and a moron!!!!

[Soulfyre65]

My wife posted this on my timeline on facebook. I had a "discussion" with a person on there that happens to be anti gun. I am going to copy and paste the "discussion" for your entertainment.



Ron - WOW! Well said. Stick that up your ass and smoke it Bob Costas.


Pamela - I, for one, would love to see much stronger gun control laws in this country (I doubt it will ever happen, though, and we will continue to have situations like the one in the Colorado theater this past summer). Kudos to Costas and Whitlock for speaking up. I think it's a sad world we live in when we're more concerned with protecting people's rights to possess firearms than we are about people's rights to not be harmed by said weapons.


Ron - If there were someone in that theater that was legally armed...the threat would have ended quickly. Guns dont kill people...people kill people. Cars kill people...should we ban cars? Knives kill people...should we ban knives? Baseball bats kill people...should we ban baseball bats? NO! Because they are inanimate objects that are used by people to cause harm. Do spoons make people fat? No...people make themselves fat. If the government TRIES to ban firearms from legal owners....the only ones that will have them are criminals. Drug laws really took the drugs off the streets...eh?


Ron - Read the second amendment...for that matter...read all of them. They were put into place for the people to be protected from their government. Most sheeple just want to ban guns because they think that will solve all the worlds problems. Talk to ANY police officer worth his salt...all the ones i've talked to are totally for law abiding citizens to be armed. Because in their words "We cant be everywhere, and would welcome responsable law abiding citizens' help". When seconds count between life or death, the police are only minutes away.


Pamela - Ron, I would love to have this discussion some time when we see each other in person...it is too hard to do on FB because there are so many arguments that can be made, and honestly, I just don't have the time (prepping for finals/school projects right now). The only one that I will touch on is the argument about if someone else in the theater would have been armed. No one has ever been able to explain to me how having someone else fire a gun in a smoke filled theater with a panicked crowd at a target who was at the time unknown and almost completely covered in body armor would have prevented people from being killed. I would argue that it probably would have caused more deaths.


Pamela - The following blog sums up my feelings on the majority of the other points: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control
www.cracked.com

Pamela - One final note, I have spoken with several police officers (two of them live right in my subdivision), and not one of them has ever expressed that they wish more people (law abiding or not) were armed. They have said the exact opposite to me.


Ron - I dont hold a lot of faith in articles posted on the internet. I would be more than happy to have that discussion. I dont argue...I state my case plainly.


Pamela - And this is me stating mine. As for the article, I'm not saying you need to agree with it - it is just a pretty good summary of my views.


Ron - But, I will says this...do I think there are some people that own guns that shouldn't? Absolutely. But, I do not agree with just out right banning them. Think about this....if there were a gun ban...how in the world would this country defend ourselves from foreign invaders? Right now, there are more than 80 million legal firearm owners in this country...a foreign country trying to invade us would basically be committing suicide. If they somehow take our firearms away, this country is a sitting duck just waiting to be over run...kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

[METL]

FIrst thing is she needs to understand Holmes was NOT wearing body armor.


THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE and shows the medias effect on people when they print LIES and UNTRUTHS.


Holmes was wearing the firearms equivalent of a fishing vest.

http://www.reactgear.com/Blackhawk-Omega-Elite-Vest-Cross-Draw-Pistol-Mag-p/30ev5-p.htm


A vest with lots of pouches and straps....  NO BALLISTIC PLATES.   FOr pete's sake "informed" people sure are idiots some times


Here's a link showing the list of items he bought... BLACKHAWK URBAN ASSAULT VEST.   http://www.9news.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=279073


Here's the item:   http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest



Additional quote from the WIKI that pisses me off...   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

It is alleged that he then went to his car, which was parked near the exit door, changed into protective clothing, and retrieved his guns.[4][5] About 30 minutes into the film, police say, around 12:38 a.m.,[6] he re-entered the theater through the exit door. He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest, a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector and tactical gloves

They STILL want to act as if he had some sort of bullet proof stuff...    the "protective" gear he wore was NOT ballistic.   Shin guards, knee pads, throat and groin protectors...  hard plastic items to guard against impacts...  IE throat punch, groin kick.



PLEASE inform her she is incorrect.  (an an idiot)