In response to:

Bob Costas Continues to Bury Himself Over Anti-Gun Comments

cyberquill Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 9:08 AM
Founding Fathers like George Washington may have understood that an armed citizenry would have prevented government tyranny in the 18th century, but given the types of weapon systems available to our government these days (drones, tanks, missiles cluster bombs, etc.), it is beyond naive to think that a citizenry armed with common handguns and hunting rifles could mount a meaningful defense against a crackdown by the U.S. military. Ergo, the primary rationale for the Second Amendment has fallen by the wayside a long time ago.
The Texas Eagle Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 3:55 PM
You mean like how the Viet Cong could never beat the US military? Now, I know that the VC didn't cause the US to lose the war in Vietnam, politicians took care of that, I'm just saying those little VC were pretty darn resourceful and capable of carrying on a guerilla war against the biggest and best military in the world for a lot longer than they should have been able to. The same applies to the 100 million guns owned by non-military in the US. We also were the ones that beat the biggest and best military in the world with a bunch of long rifles and stolen cannons.
aceofwands Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 11:05 AM
You should study harder and read about the "French Resistance" of WWII. Also brushing up on the concept of the "Lone Wolf" may enlighten you.


“He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”


? Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Col Bat Guano Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 9:21 AM
This is one of the stupidest arguments out there and yet it keeps being repeated over and over. The two biggest flaws:

1. It presumes the sons and daughters in the military would turn their arms against their fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters.

2. It presumes the US military would turn their arms against their fellow Americans for the likes of Barack 0bama.

Fortunately, the idiot that wrote this comment was smart enough to leave out the nuclear weapons part - the dumbest part of that meme.
coveyrise Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 9:21 AM
Well Cyber you have just proven that you don't know what you're talking about. If there ever were a civilian uprising in the US which we all hope never happens, it would not just be with common handguns and hunting rifles. For the very reasons Costas complains about millions of Amricans now own high capacity magazine semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s. Secondly, the Military would have to convince it's personnel to go into full out attack mode against it's own citzens which is unlikely on a broad enough scale to succeed.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 9:18 AM
The United States Military cannot lawfully be used in this manner against US citizens. Were it to be tried, the results for those in office would be dire. More to your point, the lack of tanks and drones have not stopped Al Qaeda from being very effective in their fight against our troops, worldwide. So I conclude that your analysis is deeply flawed and without merit.
Andy544 Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 9:14 AM
what makes you think the U.S.Military, with armed American young men, would turn its guns on its own fellow citizens? (and not on the officers who gave the order to 'fire'). You don't talk like an American, pgugerell (your name doesn't sound like one either)

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Last night NBC sportscaster Bob Costas made an appearance on the O'Reilly Fact in an effort to clear up any "misunderstanding" about what he said during his anti-gun monologue on Sunday night football in reaction to NFL player Jovan Belcher killing the mother of his child. Yesterday, Costas issued a non-apology for his comments that was full of excuses and one that blamed viewers for misinterpreting what he really meant and said.

"I don't back up on anything I said."