He Always liked Guns?

[jonathon27]

Taking guns away from the general public, will only leave a defenseless public, against a well armed criminal element. Criminals are not law abiding citizens!

[mjh345]

I don't think the media response is Liberalism. It is Urbanism. They don't see that people own guns for purposes other than killing people. They see rural America as a dangerous place filled with Jed Clampets and guns.

I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using ouir gun rights to kill people

[road kill]

I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using ouir gun rights to kill people in defense of person or country.

What he said^^^^^fixed.........the Govt ain't concerned about criminals having guns, they are concerned about people like most of us, who may fight back.

[zeus3925]

I dont care what you call it.
Im sick of supposed 2nd amendment supporters claiming that the 2nd amendment was intended to gaurantee our right to keep guns for deer or quail hunting purposes. To mme that is "politically correct Bullsh*t"
Our 2nd amend rights are guaranteed to us by the founding fathers to ensure that a well armed public could defend themselves from people Overreaching government actors, foreign invaders, violent criminals etc.....not deer or quail.
Lets quit pussyfooting around it. That implicitly would involve using our gun rights to kill people

The viewpoint of the Second is a bit more complicated than that. Hunting was a part of that. In the era of the founding of the republic, there was already a century of hostilities between settlers and native people. The founders did not trust a standing army as it might turn into a tool of an oppressive government. But a population without arms would be defenseless without a standing army. After all, there was still a threat of a British invasion, particularly via Canada.

I own several firearms. I use them to hunt, plink and train dogs. While they could be used to defend my domicile, I have no interest in killing people. People that own firearms for the sole purpose of wanting to kill somebody, when the opportunity arises, need help in my estimation. It just fuels the gun phobic people who want to take your and my firearms away.

[M&K's Retrievers]

Bob Costas's comment didnt blame the GUN... He blamed the "Gun Culture society"

He figgures,,its the ones in society that believe in the second ammendment.
Again,, an attack on our Culture as Americans.

I think SNF,, and NBC,,, and COSTAS should leave their commentary to the topics they understand most... and that would be jock straps,,, and their contents,,,,,,,


Gooser



Gooser

Wonder what Costas is going to say when they find out the cause like maybe steroids or other drugs?

[road kill]

Wonder what Costas is going to say when they find out the cause like maybe steroids or other drugs?

Chiefs linebacker Belcher struggled with head injuries, alcohol and painkillers before he snapped and killed girlfriend:

By TARA PALMERI and BART HUBBUCH in KANSAS CITY, MO., and LEONARD GREENE in NY
Last Updated: 7:07 AM, December 3, 2012
Posted: 5:32 PM, December 2, 2012
Kansas City Chiefs linebacker and former Long Island high-school star Jovan Belcher was allegedly battling football-related head injuries and booze, painkiller and domestic problems when he snapped and murdered his girlfriend before killing himself in front of two coaches Saturday.

A pal of Belcher’s told the Web site Deadspin.com that Kasandra Perkins, the mother of Belcher’s 3-month-old daughter, had threatened to leave him for good amid fighting between the pair.

The couple had only recently reconciled after Perkins left their rented house in Kansas City with the baby at one point to stay with friends. Perkins had returned, but friends said the relationship was still volatile.

Kansas City Chiefs running back Jovan Belcher (right) battled head injuries, drugs and alcohol before he snapped and killed his girlfriend Michele Perkins (left), friends said.BELCHER'S MOM WILL RAISE ORPHANED BABY ON LI FOLLOWING TRAGEDY

It didn’t help that he was drinking every day and taking painkillers while dealing with the effects of debilitating head injuries, the friend said.

Chiefs chairman Clark Hunt said today that Belcher was "a player who had not had a long concussion history.’’

Belcher, 25, and Perkins, 22, had argued for the last time when she returned home late from a concert Saturday morning. But the Belcher friend said the concert was only a “tipping point.”

“This was the result of a long-term conflict,” the pal said. “She made it clear that she was leaving and would contact a lawyer’’ to fight for custody and child support.

Cops today revealed that Belcher shot Perkins nine times before committing suicide with a different gun. His mother witnessed the slaying; she had been in town to help Perkins with the new baby, sources have said.

Belcher’s mother, Cheryl Shepherd, will now take custody of the couple’s infant daughter and plans to return with the child to the family’s West Babylon home, where her troubled son grew up, his relatives said.

The kin said the baby was in another room when Belcher snapped and unloaded on Perkins.

“[Shepherd’s] taking it as anyone else would've taken it,” said Belcher’s cousin, Eric Oakes, 20, who lives in the mom’s renovated house where Belcher grew up. “She just lost a son. We're all coming together.”

Oakes, wearing a game-warn Chief’s jersey with Belcher’s number 59 on it, said his cousin was his role model.

"[He's] always trying to steer me right. That's the only person I wanted to be like. A role model, basically my father. He's the person who made me play football,” said Oakes, who played running back for West Babylon HS.

In Kansas City, relatives trickled in an out of the home that had become a murder scene.

“I think she was home alone a lot,” said Kristen Van Meter, 31, a neighbor who went to community college with the victim. “He was kind of quiet. he would come and go.”

When he was there, she said, there were lots of parties.

There is always MORE........he is some more.........

[HPL]

The viewpoint of the Second is a bit more complicated than that. Hunting was a part of that. In the era of the founding of the republic, there was already a century of hostilities between settlers and native people. The founders did not trust a standing army as it might turn into a tool of an oppressive government. But a population without arms would be defenseless without a standing army. After all, there was still a threat of a British invasion, particularly via Canada.

I started a thread the day after the nat elections that dealt in more detail with the question of the 2nd amendment. Here is the link to a pivotal Supreme Court decision (I really recommend reading the whole opinion as it has some great historical references that deal specifically with the defense against govt idea) and some excerpts from that decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm....ZO.html#26ref.

It is a transcript of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in "District of Columbia vs. Heller". It is a long read, and there are many very interesting passages. I would recommend that anyone interested in the thinking behind the primary arguments for the individual right to keep and bear arms take an hour or so to read it. I am sure that I will read it several times to be sure that I understand it, but I have included three short passages that I find quite salient.
HPL

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself..........................


...........St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Commentaries, as we explained above, conceived of the Blackstonian arms right as necessary for self-defense...........................Tucker elaborated on theSecond Amendment : “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” (emphasis mine, HPL).

In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms,.........................."

[HPL]

I am sure that many football players are just big pussycats, but the fact is that it is a VIOLENT sport that attracts people that enjoy violent physical contact, can tolerate pain, and don't especially mind inflicting it. Add potential brain damaging effects of that type of contact, and to some degree, it only seems logical that violence may rear up in their lives off the field too.

[2tall]

Instead of blaming the "gun culture" I think it would be fair to take a hard, hard look at the "professional sports celebrity" culture. In addition to the concerns voiced by HPL, you also have the fan worship, extreme wealth at an early age, and constant public and media exposure. Maybe one time all this stress shows in a Michael Vick fighting dogs and the next time an attack on family and self. Our worship of celebrities, be they athletes or talk show hosts, seems to me to be a bigger danger to our society than inanimate guns. I have yet to see a loaded gun lift itself up out of a safe and seek out and shoot itself at anything.

(got ya wonderin' now, right? 2talls a lib according to POTUS. But she believes it is more than a right, but a solemn duty to maintain weapons in order to protect her own household and family, not to mention all the duck and deer meat that the other half brings home!)

[MooseGooser]

I believe people should be OUTRAGED that NBC, and SNF, allowed Costas to sprew his political bias at the foot of such a tradgedy.

There is ALWAYS more to these stories. It most often times is a troubled young person not being able to cope with lifes pressures.

We need to help these folk out. Seriously help these people....

Gooser