We’re not done covering sports broadcaster Bob Costas and his outburst for gun control during Monday Night Football. In trying to “explain” his MNF soliliquoy, he let this sally forth as some kind of an explanation. Now, there are a lot of folks that are just concentrating on the talk specifically about guns; my beef with him is how he phrased it (see if you can catch it). From the Washington Post (via Breitbart):
“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”
Part of the culture is the proliferation of weapons, he said.
“There are those who believe that denying a semi automatic weapon or an assault rifle is the first step down a slippery slope in denying an old lady a gun for her own protection,” Costas said. “There are people who honestly believe that in Aurora [Colo.] if only a dozen or so people there to watch the Batman movie had been packin’, they would have been able to take down the nut job in full body armor with military-type guns
No, you didn’t leave much open for interpretation, sir. You said one of the magic Liberal phrases:
I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to… Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there?
Er, let’s get the stupid one of the two out of the way (“What possible use is there?”); er, what possible, practical use is there in having 22 Goliath sized men in expensive costumes and plastic beat each other to a pulp simply move a piece of inflated cow hide from one end of a rectangular field to another – and costing hundreds of millions of bucks per year to do it?
The magic phrase is “WHY do you need that? as in “You don’t need that!”. Each and every time, the response should be ridicule the speaker of such phrase – for they are not asking a question but making a judgment upon your outlook (and I keep hearing from Libs that I am judgmental??). With that one phrase (or variant thereof), they show a total lack that there are other folks who have different needs and wants outside of their own narrow worldview. They just don’t get it that they just don’t HAVE to get what somebody wants to do. After all, if somebody wants to collect small pieces of cardboard with some of those 22 Goliaths – or glass insulators, or knifes, or military gear or Lesney (aka Matchbox) cars (of which I have a couple hundred from playing with them whilst a young lad) as a grown adult.
NYC Mayor Nanny Bloomberg doesn’t believe that we “need” Gulps, Progressives don’t believe we need democracy, environmentalists don’t believe we should have certain forms of energy, and Moochella certainly wants us to have only certain foods that meet her standard, the EPA wants us to drive only cars THEY approve of, and Obama wants you to be able to express your religion freely- but only inside the 4 walled building he’s pointing at. Or that the Five Families of the NH GOP should pick our next Chair for us (and charge us each $25 for the “opportunity”)? Move along here, folks, nothing but blinkered philosophy here…
After all, we don’t NEED anything except that what they would allow us. Choice – well now, just don’t worry yer pretty little head about that – we’ll just make them all fer ya!
In all cases, they never ask themselves: what is the Freedom in that? Their knee-jerk reaction is, as always, is we need to keep you from making a bad decision. According to OUR value system.