Replies

I am also concerned about a “gun culture”, but Costas would be much more credible in his clarification if he was not so quick to put forth so much drivel that is aligned with that put out by the gun-grabbers. He could have started by not giving the time of day to a columnist whose drivel was 100% aligned with gun-grabbing.

As with all things liberal, he who controls the meaning of words and phrases controls the outcome of the debate. So, what, exactly, does this columnist mean by a “gun culture”?

By his own words, I guess it means a “culture” where the NRA can hand out both guns and drugs to inner city youth. Am I off base by questioning just how many of these youth would qualify to legally possess a firearm to begin with? Since it is a felony for a felon to even possess, let alone own, a firearm, then what world does this columnist living in? I guess one where unicorns fart Skittles while traversing an rainbow made out of Arizona Tea and cough syrup.

But this is the piece that Costas endorsed by reading on the air, not some piece that discussed, for example, what kind thorough instruction in the safety and law that same columnist would receive when he enrolls in any class in his home town for his concealed carry permit.

Costas, by his words, implied that felons for whom a handgun was just another tool with which to commit violence on others where indistinguishable from concealed carry permitees, despite the vast difference in outcomes. He just slandered the 100,000+ permitees in Missouri, and likened us to inner city thugs.

In the highly unlikely event that Costas is reading this, and the unlikely event that he cares to do just a little homework, I would direct him to a study published by the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324

Excerpt:

In an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:

Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.

Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

It turns out that people who get their concealed carry permits are in a demographic is the just about the least likely to commit a crime with a gun. Indeed, they are about the least likely identifiable population group to commit ANY crimes that can be identified.

By being so careless with his words, Costas has just slandered a lot of people who otherwise would be his fans. He certainly has slandered a lot of his fellow citizens. Our Dear Leader is fond of scolding us about “teaching moments”. This is certainly one if Costas cares to learn.

Well, his "excuse" and that of many of his supporters in this is that he was opining on a piece by Jason Whitlock, not so much expressing his own opinions. (There's a surprise)

For those who don't know who Jason Whitlock is, he is a racist who equates the NRA with the KKK, and thinks there is a conspiracy by whites to supply poor blacks with guns and drugs in order to keep them down.

Not kidding. This is a direct quote from the POS on an interview he had after his piece was printed:
"...you know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture — I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart]...” Jason Whitlock

So this is the guy Costas thinks is worth throwing his lot in with on national television. You cannot make this up.

Even more disturbing is that it is a fact that there are many in the Obama administration, including Obama, who believe this but would never say it publicly.

The fact that there were racial issues in this country prior to 2008 is indisputable, but minorities and blacks in particular had been making steady progress upwards since 1945.

What is also indisputable is that in 2008, this candidate ran as some kind of great unifier, but instead, he and his acolytes and followers have chosen to deliberately drive a class wedge and a racial wedge between people in this country to accomplish their political goals.

As a result, people are more polarized and divided than they have ever been in this country, and it isn’t because Obama is black. It is because he has deliberately chosen to take our country on that pathway.