Michael Walsh points out another disturbing Costas comment on gun control
Our friend Michael Walsh pointed out another issue with Bob Costas’ opinion on gun control. In short, Costas doesn’t know jack about firearms.
During an interview on the Dan Patrick Show today Costas stated “Why do you need a semi automatic weapon? What possible use is there?” From Walsh writing at NRO’s The Corner this afternoon.
Super-scary “semi-automatic” weapons are those that require a separate pull of the trigger to fire each round — just like a completely non “semi-automatic” weapon like a revolver.
Good eye Mike. So either Costas is OK with us having single shot, single action pistols in our home for self defense, or more likely he was referring to fully automatic (machine guns) and/or select-fire weapons that have burst or full auto capabilities.
Let’s assume – my goodness why am I doing this – Costas was referring to the full auto rifles you see in the military movies. Does Costa know you can’t just buy one of those at the gun store with your permit, FID card or standard background check? You absolutely can not buy a new one, and buying used requires federal ATF involvement including a huge tax stamp bill and extensive background check.
That’s right, you have not been able to buy a machine gun since 1934! Does Costas realize how utterly rare it is for a machine gun to be used in a crime in the United States?
So Mike showed Costas does not know what he’s speaking about, and even after taking the time to clarify what Costas probably meant, I proved again Costas does not know what he’s talking about.
Hey Mike, next time you’re back in Connecticut let’s pick up Vicevich and go shooting. I’ll bring some of those super-scary “semi-automatic” weapons.
Morning Update: By the way Mr. Costas, Jovan Belcher did not use a full auto machine gun to kill the mother of his child, he used a handgun. He’s all over the place in his “clarification” isn’t he?
Minor point, Steve. ?Under NFA 34, the law that regulates Class III firearms, you could purchase a new Class III after undergoing its requirements. ?In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act limited purchases, for civilians, to current stock. ?New Class III are reserved for police, military and government purchases.
Interesting quirk in history. ?Assault Weapons were defined in the late 1940s during the creation of NATO. ?Yet, the law regulating them was created about 15 years earlier.?
Regarding your comment about crime and machine guns; the only known instance involved a police officer using his department issued Uzi Machine Pistol to kill a drug dealer. Not sure of details, but I guess he killed the informant to prevent him from talking.?
Thank you for the clarification. There have been instances – again rare – where a machine gun was used during a crime, but nobody was killed or injured.
Just for accuracy, the “Journalist’s Guide to Firearms” should have the 1972 Maverick at the bottom replaced with an SUV….
Someone should tell Costas that as a firearms expert, he is a great sports talking head.? Clearly, he has no friends.
The Leftist Credo is:?
?????????????????????????????????????????? Emotion trumps facts.
That explains why Democrats exist.
The left “say anything” crowd can’t even decide on the definition of a word or term.? The definition will morph to their needs.? Hence the morning after damage control spinmeister interperators
Remember their mantra, “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”.? Ignoring the fact (thanks JBS)?that the US had sold them poison gas bombs – ask the Kurds but had not used them all.?
Yet a man in Detroit had a bomb in his skivees and?the left media defines it as a weapon of mass destruction ! ? ! ? !? And that wasn’t even an I.E.D.? A media insult to our troops in my book.