Skip to content

Astros remove gun from Colt .45s throwback uniforms

Feb 18, 2012, 8:58 AM EDT

Image (1) Colt%20.45s%20logo.gif for post 4997

The Astros are celebrating their 50th anniversary this season, so they plan to honor their past by wearing a different throwback uniform at every Friday home game. The first “Flashback Friday” will feature the Colt .45s, which was the name of the franchise for the first three years of its existence.

Sweet. Those were some pretty awesome uniforms. The only problem is, MLB nixed including the gun in the logo.

According to Paul Lukas of the Uni Watch blog, Astros fan James Crabtree wrote a letter to commissioner Bud Selig about the issue and this is the response he got from Mike Acosta, the Astros’ authentication manager:

“During our discussion with Major League Baseball, it was expressed to us that we could wear the uniform as long as the pistol was removed. We realize this changes the original design, but we still want to honor the Colt .45s. We are also under an obligation to follow Major League Baseball’s requests.”

Oof. The weird thing about this is that when the Astros originally announced plans for “Flashback Friday” last September, they had the old Colt .45s uni featured front and center. Apparently something changed over the past few months.

There was some discussion about whether the Colt .45s was appropriate back when new Astros owner Jim Crane mentioned that they had considered changing the team’s name. The world is a very different place now than it was when the franchise debuted in 1962, so obviously the same name and logo wouldn’t work today, but completely altering the design for one game is a bit overboard.

113 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. frankvzappa - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM

    “… but completely altering the design for one game is a bit overboard.”

    It only appears overboard if you fail to realize how pervasive the anti-gun propaganda in this country has become. They have been targeting the 2nd amendment for a long time, since an armed citizenry is the last and best defense against an authoritarian fascist government. And since nobody raised a stink when they took away our fourth amendment rights a few months ago, people will probably think losing our 2nd amendment rights is no big deal either. And it just wouldn’t be effective propaganda if thousands of grown men become reminded of their heritage, consciously or otherwise.

    Criminals and criminal governments love unarmed victims.

    • chiadam - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

      The second amendment was really just a way to arm civilians to fight the Revolutionary War. People always seem to forget that. I would hope that you’re not lamenting our potential inability to declare war on our own government.

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

        Ummm, the Bill of Rights (the document containing the first ten amendments) was ratified in 1791, ten years after fighting stopped and eight years after the Treaty of Paris was signed, offically ending the war.

        So you might want to brush up on your history if you are going to use it to try and limit my gun rights.

      • Kevin S. - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM

        But it was specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well-organized militia. It was never intended to allow people to run down the street with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder.

      • philsieg - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM

        Close. The Second Amendment was designed to allow for the formation of citizen militias to protect communities (while we were merrily stealing the land from those who had it first) and avoid the maintenance of a standing army. The Founders would not recognize what the NRA and its acolytes have perverted it into today.

        That said, the Colt .45s unis represent history and history should never be rewritten (unless you’re the Texas school board, the Tennessee legislature or one of the various collections of Tea Party twits…oh, and Fox News, of course).

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM

        I see. When the truth doesn’t agree with your argument, it gets thumbs down. Ignorance is bliss.

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM

        “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary, US Founding Father and Author

        “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President of the United States

        So what were the Founding Fathers thinking again?

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM

        You’re right. Gun control is good:

        “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” – Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:08 AM

        Even Ghandi knew better:

        “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” -Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM

        *Gandhi

        Edit Function, Please.

        Oh, and for the record, that’s fascist dictator for gun control, ardent pacifist against.

      • lostsok - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM

        There was disagreement in 1876 about the degree to which guns were a “right,” and to what purpose, just as now. Read the original State of Virginia constitution, whose verbiage was used to craft the 2nd Amendment a few years later. There are numerous books and sites that detail the discussion (and arguments) of the day.

        Be that as a it may, as a Liberal I would say this: if we risk one right, we risk them all. We have established over many decades a tradition of gun ownership for law abiding citizens. The holds weight as indication that the population at large has long held the meaning of the Bill of Rights was that of an individual, not their respective state. Most states have affirmed this.

        As to the uni design, guns are a constant in movies and games. Having the design on a uniform–especially for one day–seems unlikely to lead to a killing spree.

      • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM

        How many of those guys running down the streets with AK-47′s over their shoulder went out and purchased them legally?

      • paperlions - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM

        Ignoring the reason for the “right” and accepting it. All gun control laws have done is affect law abiding citizens. If someone with criminal intent wants to obtain a gun and commit misdeeds, the gun laws have had no effect whatsoever. Creating an ignorant public (in this case, one unfamiliar with firearms) has never created a desired effect or resulted in a societal benefit.

      • oldpaddy - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM

        Howard Stern’s Penis!!!!!!!!!!!
        YeeeeeeeAAAAAAWWW!!!!

      • bdawk20 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM

        http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss90/captain_kerker/Guns_Don_t_Kill_People.jpg

      • rje49 - Feb 18, 2012 at 2:08 PM

        In 1789, when the Bill of Rights/Constitution was ratified, the “Militia” was “the people” – common citizens. There was no such thing as National Guard, etc. So don’t try to interpret the term Militia of 1789 was what our formal military forces are today.

    • b7p19 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      At the risk of jumping into the middle of this “i’ve read more things that other people said than you” argument, I would like to say this is about a baseball uniform. It’s about a BASEBALL UNIFORM. Bud Selig is not trying to take away your (or my) guns.

      Of course MLB is going to play it safe.

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM

        It starts with a picture on a shirt…

        sarcasm on.

    • azvikefan - Feb 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM

      Criminals and criminal governments love unarmed victims– See Obama and his puppeteer george Soros.

  2. chiadam - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

    What a cowardly and unnecessary decision. The pussification of our country continues.

    • baseballisboring - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

      Yep. All I can think when I read this is WHO gives a shit? What kind of adverse effect could having a gun on a jersey for one game have on anything at all? There’s just no logic behind it. I’m so sick of how sanitized everything is in this country.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:11 PM

        Then you will enjoy your next truck stop toilet seat immensely.

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 8:20 PM

        Plus it’s the Atros. How many people are going to be there?

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM

        *Astros

      • baseballisboring - Feb 19, 2012 at 12:38 AM

        Hey…say what you will about truck stop toilet seats, but there’s nothing pretentious about a truck stop toilet seat. It is what it is. It doesn’t try to be clean, it just exists in all its’ shit and piss covered glory. At least truck stop toilet seats are honest about what they are.

  3. bertilfox - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    The anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hand of criminals. It’s ultimate goal is to keep guns out of the hands of free people who will defend themselves against an oppressive government. Never forget that. That is why Liberals hate Texas, Texans and anything that smacks of the rugged individual traditions of America.

    • Kevin S. - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM

      Is that what they told you when they re-wrote your history books?

    • cleverbob - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM

      “Rugged individual tradition”, he writes as his state receives more federal dollars than it pays in taxes. Enjoy your alternate reality.

      • paperlions - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

        I lived in TX for 10 years, if I had to describe Texans as a group (recognizing that many individuals do not fit the descriptions) it would be arrogant, willfully ignorant, xenophobic, superficial, materialists. Sorry, didn’t see any rugged individualists.

      • stex52 - Feb 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM

        Ouch, Paper. That is a pretty broad generalization for 25 million + people. Where were you in Texas? Sounds like it must have been the Dallas area.

        Then you are probably accurate.

      • paperlions - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        I was in Lubbock, at Texas Tech; educating some of the….ahem…fine TX youth. Lubbock wishes it was Dallas….so your guess is pretty accurate. I’ve lived in many states and a few countries, never been around a group of people that suffered so badly by comparison to everywhere/everyone else (and if you really want to know about people, all you have to do is listen to their children talk). I knew/know some great people that are Texans, but they were the minority.

    • lostsok - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

      “The anti-gun agenda” is well-meaning but misunderstood. Many liberals are urban, where gang issues are very real and very serious, and many simply don’t grown up with guns around (and are therefore timid in regards to their place in society).

      Framing it as a big conspiracy just makes you look silly, though. That a.m. hate-radio nonsense is just getting laughable.

      As to liberals “hating Texas,” it’s kind of ignoring the 40% of Texans who vote Democrat and the fact that Travis County is among the most liberal in the US. I know you extremists hate complicated words, but look up “myopia.”

    • deadeyedesign23 - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:20 PM

      I’m liberal. I’m from Georgia and I live in New York. I don’t hate Texas. I can tell you that among the reasons liberals hate Texas, a fear of you guys rising up to defeat our government is not one of them. I would say the homophobia, tradition of racism, and embracing of anti intelligence (see: evolution) are near the top of the list.

      Oh and you gave us W. No offense, but I’m still trying to get that taste out of my mouth.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM

        If you’re anything like me, that’ll take a tongue transplant.

        But don’t feel alone: the entire country is trying to get the taste of his catastrophic eight years out of its mouth. It should maybe just try swallowing and then defecating.

      • deadeyedesign23 - Feb 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM

        Haha I’m willing to cut Texas some slack. It’s such a big state with so many people the law of averages pretty much says there has to be one half dumb sociopath with deep pockets like W walking around.

  4. deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    Along with getting our country so deeply in debt to them, turning our children into a bunch of sheltered p#ssies is going to be the reason why we will be raising the red & yellow flag of China over our state buildings one day. If the uniforms are so freakin’ offensive, then don’t even use them.

    • cleverbob - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      That’s exactly what they’re doing – not using them.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM

      Well, it’s a relief to see you think it’s the Chinese who will be taking us over instead of Russians or Muslims. Well, the food will be better, in any case. It would have gotten boring pretty quickly with nothing to nosh on but borscht or hummus…..ah, here’s my wonton soup! Pass the crispy noodles, please….

      • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM

        Gator, if that’s the way you’re looking at it, then I’d rather get taken over by Thailand. Thai food kicks azz.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        Dare I even say….the French?….

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

        Uh…France, then?

        (giggle)

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 4:43 PM

        Ah, well in that case, dare I mention in this context…the French?

        (giggle)

  5. nightrain42 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM

    I love the orig uni’s as they are, don’t change them. This has little to with the constitution and more about parents not parenting and just sayin oh blame crime on guns. Every time a child has a gun related accident, u hear about it. Be responsible, don’t blame guns!

    • sportsdrenched.com - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

      This is the start of almost all of scoeities ills. The first government a child should learn is the government of their household. Unfortunatly, some children don’t have a functioning HH Government, if they have one at all.

  6. AlohaMrHand - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM

    so their going to replace it with the beer can then?Sweet!

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

      I was thinking that. If they’re leaving the “Colt 45s” text on the shirt, what do they think it refers to, anyway? I mean, what could be more irresponsible than encouraging children to drink?

    • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

      To be technically correct, it would be a can of malt liquor.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

        Juss out of curosisty, what is the diffwerence between morlt likker and beeah (hic!) They both taysht the shame to me….bleeehhhhhhhh…..

      • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM

        The interweb teaches me new things every day!

        Beers are either “top fermented” or “bottom fermented.” Porters, ales, and stouts are top fermented and malt liquor is bottom fermented, which means the wort (the resulting brew of malt, prepared cereals like corn or rice, hops and water) is fermented by yeast of the bottom fermentation type (i.e. yeast which settles to the bottom of the fermenting tanks). Top fermenting yeast does the opposite. Malt liquor is made from a wort containing a high percentage of fermentable sugars which makes it slightly sweeter and a bit spicy in flavor and also raises the alcohol content.

      • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

        BTW, I’m not sure if it even needs to be said, but if they do decide to go with the malt liqour imagery instead of the gun, Billy Dee Williams needs to throw out the first pitch.

  7. steelerchicken - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM

    The world has gone soft since 1962. Wonder how being politically correct world have worked!!!

    • paperlions - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM

      Going soft and not being racists, sexist, and homophobic aren’t the same thing. You can be hard and not be an asshole.

  8. buffalomafia - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

    Why would they do that when if I am nit mistaken Texas has the best pistol permit laws in the country?

  9. Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    Considering that the Lords of Baseball are overwhelmingly Republican and the rank and file of the sport overwhelmingly conservative, it’s a little nutsy to argue that they’re part of some kind of anti-2nd Amendment conspiracy.

    I’m the owner of a Zodiac .38 I hope never to have to use against anything but the targets down at the Tamiami Trail practice range, but I’m also realistic about some of the pinwheels, burglars and sickos running loose out there – who, unfortunately, have no restrictions placed upon them in the marketplace for arming themselves either. These people couldn’t give a flying crap about political issues or delusional concepts of “freedom” or “liberty.” I’m in favor of responsible gun ownership, which means keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, period. Free and open gun ownership with no controls won’t do that. But I also think that our real security resides in an electorate making well informed decisions at the polls, decisions that are based on research and thought. It will not reside in being armed to the teeth. You elect corrupt, authoritarian, fanatically religious or paranoid representatives, you’re going to have oppression no matter how many guns you have stockpiled in your basement. As someone pointed out above, habeus corpus was suspended by the whores and cowards in Washington without a whimper, guns all over the place or not.

    All that being said, I think it’s idiotic to delete the historic pistols from the uniforms. This is a commemorative celebration and that’s how they looked. We go barging into Iraq in a war of lies and corruption, slaughter a quarter of a million or more innocent people, and then worry that twenty five guys with cartoons of an antique pistol on their uniforms are going to “send the wrong message”?

    What’s the big deal?

    • cleverbob - Feb 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM

      I can’t argue with a single point you made.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM

        Sure you can. I can give you some forensic pointers anytime you want.

      • bigharold - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

        “.. in an electorate making well informed decisions at the polls, decisions that are based on research and thought.”

        There is the thing to argue with. There seems to be a lot more reactionary thoughtless posturing and stupidity than informed decision making.

        It the American way and has been sine the days of Hamilton and Burr.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:27 PM

        I wish I could say that it only seems that way because we’ve been watching a lot of Republican primary debates lately….but I wouldn’t be able to mount any conviction behind such a comment.

  10. Stiller43 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

    You gun supporters are funny. You take stuff that was written 230 years ago and preach it as if it were written for today and the year 2012.

    BUT back to the article, the unifroms SHOULD be including the guns, and the washington wizards should be named the bullets. Enough of this pc crap.

    • deathmonkey41 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

      So, should we throw out Freedom of Speech those other nutty things because they were written so long ago and obviously outdated?

    • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

      Yes, we should. Why, you ask? Because it is a living document. It has been amended and re-interpreted since the moment it was written (and, a short time later, amended).

      It works. It may not work the way you want. Than again, there is a mechanism for you to change it.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

        Nicely put. We don’t always agree on stuff but you nailed that one.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM

        Dits, we don’t agree on much, but when you nail it, you nail it. And you nailed it.

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM

        I take that as a compliment, OG.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:28 PM

        ‘Tis.

  11. randygnyc - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

    Chiadam, so the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed. Lmao @ you being an ignorant fuck.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

      Nothing wrong with the wording of the amendment. What needed adjustment was how a supposedly educated Supreme Court justice could look at the words “well regulated militia” and see a free-for-all in which any lunatic or ex-con could walk into a gun shop and pack without being checked out.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

      The amendment is fine as it is. What might need some adjustment is a Supreme Court justice who could read the words “well regulated militia” and see “free for all where any lunatic or ex-con can walk into a gun shop and pack without any background check.” I think that’s what they call “strict constructionism,” right?

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM

      Randy, I don’t have a problem with the second amendment. But as a (technically) sane and responsible gun owner who has taken the time and trouble to learn how to use and store his weapon properly, I do have a problem with them thar so-called strict constructionist Supreme Court justices who can look at “well regulated militia” and read “unregulated free-for-all” wherein any lunatic or ex-con can walk into a gun show and pack without any sort of background checks whatsoever.

      • skids003 - Feb 20, 2012 at 5:01 PM

        There are already hundres of gun laws out there, regulating how you can purchase a gun. Lunatics and excons cannot walk into a gun show and get one without a background check, don’t believe all the drivel you read on NBC websites.

  12. tom1954 - Feb 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

    I don’t have a problem with people owning guns. It’s the people who own the guns I have a problem with.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM

      I don’t have a problem with people owning people. It’s the people who own people that I have a problem with.

      …Abraham Lincoln

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:14 PM

      I don’t have a problem with people owning people. It’s the people who own people I have a problem with.

      ….Abraham Lincoln

  13. dadawg77 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM

    Could trademark issues be in play here? MLB will sell these jerseys and text Colt 45 with a picture of a gun would infringe on any copyright or trademark of the Colt company. MLB might believe that the jersey without the gun doesn’t or would at least avoid a lawsuit from Colt.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

      I suspect the Colt company is smart enough to recognize a lot of free advertising when they see it. They’re not Disney, you know?

    • jwbiii - Feb 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM

      dadawg77, You win the thread!

      [Houston owner] Judge Roy Hofheinz was fighting a lawsuit with the Colt Firearms Company over the ballclub’s use of the “Colt .45″ name. With the team preparing to move into a futuristic new stadium, the judge wanted a new name for his squad – something original for which he could be the plaintiff the next time there was a suit. He consulted with some of the astronauts at NASA about honoring them with his new “nickname”. They liked it.

      http://www.astrosdaily.com/history/sound/a.html

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM

        Oh well. I guess Colt isn’t as smart as I thought they were.

      • stex52 - Feb 18, 2012 at 9:33 PM

        Pretty much common knowledge down here. You guys need to read all the way through these blogs.

  14. Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM

    To all the people who decided this post would be an awesome opportunity to bust out the political rhetoric:

    Please shut up. This is a baseball blog, and at least for me, one of the only safe places on the internet where I don’t have to hear about this crap. Corporations make PC decisions like this all the time – instead of bemoaning that or using it as a chance to bust out the soapbox, maybe point out how hideously terrible the name “Colt 45s” is for a baseball team, or how horrible my Mets will be this year, or how odd it is that there have been more Orioles articles this week than we’ll probably read all season.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM

      There’s nothing “safe” about this blog. Most of us are, apparently, heavily armed. After reading some of these posts, I think you’d be better off walking down a street in Mogadishu with fifty dollar bills hanging out of all your pockets.

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

        It’s definitely safe by comparison. I don’t read the Yahoo! Sports comment section anymore because I assume my eyeballs will melt out of my skull and I’ll be sucked into an alternate dimension worse than Jayson Werth’s facial hair.

    • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

      So now you want me to forfeit my First Amendment right because you don’t want to read what I type?

      Hogwash!

      • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

        It’s only a violation of the first amendment if I throw you in jail for it.

        And I’m not into handcuffs or anything like that, so you don’t need to worry on that count.

  15. aaronmoreno - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    That’s a revolver, not a pistol.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

      Thanks for enforcing a regime of semiotic precision upon this digital mob riot. I just re-watched the scene in my beloved The Good, the Bad and the Ugly wherein Tuco visits the gun shop and customizes heesself a…revolver. Love the satisfied smile on his face when he holds the gun up to his ear and spins the barrel and gets the sound he’s looking for.

  16. nightrain42 - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

    This isn’t politics guys, it’s being “proper”. No more devil rays, just rays. No more bullets, now wizards. No more Orangemen, just orange. Geez, put the responsibility on parents to teach children what they need to know, not you!

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

      I think the “Devil” was dropped because it was cumbersome, is all. If I remember correctly, the original name was supposed to be the “Devilfish” but some other sports franchise owned a trademark on that for some minor league team or some such thing. And of course, one suspects they wouldn’t have dropped the “Devil” for PC reasons and called themselves just plain “Fish.” Too generic.

      Northern Snakeheads, maybe….

    • jimbo1949 - Feb 18, 2012 at 3:26 PM

      Orangemen was changed to Orange for gender neutrality so all teams could use the nickname. However, the prior nickname was the Saltine Warriors. Changed in the 70s, around the same time as the Stanford Indian became Cardinals then Cardinal. Both teams named for their primary uniform color.

  17. cur68 - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

    What a fascinating set of comments. So much so that I gave up the half hour break between presentations to read them all. At the end of I am really left with one question: the “historical” argument for the continued presence of the names “Indians” & “Braves” is fine but fails for a picture of a revolver, right? I couldn’t give a crap, one way or the other for both issues, but I am struck by the disconnect. Well, so long as the Astros show up and play some baseball, what do I care what uniform they’re all in?

  18. sawxalicious - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    They should either use the original uniforms with the pistol or not use them at all, period. A “throwback” jersey that is not historically accurate is stupid and defeats the purpose of being a “throwback.” It makes as much sense as adding things to the jersey that were not there in the first place.

  19. 4cupsinarow - Feb 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    Out law guns and only outlaws will have guns….. That being said when will the tomahawk be taken off the Braves uni… It is a weapon that was used to kill, maim, and scalp people … No?
    When’s being PC too PC?

  20. hushbrother - Feb 18, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    Just one word for that decision: Weak.

  21. buffalomafia - Feb 18, 2012 at 2:29 PM

    Did anybody ever tell some of you mamalukes on here that this is a blog not a term paper or thesis!

    Just right something in one or two sentences & be done with it! Wtf!

    • cur68 - Feb 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM

      buff, while I’m to some extent sympathetic to your argument, I’m failing to see why you have to read anything you don’t want to? Seriously, ignore it if it looks like a term paper. No one’ll mind.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM

      For extra credit, explain “Mamalukes.”

  22. ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM

    They can have my Throwback Jersey when they Cut it off my cold, dead, body.

    • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 4:52 PM

      Never heard of the Throwbacks. What league were they in?

      • ditto65 - Feb 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM

        Sorry – I was referring to the one-time re-issue of the old-timey Colt 45s. How they would have to cut the shirt with the revolver off my cold dead bod – Oh, forget it.

      • Old Gator - Feb 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM

        Your allusion would have been more easily comprehended if you’d said “Soylent green is people!”

      • ditto65 - Feb 19, 2012 at 7:28 AM

        “Soylent Green is people!”

        (Read with a forceful, yet choppy, epiphianic voice.)

  23. AlohaMrHand - Feb 18, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    aren’t the Astros going to get a name change anyways?And would they legally be allowed to use the name Oilers?

  24. petergammonsdrunknephew - Feb 18, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    MLB is a business. It’s not a government. Removing the gun from the uni was a PR move, not a socialist fascist oligarchical tyrannical move to disarm the citizens of this fair nation.

    That said, damn, those unis aren’t going to look nearly as good without that cool-ass gun.

  25. aceshigh11 - Feb 18, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    Jesus fuckin’ Christ…

    I expected a plethora of unhinged, paranoid tirades based on the title of this article alone, but you amateur Slingblades out there exceeded even my wildest nightmares.

    Now, some facts:

    The NRA is the most effective, most well-funded lobbying organization in the country.

    NO politician, aside from those that represent very safe, upscale, urban liberal districts, even bother bringing up gun control as an issue anymore because the NRA has such a chokehold on the agenda.

    NO ONE is coming for your guns, people.

    Obama clearly doesn’t give a shit how many of you reactionary goobers use photos of him and his wife and kids for target practice with your AK-47s…the only thing he’s done on the issue of guns is sign a bill allowing them to be brought into national parks.

    Of course, facts like these won’t stop the hysteria. The NRA depends on the paranoia of gun fetishists so that that sweet donation money keeps rolling in.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Jackie Robinson Day is bittersweet
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Wood (6488)
  2. J. Kubel (5777)
  3. I. Nova (4937)
  4. S. Kazmir (4578)
  5. M. Moore (3760)
  1. K. Uehara (3739)
  2. Z. Britton (3500)
  3. J. Johnson (3051)
  4. T. Walker (3020)
  5. J. Chavez (2995)