Bob Costas: ‘Did Founding Fathers Want Us to Have AK-47s, Cop-Killer Bullets?’

While appearing on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, NBC Sportscaster Bob Costas blasted supporters of the Second Amendment, suggesting that it was unreasonable for one to keep and bear arms for defense against a tyrannical government.

The topic arose while Costas was discussing NFL player Greg Hardy, who was charged with physically abusing his girlfriend in 2014. Costa said Hardy allegedly “threw” his girlfriend “on a couch with loaded shotguns and assault weapons on [it].”

Costas then went on to ask, “Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind? That Greg Hardy should be armed to the teeth? That private citizens should be able to purchase cop-killer, armor piercing bullets? That you should be able to have a AK-47?”

Under federal law, anyone convicted of domestic abuse is prohibited from owning a firearm. That aside, Costas seems to be conflating an accused domestic abuser with the average law-abiding firearm owner to suggest that Hardy’s behavior is common in the gun community.

Costas said that people who believe that one should be allowed to possess an AK-47 and “cop-killer bullets” should take that line of reasoning to “its logical conclusion,” put another way, “if you are fearful [of] a tyrannical government taking away your rights as citizens then you ought to have a bazooka, you ought to have a tank, you ought to be able have nuclear weapons if you can get them before ISIS can get their hands on them.”

This isn’t the first time Costas has shared his anti-Second Amendment thoughts. Back in 2012, Costas made a series of appearances where he called into question one’s right to own commonly owned and widely popular firearms.

“There are those who believe that denying a semiautomatic 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 while appearing on the Dan Patrick radio show. “There are people who honestly believe that in Aurora 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.”

“I think any police officer if you told them that would roll their eyes,” said Costas, referencing the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater in July 2012.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 86 comments… add one }
  • Mo October 27, 2017, 7:32 am

    At the time of our founding, most of the warships and cannons were privately owned. They were the greatest weapons of war for the time period. Our fouding fathers recognized that it was vital to the defense of our nation, that each citizen be allowed to possess such weapons so that they could bring them with them to the defense of our nation.

  • bob h September 13, 2017, 10:23 am

    Every time I hear someone denigrating the ability of an armed citizen to stop an armed bad guy I want to ask them just two questions. I wish I could ask Mr. Costas those questions in connection with the Aurora theater shooting.
    Question #1- Assuming that the shooting would have happened regardless, do you think it would have made a difference if there had been a police officer already present when the shooting started?
    The only logical answer is yes. That leads me to ask my second question.
    Question #2- What is it about police that accounts for that difference- their badge, their uniform, or the fact that they have a gun?

  • Freida G. September 11, 2017, 10:50 am

    Obviously Bob or the cop he was talking to have very little actual combat experience..Body armor can sometimes help but not always prevent serious wounds in a gunfight..Body armor only protects certain areas..The bankrobbers in LA proved that..and at close range the results in a theater would be similar..Bob Costas is also an asshole liberal know-it-all and God knows we have enough of those around..These folks should limit their activity to doing what they do best like announcing baseball games and keep their opinions to themselves..Why they feel because they are allowed on the air in some capacity means that their opinion is needed or wanted I’ll never know..

  • michael hensley July 28, 2017, 5:30 pm

    In answer to Costas’ questions, “YES”. And about the theater shooting, explain to me what he meant by “full body armor”. Was he covered head to toe, arms, legs, everything covered? I don’t think so. Costas’ hyperbole of “full body armor” probably boils down to a simple ballistic vest. In that case, shoot the bastard in the head, neck, or in the upper thigh (he will bleed out pretty quickly if shot here). In any case, a quick response by a lawful concealed carry holder would have saved a lot of people.

  • Costas is a moron July 14, 2017, 3:35 pm

    Costas is a liberal phuggin moron.

  • jesse taber January 6, 2017, 5:29 pm

    I have never liked bob costa, and I like him even less now that he has opened his stupid mouth again, about gun rights. The stupid ASS is the lousiest announcer on TV, and now I have to listen to him being stupid about the second amendment. YES, bob costa, our fore-fathers wanted us to have AK-47’s or any gun we wanted to buy. That is why they wrote the second amendment, you IDIOT!!!

  • Lloyd Barnhart September 5, 2016, 9:08 am

    I always thought the Founding Fathers meant for us to have arms equal to those of the government….to thwart/prevent government oppression of the people…!!!

  • Andrew H. Wood May 27, 2016, 7:30 pm

    I guess we should be still carrying what they had back in the day the Constitution was framed.Meanwhile the government gets all the good stuff…OK Bob

  • Karl September 8, 2015, 2:47 pm

    Costas is a true IMBECILE! First off I’d rather have my 1911 on me in that situation than not. To suggest the people there were better off with no citizens being armed is absolute lunacy. Second and most importantly, tactical gear is NOT full body armor. I am sick of all these libtards not even taking the time to learn about the equipment they debase. The aurora shooter was not in full body armor and while the idiot was busy figuring out how to clear a drum mag jam, ANY armed citizen could’ve ended that tragedy far sooner. But guess what, in a gun free zone only good guys obey while bad guys take advantage.
    ALSO that piece of garbage Costas has armed bodyguards, so it’s ok for him to be safe as a hypocritical elitist, but for the rest of us “commoners” we don’t get the right to security. Go back to announcing NFL games, and leave the adult conversation to us. Also feel free to move to Mexico which has an outright ban on any firearms. I heard that is working really well for them.

  • jim March 30, 2015, 8:13 pm

    Bob who/…………………………… open mouth nothing to say……………….

  • tom moore March 30, 2015, 12:05 pm

    never argue with an idiot he will lower you to his level and beat you with experience

  • Kevin R. Olschesky March 26, 2015, 1:31 pm

    Bob you are a palpitating anus in my opinion.

  • dexters March 26, 2015, 12:27 am


  • skip barker March 25, 2015, 12:53 pm

    This is the type of garbage that comes from a brain dead, no common sense , idiot when he speaks and knows nothing about what he is speaking of.

  • Tony March 25, 2015, 1:57 am

    Cars by far kill more cops than any type of bullet! Dummy…

  • Renov8 March 24, 2015, 6:05 pm

    Idiots tend to talk a lot about things they know little about. That’s why we call them idiots.

  • teebonicus March 24, 2015, 5:10 pm

    The Founding Fathers wanted us to have unrestricted access (shall not be infringed) to contemporary military small arms, at the very least. At the time the people adopted the Bill of Rights, military arms and “civilian” arms were the same arms, and that was the public understanding of the scope of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

  • The Bluesman March 24, 2015, 3:58 pm

    This ridiculous argument pops up all all too frequently. No, the founders could not envision the types of weapons technology we would have nearly 250 years into the future, but it was absolutely clear that our founders wrote the Second Amendment in order that we may have a means to protect the rest of the Constitution. Without arms, we are subjects.

  • Ralph Newkirk March 24, 2015, 3:57 pm

    This ignorant announcer needs to become UNEMPLOYED! Why tune in to listen to this “AMERICAN” speak? It’s his RIGHT to do so, even if he does so to PREVENT “WE THE PEOPLE” from exercising our right to self defense. It is our right to TUNE OUT individuals that “TALK SH*T!”

  • Pugy March 24, 2015, 3:54 pm

    Two truths here that you may argue but will never PROVE wrong. There is no such thing as a “Cop killer Bullet” The second is that laws exist now to keep Americans from owning assault rifles. Let me state it again: Without a special license, an American cannot own an assault rifle. There is no such thing as a cop killer bullet. Assault rifles are by definition capable of firing fully automatic. Any bullet may be used to kill a cop. No bullet is especially manufactured to kill a cop. Therefore ALL bullets are cop killers or none are. When we debate, let us stick to facts.

  • Lancer March 24, 2015, 3:47 pm

    It’s obvious that Mr. Costas is a bandwagoner…. Anybody who knows anything, would not make such a naive comment. Cop Killer bullets is a buzz word to stir up resentment of individuals who don’t know, and don’t care to actually get the facts for themselves. ANY BULLET is cop killer bullet, provided it is well placed. Besides, it is not like manufacturers make those bullets for the specific intent of killing police officers. People fear what they don’t know. Mr. Costas obviously knows very little. A train wreck recently killed two people. It is know a people killer train. A bridge collapsed and several people fell into the river below. Those people died. It is a killer river and bridge. An airplane crash killed 237 people. It is now a killer plane.
    All Trains, Bridges, Rivers and Planes should now be banned by his logic!!! How often do you hear of Armor piercing bullets killing police? I hear about Plane crashes, train crashes, car crashes killing people all of the time.

  • Gene March 24, 2015, 1:40 pm

    The founding fathers also didn’t envision loud mouthed electronic media talking heads espousing opinions critical of my God given rights. Following your logic, only printing press media would be approved 1st amendment speech.

  • Douglas Petersen March 24, 2015, 11:22 am

    Bob Costas needs to remember who owned the arms, cannons and gun powder, the British were marching to confiscate – it wasn’t the governments!!! And yes, Bob, we should be able to own the same weapons as the government, including tanks, etc…. (Being able to afford them is another case!!!)

  • Kalashnikov Dude March 24, 2015, 10:26 am

    The man has every right to rail against whatever parts of our Constitution he has trouble understanding. The very framers of that document took their lives in their hands to ensure it. Costas doesn’t need anybody to point out his foolishness. He’s doing fine on his own, so I’ll leave him to it. But he and others should know this, the minute the line is crossed from railing against our contract between citizens and government, to actually curtailing the finer points of said contract for their own peace of mind, it’s going to get dangerous for em. I for one am not playing games any longer when it comes to my 2nd Amendment rights. They are as much civil rights as the ones blacks have been shooting cops and burning neighborhoods over, and more important to the health of democracy and American values. They will be “Prosecuted Vigorously”.

  • Kivaari March 23, 2015, 11:54 pm

    I wonder if he understands that “cop killer bullets” don’t need to be fired in an AK or AR. Would he ban 7.62x39mm ammo being fired out of a bolt action rifle from 200 yards away? How about a .30-30 round from a M1894 or a .30-06 from a M1903 Springfield? We the people should be allowed to use any firearm in use by civilian police.

  • L B Loding March 23, 2015, 11:02 pm

    Never really cared for him as a sports guy anyway. His second strike was when there was a contest (I believe it was on fantasy baseball) where the winner (or I think the loser) got to sit in with costas on a show. costas made the crack “great I get to spend that time with some sports geek” I know he was probably be facetious, but I thought it just reinforced his appearance of being arrogant and condescending. His third strike with me was when he did that commentary he talked about in the interview. The one about the football player killing his girlfriend and himself. I remember he closed that commentary by saying, “one thing we do know, if he didn’t have guns two people would still be alive”. The problem with folks like him is they use the phrase “you don’t NEED” They probably could live without cars but they choose not to. They probably don’t need more that one residence, but they want more. Yes second amendment is about defense against a tyrannical government the word bear arms speaks to that. But it also says KEEP arms and that tells me that the founding fathers thought that if you could afford it you should be able to KEEP it. It’s not all about need, if I want one gun I should be able to have it. If I want 100 guns that should be my choice and my right. And it should not be infringed!

  • clearwater Randy March 23, 2015, 8:43 pm

    I don’t think there’s much sense in dragging him through the mud any more ya all did a excellent job already. Just one note to add. Ever since that Sunday NFL game he took it upon himself to spread the anti gun message regarding sandy Hook I get nauseated just looking at his UGLY FACE. I cant stand him I either hit mute, change the channel, or leave the room! And guess what the NFLs not far behind Costas.

  • Mike Simmons March 23, 2015, 7:56 pm

    Sheriff David Clarke wouldn’t roll his eyes. He encourages carry concealed.

  • Publius March 23, 2015, 7:13 pm

    Bob Costas can’t even cover sports well. So, what qualifies him to be a Constitutional scholar and an expert on firearms? The Founding Fathers said that every American should have an Assault Rifle of that day-in-age– a flintlock musket– and shoot people who threatened their freedom. So, in an age where the AK-47 has some pretty astounding advantages over the average flintlock musket, maybe this sports moron should make two brains cells actually work together to form a thought that actually makes sense–that is that maybe since today a semi-auto rifle give the average citizen something approaching a fighting chance in tough world, we ought to fight to maintain our natural right to own them. He understands nothing, and therefore deserves to be cordially invited to keep his uniformed narrative to himself, and his malformed opinions inside his non-existence cerebral cortex.

  • Robert Bruce March 23, 2015, 7:07 pm

    Bob Costas can’t even cover sports well. So, what qualifies him to be a Constitutional scholar and an expert on firearms? The Founding Fathers said that every American should have an Assault Rifle of that day-in-age– a flintlock musket– and shoot people who threatened their freedom. So, in an age where the AK-47 has some pretty astounding advantages over the average flintlock musket, maybe this shit-for-brains sports moron should make two brains cells actually work together to form a thought that actually makes sense–that is that maybe since today a semi-auto rifle give the average citizen something approaching a fighting chance, we ought to fight to maintain our natural right to own them. He understands nothing, and therefore deserves to be cordially invited to keep his uniformed narrative to himself, and his malformed opinions inside his non-existence cerebral cortex.

  • Paul Wee March 23, 2015, 5:11 pm

    Bob Costas needs to connect his mouth to his brain . . . wait, he can[t connect it to his brain if he doesn’t have one, can he? His question is so absurd that it testifies to his total lack of good sense. Ask him if our Founding Fathers wanted us to have the Internet, the 747’s or jet fighters?

  • BRASS March 23, 2015, 3:07 pm

    If Costas actually knew his American history, he would say yes. Before and during the American Revolution there actually were multiple shot weapons, rapid firing weapons, larger bore and personally owned high powered weapons. The modern sporting rifle is the modern equivalent of the musket. The musket was not at the top of the weapons development of its day just as the always misused AK-47 is today. Calling an AR-15 an assault weapon is like calling Cobra look alike kit car with a Volkswagen engine a Shelby Cobra.
    Anti-gunners more often than not are ignorant, dishonest and narrow minded. Bob Costas is at least two of those and likely all three.

  • Christopher March 23, 2015, 1:59 pm

    YES they did…arms are arms. And if the Government has them then the people should have access to them as well. And that goes for everything. If you don’t want people to have access to them DON’T MAKE THEM PERIOD. Ohhhh and Bob the Founders didn’t want “Standing Armies” inside the country either like the Military and Militarized Police Departments and all these other Government agencys….they aren’t legitimate. Only Sheriffs are legitimate law enforcement voted in do the people and counties they protect.

  • LAH053 March 23, 2015, 1:45 pm

    Bob Costas had once again shown what is wrong with Liberal America and anti 2nd Amendment people. Anyone convicted of domestic assault is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, this if the fact. Another fact is that any standard rifle round used everyday in hunting had the ability to penetrate a level 3 vest. be it a .223 or a .50 cal. What is needed is the Feds to prosecute the offenders and sentence them to stiff terms of prison time. But NO they seem to want to create more laws that they can impose of law abiding citizens after all it is easier to talk that to act responsibly. Go after the violators and imprison them however people like Costas lack the backbone to go after them in their tirades as does the Federal Government, after all those without the means to defend/protect themselves are not free they are GOVERNED!!!!!!!!!

  • a duran March 23, 2015, 1:35 pm

    Another moron from the Geraldo Rivera school of talking through his butt………………..

  • DaveW March 23, 2015, 12:49 pm

    Consider this… in 1776 the colonists actually had better weapons than the British Army. That is what made it possible for the colonists to win the revolution. What are the anti-gun Bloombergers afraid of; that We the People will win the revolution against the erosion of our civil rights and the revocation of the Constitution? Why else would they find it necessary to falsify the data they claim comes from the government?

    On an April eve, the military commander in Boston dispatched units throughout the surrounding areas with orders to confiscate the firearms and gunpowder from the colonists. This was done on the suggestion of the Massachusetts governor as a means of controlling the colonist radicals even though they had done nothing to warrant such action. The following day, a British unit was confronted by a group of armed citizens. The result of that confrontation was the “shot heard ’round the world”.

    The anti-gunners are pushing the people to a second revolution just as the British Army did, and if blood is shed, it will be on their hands.

  • cattmann March 23, 2015, 12:45 pm

    Founder’s didn’t have a clause for government give away programs either.

  • Oliver Klozzoff March 23, 2015, 12:02 pm

    Not sure why this midget (physical and mental) has his thong in a knot; if there was a shootout, the bullets would fly over his head.

  • Larry March 23, 2015, 11:35 am

    Costas is a rabid anti Second Amendment fool. Nothing more. Nothing less. Shun him, my friends, & remember, keep them cleaned, loaded & ready.

  • Behr March 23, 2015, 11:20 am

    Horse chit !

  • Hubert March 23, 2015, 11:14 am

    Bob Costas, just like many of his ilk, put the blame on the inanimate object, not the wielder of said object. He has to add the phrase “cop killer” in an effort to tug at your heart strings. Why not “puppy killer” Bob?? That would tug at MY heart strings more. Some people are reckless with weapons, MOST are not. Eating at McDonald’s makes some people fat……….so why not outlaw Micky D’s altogether??

  • Greg Canty March 23, 2015, 11:05 am

    The founders meant for us to have the appropriate weapons and ammunition to defend ourselves from tyrannic bastards like you, Bob!

  • Steve Jennings March 23, 2015, 11:03 am

    This fool should realize that without the second amendment, and the people who support it, he wouldn’t be able to make such rediculous staements. He doesn’t mind freely using his first amentment rights to prove the Mark Twain quote “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”, but will not support the second amendment.

  • spooks March 23, 2015, 9:51 am

    The short answer to Mr Costas question re:“Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind? ” is an unequivocal YES! The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Let’s deal with the deadbeats and abusers withOUT said infringement.

  • Kane March 23, 2015, 9:38 am

    Some very good comments. I would just add that our “Founding Fathers” would oppose many aspects of our society today including a “standing army” and the central banks that are the bastion of international finance and the destroyer of National sovereignty. Perhaps the “Founding Fathers” would also oppose the military style police forces that exist today, the corporate press monopolies that promote all sorts of violence and destructive disinformation to control the American people. Perhaps the “Founding Fathers” would also oppose the political behemoths like pharmaceutical industry and the suppression of information on the dangers of psychotropic drugs (SSRIs). The issues are quite complex and I would never look to Costas and Maher for any of the answers. However, it would be nice if Costas would stop confusing the issues of gang culture with the 2A.

  • Glock.223 March 23, 2015, 9:29 am

    As far as the Aurora, CO shooting, if just one person had been armed and fired at the idiot, body armor or not he would have probably tucked tail and run. These people go after easy targets. That’s why they are going after theaters and schools, because everyone is usually unarmed. Hopefully the legislation going on in a lot of states will help prevent this from happening again in the future.

  • Dubya March 23, 2015, 8:42 am

    This cop sincerely believes that any(regardless of actual effect) outgoing fire from the crowd in Aurora would have dissuaded that nut job and saved lives. “No gun” signs equal victim rich environments.

  • NAmericanBlueJacket March 23, 2015, 8:21 am

    The reason for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was to prevent TYRANNY! Our Fore Fathers wanted civilians armed with
    as much firepower as the government!
    An ARMED man or woman is a CITIZEN! An UNARMED man or woman is a SUBJECT!
    Bob Costas has used too much BOTOX! We know it ruined his eyes during the Olympics broadcasts….but it sounds like
    it might have ruined his vision too. HEY BOB! LEAVE THAT POISON ALONE! It’s making you sound like a fool with your pants on the ground!

  • Jay March 23, 2015, 8:13 am

    Well Bob, I have yet to hear any argument, discussion and or common sense from any Anti Gun gum flapper yet! The whole argument is mute until you start talking about the real problem and it’s not guns or ammunition! It’s crime and the criminal element! When all you anti Gunners start using your energies and money to punish the criminal element swiftly and harsh enough to prevent crime in the first place and actually reduce crime, well then maybe you might hold a bit of weight in a discussion! If our Founding Fathers were alive today you wouldn’t even be having any 2nd amendment discussion, for the likes of an over reaching government and the likes of politicians like obama and his cronies would not exist! The 2nd amendment means any law abiding citizen should be able to own any weapon the government has at it’s disposal. If my neighbor wants to park a F-16, or a M1A2 Abrams fully loaded in his driveway and can afford it ,so be it! Just my take, you don’t have to agree with me!

  • David Pittelli March 23, 2015, 8:05 am

    “slippery slope in denying an old lady a gun for her own protection”

    Is this fool really ignorant of how close to impossible it has been for an old lady, or anyone else, to get defensive weapons in New York City or Chicago? Slippery slope, indeed!

    • Al March 23, 2015, 10:37 am

      Every rifle I owned since 1978 was outlawed by NYC – all because they carried more than five rounds. One was a bolt action Marlin Glenfield .22 7 round, the other a .22 Norinco (Browning take down clone) .22 – 11 round; the other was my deer rifle: A Rossi .38/.357 lever action – 10 round. I have a clean record, not even a speeding ticket. And guess what?…I’ve been a Customs Officer for 31 years! And I’ve locked up some real dirtbags who’d love to exact a payback: So I can’t be trusted with more than 5 bullets in my .22 squirrel gun, but they trusted me with a Glock 17?…How stupid is that? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think I should get any special treatment over anyone else but the criminals who forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights if they become convicted felons; but this is the Nanny Statist worldview of “progressive” NYC that
      I can’t wait to leave; and they’ll also tax my pension once I’m gone. It is a leftist kleptocracy that keeps getting worse by the day – rubber stamped by a disgusting
      mix of fist pumping, race-pimping identity politics, and a constituency of socially dependent morons who’s votes can be bought with a Big Mac and fries. That’s why
      it’s the armpit of the country.

  • Mike the Limey March 23, 2015, 8:02 am

    Let’s apply Costas’ “logic” to his own actions:
    Did the Founding Fathers intend the First Amendment to apply to TV?
    Did they intend for one arrogant motormouth to be able to speak to & possibly influence so many others?
    Meh – the guy’s a typical control freak.

  • Mike March 23, 2015, 7:55 am

    Our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever was necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government to insure our freedom. Apparently Mr. Costas doesn’t value his freedom.

  • Abner T Yokum March 23, 2015, 7:53 am

    Ever notice that when Costas starts a sentence with the words “I think…”, the exact opposite occurs when the words start spewing?

  • Randy March 23, 2015, 7:33 am

    The only thing he got right is we should be able to own bazookas and tanks. And anti-aircraft guns and F-16s, but not nukes. No one should have nukes. Our fore fathers meant for us to have the tools to take over a tyrannical government. You don’t think it can happen to us? Look at the middle east. This idiot thinks we should just lay down and die or get our heads lopped off when these radical extremist groups come to town. Don’t for one minute think it can’t happen here. Take away our 2nd amendment and we are just like sheep being led to slaughter.

  • Chief March 23, 2015, 7:15 am

    Do what I do boycott him.Like Liam Neeson with his hypocrisy on guns while making 20 mil a movie .I have boycotted him .Its time we not only talk but back up what we say we believe in.

    • L Cavendish March 23, 2015, 9:44 am

      Same with Sean Penn now…gave up his guns but stars in a movie called The Gunman…what a hypocrite!!!
      Not alone…Daniel (Bond) Craig…Stallone…Schwarzannegger too I believe…all making multi millions using guns in movies but are so anti-gun in the media.

  • Bill McGraw March 23, 2015, 7:03 am

    Perhaps our founding fathers considered the 69 cal smoothbore adequate to penetrate any personal armor and even now it would kill anyone with a armored vest, perhaps not actually penetrating the vest but the impact might kill with 30+ g forces on impact.

  • Energy101 March 23, 2015, 7:01 am

    A flintlock will kill you just as dead.
    Mr. Costas, please don’t use a firearm platform to get noticed or stay in the news. It’s below you.
    Stick to sports casting.

    • Timothy Manders March 23, 2015, 10:20 am

      Google Russ Columbo. He was accidentally killed by a 200 year old flintlock pistol he believed to be unloaded. He broke rule #1
      (Treat all firearms as if they were loaded.) and it cost him his life so yes, a flintlock just as any other firearm will kill you if improperly handled. I would include BB guns in this statement. Nobody ever talks about the legality of firearms used in the commission crimes. The plain fact of the matter is the laws are already there. It’s impossible to enforce them effectively. Making more laws doesn’t solve the problem. If somebody is going to break the law there is nothing to stop them.

  • shaking my head.... March 23, 2015, 6:53 am

    This dude is an idiot. I don’t know of one cop who would agree with his thoughts…if someone had been armed they could have at least fought back….besides I do not know why everyone gets so excited over gun control….we have them and not one of us will surrender them so let the whiner people whine……we have to listen to their crap they have to deal with us owning firearms….and the revolt that would accure once they announced siezure would be worse then the first civil war……

  • David W. Stephenson March 23, 2015, 6:34 am

    I have written comments in GunsAmerica website for a long time and have not had any rejecjected, but this time concerning Costas,I have . So from this point on I will no longer comment because the GunsAmerica Nazi police don’t like what you say about a certain article. And you probably won’t print this comment this either.So be ,its really your loss not mine?

    • S.H. Blannelberry March 23, 2015, 7:30 am

      Hey David,

      Don’t know why it was rejected. It might’ve been confused with spam initially. But we typically approve all comments that aren’t spam. We don’t believe in censorship. We believe in the free exchange of ideas and opinions, we just take time to prevent bots from shilling our boards.

      • Al March 23, 2015, 9:53 pm

        BTW (if I may interject here) if you’re the Web Admin/Moderator, I think it would be a good idea to have an edit function for spelling, spacing of posts. Just a thought. I like your web site.

  • David W Stephenson March 23, 2015, 6:01 am

    You know I have seen Cosatas for a long time and I don’t know if he ever played any sports of any kind(he kinda looks like a sissy)but he sure has opinions on everything? Even if he has no ides what he is talking about,he does have opinions, I really don’t think he should be allowed to speak about things his has no idea about. Do you actually think that he has any guns in his house? I would say no, he has no idea how to use or work one.

  • Michael O'Keefe March 23, 2015, 5:50 am

    Mr. Costas,
    As a retired law enforcement officer at the rank of captain, homicide investigator for nine-years and survivor of a shooting, I emphatically say you are absolutely wrong.
    Any law enforcement officer will tell citizens that they are their very first line of defense. As much as we would like to be present in every instance to stop violent crimes and murder, it simply is not reality. We are proactive yet reactionary with truth in knowing that violent crimes are almost always perpetrated by the time an officer arrives. If it were not so, I would have investigated very few, if any murders and other violent crimes.
    Your statements reveal several aspects to your flawed thinking and character. Hence, let me offer to the readers here what appears to be driving your infected reasoning. Ignorance, ultra-liberal anti-second amendment, outright lying, mindless blather or a combination of them all.
    None of your apparent attributes come as a surprise to this veteran criminal investigator. I have seen it many times over when interviewing or speaking to those who attempt to distort fact or conceal truths.
    The facts are, the overwhelming majority of law enforcement personnel nationwide believe law abiding citizens should always feel completely free to exercise their second amendment rights, laid down by our forefathers and protected by blood many times over, by owning as many type of guns as they desire and are legally allowed. I encourage gun owners to become very proficient with their firearms which also sharpens their presence of mind and resolve.
    Lastly, you can bet your elevated shoes that our forefathers would not only have wanted and encouraged the citizenry to own an “AK-47,” they would have owned several themselves. Their wishes were for citizens to meet force with overwhelming force and sacrifice.
    Captain M.A.O. ~ Retired

    • RC March 23, 2015, 9:34 am

      Your comment sir hit it dead on! This guy is such a tool.

    • rappini March 23, 2015, 9:42 am

      We should have more Captain M.A.O.’s in Washington, DC.

    • David Bordeaux March 23, 2015, 9:54 am

      Michael, As a retired general contractor for 38 years. I agree completely with your comments to Bob Costas. As an owner of many types of weapons. I use these mainly for hunting of deer , quail , and turkey and obey the laws when doing so both in gun safety and control of each weapon. Being a general contractor one of our main speciality was building jails and prisons. It still concerns me that inmates and or CONVICTS! depending on how you look at the nature of the crime has more rights than law abiding citizens. Yes these people are the minority in our society, but they are real! I had one convict in a North Carolina state prison tell me something that I will take to my grave. While renovating the existing prison, this person looked me straight in the eye telling me ” to not get to close to him because he was in with several life sentences and he would kill me; this because he hated God himself!” Because of experiences like this I am personally aware of what humans can be capable of. Yes I do mainly hunt with my guns of choice. These incarcarated individuals cause my beliefs to have changed and agree to all of your comments to Bob Costas’s remarks. If a person wants to own and learn how to shoot AK-47 or other assault weapons our second amendment right along with obeying the laws of society give these people this right. In closing great article, as a retired Captain I would love to hear some of your stories!!

    • John L March 23, 2015, 11:05 am

      Great comment. Thanks for your service. We need more like you.

  • Tony March 23, 2015, 3:26 am

    the British rifles were able to accept a bayonet and they were fast loading they were the premier military weapon and they did not say that you may have only hunting rifles

  • Al March 22, 2015, 1:24 pm

    Let’s apply the same specious logic to the 1st Amendment Messrs. Costas and Maher have enshrined in their sanctimonious rant against the 2nd:…Do you think for a minute the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a monolithic media machine owned by General Electric, Monsanto, foreign banks, and the military industrial complex – beaming a left-wing agenda simultaneously into our homes 24/7, with the same news on every channel and in every newspaper? That freedom of the press would only apply to 5 corporations?…That an advertising monopoly could pull ALL their advertisements from rival and upstart news outlets outside this de-facto media cartel?

    How about presidents who’ve been declaring war without congressional approval since at least as far back as Nixon and Kennedy? My message to Bill Maher and company: YOU give up the airwaves and MAYBE we’ll go back to a flintlock.
    Until then SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!

    • Chris October 21, 2015, 6:25 pm

      So your logic is if commit a crime and get away with it then everyone else should be able to commit crimes and get away with it because I did? Or if I cheated on my taxes and only got fined then someone else who commits homicide or identity theft should only be fined? This is known as a tu quoque logical fallacy. Instead of actually addressing any of the talking points on the legality of weapons you simply attacked other things which did nothing as evidence for your position on firearm laws. The other logical fallacy is argumentum terrorem. Example, if laws are passed to better regulate firearm sales then \”they\” (I\’m guessing this means the government by they?) will take our guns away. There\’s no evidence that this is the case but it\’s still effective to appeal to someone\’s fears regardless of its validity or pertinence to the debate. In either case you will fail to convince anyone who isn\’t already devoutly in your corner to adopt your views or change their views to yours. Which by the way is the exact type of logic used by Costas that has everyone on here calling him an idiot because that type of logic only works with someone who doesn\’t need to be convinced you are correct.

  • brian March 22, 2015, 10:33 am

    Being in the news business i wonder if he would feel the same if it were 1A rights and they are trying to put limits & restrictions on it.

  • Ralph March 22, 2015, 9:45 am

    Here’s the thing, Idiot! Our forefathers want us, the citizens of this country to be able to defend ourselves from any threat weather it be from a foreign government or a tyrannical ruler within our own country. How in the hell do you think we won the revolution? I always find that people with enough money, who can afford elaborate alarm systems and armed guards want the rest of their surroundings disarmed. We all have the right to be safe by what ever means it takes to equal the playing field so go back to your lame football strategies TV show and let people with real intelligence figure out just how to keep you safe.

  • Ralph March 22, 2015, 9:36 am

    Here’s the thing, Idiot! Our forefathers want us, the citizens of this country to be able to defend ourselves from any threat weather it be from a foreign government or a tyrannical ruler within our own country. How in the hell do you think we won the revolution? I always find that people with enough money, who can afford elaborate alarm systems and armed guards want the rest of their surroundings disarmed. We all have the right to be safe by what ever means it takes to equal the playing field so go back to your lame football strategies TV show and let people with real intelligence figure out just how to keep you safe.

  • mec March 22, 2015, 9:02 am

    FOOTBALL! is getting overrun with anti-gun crusaders. Copkiller Bullet-Man who just resigned from the BATFE is going to work in Professional! FOOTBALL! Pretty soon only psychiatric cases and couch-muffins will be watching FOOTBALL! Budweiser and Ford Truck commercials will be replaced by Public Service Announcements from Moms Against Everything and whiny fun raising appeals from PETA.

  • zicklon March 22, 2015, 12:05 am

    This is only bad propaganda like ever.

  • CHLTxs March 21, 2015, 9:07 pm

    The more the anti gun folks open their mouths, the more they look and sound like idiots. Costas is proving once again that these kinds of statements are empty and will never beat any weight in this argument.

    • PatrickJT March 23, 2015, 10:02 am

      The problem is, these idiots sound like geniuses to one another.

  • DRAINO March 21, 2015, 6:36 pm

    Idiot!……………..Costas that is. Nothing more to say.

    • john milligan March 23, 2015, 5:19 pm

      idiot yes, you have to remember he is a professional announcer. he hasn’t had a thought enter his brain in years. why did he choose ak’s? did he read it somewhere? how about a legal .50 bmg. you can put a hole in a tank. my brother has expressed anxiety at the non issue ,”ammo the will not pierce a cop flack jacket” being legislating. going to get rid of all of us reloaders? not possible. remember alcohol prohibition that spawned the greatest criminal enterprises this country has ever seen. they are still here. americans will get what they want. the drugs and violence in south america and asia are a result of prohibition. do you feel safe in mexico? i guess the politicans, all of them, need to scare people and create histeria to get elected. they, whoever” they” are, cannot come get our guns, unless they are willing to die. so far, it is unconstitutional for our military, army navy airforce and marines to interfere or arrest or investigate , or use force against american civilians. so far…

    • Russ March 23, 2015, 9:41 pm

      I second that opinion.

    • fred March 24, 2015, 8:18 pm

      All bullets are cop killers.

    • Chris October 21, 2015, 6:09 pm

      Hard to argue with those kinds of smarts.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend