NBC sportscaster Bob Costas got an easy ride from Fox News populist Bill O’Reilly re: Costas’ half-baked half-time pro-gun control diatribe. Costas went even further than before, again, claiming from the git-go that American gun culture “almost always ends in tragedy rather than safety.” Costas came armed with gun control talking points, calling for federal background checks for private firearms sales, harsher penalties for criminal gun use, mandatory training and an assault weapon and body armor ban. “I agree with most of that,” O’Reilly responded. The Foxenator pushed Costas to choose between ducking a spree killer (e.g., James Holmes at Auroa) and shooting him. Costas eventually chose duck and cover. Which is exactly what he should have done on this issue.
sickening, he is so not logical. i don’t care how anti gun you are, it would just be common sense to want a gun if some crazy is trying to kill you.
Absolutely. Anyone in his right mind would want the most effective means to protect himself if his life were threatened, and that is a LOADED GUN, no matter what anyone says.
Costa is a Sheep. He does what all Sheep do, and he hasn’t a clue about why Sheepdogs behave the way they do. He is, in a word, blind. He will never get it.
Robert:
You misjudge O’Reilly. He was using his considerable condescension skills to bait Costas into looking stupid again. His use of “I agree with you” was like a lawyer stipulating to the facts before demolishing his position. I applaud him for the take down.
Big bill is a big liberal sellout. He hates gays and loves war so he must be a “conservative” the guy has said multiple times we need more gun control! This is why I can’t watch fox anymore
The channel is still good, but Bill O is a jackass.
Oh great, the O’Reilly Echo Chamber with special guest People-Who-Agree-With-Me…
Jim Goad needs a cable news show.
From the familiar conversational tone these guys are obviously friends. Bill knows nothing of the issue and although he says otherwise he is anti. Bill softballed to Costas and gave him cover. Costas is undeniably anti. They both suck.
I don’t know he seems to understand the reason for the second ammendment and would rather be armed in a active shooter situation then not. Sounds to me that he gets it. I bet he has a permit and carries regularly. Just because he is friends with Costas doesn’t mean he agrees with him. I didn’t see the questioning as softball. It was more in line of giving himself the rope to hang himself with.
He got Costas to say that he would prefer to cower on floor like a little girl instead of standing up like a man.
Taking the opportunity as conveniently provided, purpose and intent for the first Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
[ Excerpt as follows: ]
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED….”
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
from the Urban Dictionary, the definitions for Costa (note: I changed the bad words so not to get cenzored):
“1. costa
A species of human that gets belligerently drunk and fVcks shit up. Usually breaks valuable things, and does not give a fVck about it. This species is constantly getting kicked out of parties, getting slapped in the face, and degrading women.
Dude this weekend I got so fVcked up, I kicked in a car window, punched a glass shower door, and gizzed in a girls eye. I totally pulled costa.”
“2. costa
Inability to hold your bladder.
Dude, stop the car I’m about to Costa all over my pants.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=costa
Does anyone have an information source on Costas’ comment that 40% of guns purchased are done so without background checks? I find that one hard to believe.
By “without background check” that includes every private sale of any kind anywhere in the country. I don’t have a source, but I’ve heard that number often enough to believe it, and it doesn’t frighten me.
It is a number that is manufactured out of thin air. The only kind of gun sales that happen “without background check” are private sales between two private individuals. Since they are private sales there is no tracking of them, and therefore no way to accurately estimate their number. No one knows (or can know) the number or percentage of private gun sales.
If Costas has “an information source” for that number, it must be incorrect.
OK, so since you commented, I went looking. About 3/4 of the sites on which I found that 40% number were anti-gun sites, so I suppose I’m much more inclined to disbelieve it now. Still not sure it matters much.
If guns follow roughly the same sale/resale trends as cars there are about 2.5 used guns sold for every new one. If that assumption is anywhere close to correct 40% probably isn’t far off. I’m guessing the anti’s used a similar formula.
In the end I agree with Matt… who cares? I ain’t scared.
Don’t forget that this “40%” figure would include every time one criminal sells a stolen gun to another criminal, who of course don’t give a damn whether the law requires background checks or not.
Oy, again with the Colorado tragedy as misconstrued by Bobby “Damn the Facts” Costas… Even if the guy had body armor, if you had to put yourself in the audience in that situation, is it better to be armed with something or nothing? Because according to Costas, nobody should return fire when a maniac starts shooting at you and killing people around you… Are you supposed to outrun the bullets or something? What a tool this guy is.
This is one of the very few times that I have seen Bill O’Reilly not constantly talk over his guest (which is an annoying habit he has). That being said, they seemed to agree more than disagree. O’Reilly saying “I agree with most of that” to Costas’ proposed assault-weapons (whatever those are) ban, private sales ban (which is what essentially would be required for a mandatory background check on every gun sale), and body armor ban flies directly in the face of his previous statement that the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from an oppressive government.
Costas is really in over his head on this issue. His appearance on O’Reilly just looks like flailing for a life jacket.
Stick to sports, there, Bob.
Body armor ban?
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah, I don’t get that one. It’s basically saying “let’s ensure only criminals have guns and leave no way to survive if a criminal wants to kill you.”
Oh my head hurts!
More rhetoric more anti fantasy numbers.
I can say here in California all private sales go through a dealer and that hasn’t done jack to curb crime.
“Mandatory Training”
Great. It was just a matter of time. The REAL scary part is that I’ve read over and over again, on this website, Pro-Gun people who are in favor of it.
Not me, it’s just another foot in the door
I think there should be “mandatory training” before citizens can exercise ANY of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Costas should have mandatory training on gun FACTS before he can exercise his 1st Amendment right to spout off about it.
(not)
Thank you for properly labeling O’Reilly as a ‘populist’. Regarding gun control, he is certainly not a staunch gun rights supporter, but I’ve noticed since the Heller decision he’s become a little more accepting.
For males of adult-age, not mentally or physically impaired, questions as follow:
Q 1.)“Do you own a firearm, ammunition for it, know how to safely handle, shoot, clean and store it?”
Q 2.) ”If not, why not?”
If not…
Q 3.) “Are you aware that for over 400 years in America — it’s been the Moral obligation and Duty as a Citizen of your State and of these United States, for all adult age males who are not mentally incompetent or physically impaired, to provide themselves with Arms for their defense; defense of family; other persons; property; possessions and State and Nation as required?“
Q 4.) “Now that you’ve been made personally aware of this Moral obligation and solemn Duty as a Citizen to provide yourself with Arms for defense, are you going to assume this obligation and duty?”
Q 5.) “If not, why not?“
Why are we still talking about this idiot???
I guess everyone missed how Costas claimed that people were free to carry a gun in the theater but no one had one; that was incorrect; that theater was a gun free zone. That worked out well.
Bill is a faker. Founding fathers gave me rights? Bears? “I agree with most of that”??
He is a faker, condescendingly patronizing his viewers in order to exploit them.
Oh and Costas and Bill giggling over the security at the studio… rich and powerful people don’t need to carry guns because they hire regular folks to carry guns for them.
Of COURSE Bill agrees with gun control. He was the douchebag who told Wayne La Pier (spelling?) that it was “extreme” to prevent law enforcement officers from disarming the entire population during natural disasters. That conversation happened after the whole Katrina NOPD disarmament scandal. FO Bill. You are a huge phony conservative and we all know it.
This. He’s only conservative when it comes to single moms, the HOLIDAYS and titties on TV. When it comes to individual freedoms and Bush-era policing policies we all oughta shut up and do what they tell us, and that includes handing over the big bad black guns.
Well said. Billy O really pisses me off. He’s made a mint packaging his BS for mass consumption. Smart guy (seriously) but jesus he’s a tool.
Bill O’Reilly, save for one or two things, is wrong on everything. Even when he’s right he’s still a bloated, self important pontificating windbag that uses the entire last third of the year to wind up moral panic about how Christmas is dieing. Happy holidays, Bill!
Bobby boy is wrong, but he’s well spoken and clearly intelligent. I wish someone from our side would simply explain to him why he’s wrong. It might not even convince him (but then again, it might), but it would certainly influence many people viewing the debate.
Minimizing the very real war on Christmas is not very different from anti’s minimizing the need to protect one’s self.
Same thinking.
Yeah, because my right to defend myself is the same as your right to have everyone and everything refer to Christmas by name rather than a generalist term. Which commandment is that again? I mean amendment. Never-mind.
I see you don’t understand what the war on Christmas really is. Educate yourself.
All I can find in the way of “education” is frantic moral panic. Why don’t you enlighten me?
@Chas
What is the war on Christmas? Is it that some people have the “audacity” to call this time of the year *gasp* “holidays”? At least that’s what I think your BFF BillO says it is. Give it a rest, don’t let yourself get bamboozled. And take that “Keep Christ in Christmas” bumper sticker off your car, it looks ridiculous.
Heh. You guys are hilarious. So what’s with the ridicule? Been reading Alinsky again?
I honestly don’t care what you call it, I’m just bustin’ balls. But what I don’t understand is that you equate calling something (mythical) X or Y with Constitutionally guaranteed right such as the 2A.
I said they were not that different in that the thinking behind them is the same. I didn’t say anything about them being equal.
I don’t consider Christianity to be mythical. Would it be OK for me to ridicule your faith or lack thereof?
Chas – to be fair, I wasn’t really ridiculing you or your faith, I just don’t think you have any actual evidence of a war on Christmas. If you want to treat it as a religious holiday, more power to you. Just don’t get all pissed off when someone wishes you “happy holidays”. Same to people on the other side that get all bent out of shape when someone wishes them “Merry Christmas.” If that’s enough to ruin your day someone needs to fly your ass to a third would country to give you a little perspective on problems and persecution. And that’s the royal “you”, not you specifically.
Regardless, have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday, Happy Chanukah, Kwazy Kwanza, or a solemn and dignified Ramadan. Whatever you like.
Well, if I don’t hold any religious beliefs then I’m not sure what’s there to ridicule, but go ahead anyway, doesn’t bother me.
The war on christmas crap gets old fast. In the bad old days working retail it was an awful time of year–if you said “Merry Christmas” you’d piss someone off. Say “Happy Holidays” and you’ll piss of someone else. I hate the whole damn season.
Seriously though, I’ll usually use the inclusive greeting unless I know someone’s particular holiday–Christmas isn’t the only holiday celebrated at this time of year.
War on Christmas is b.s. If Christmas is hurting, then how come it gets bigger and more obnoxious every year. It forces it’s way out of every screen, speaker, and scented candle and into every orifice in everyone’s head right after the first bite of turkey on thanksgiving. If you want to get real about it if anyone destrroyed christmas, it was consumer capitalism and general Santa Claus. May well have drop candy cane striped ICBMs right on the humble nativity.
Amen. I guess I’m hesitant to flatly blame “consumer capitalism” as there are likely many causes, I’ve had it with crowded malls and fights over parking spaces. I don’t plan to set foot on mall property until at least January.
4th of July is my Holiday, and not even from a patriotic standpoint. Summer. Beach. Beer. Grill. Explosions. What can I say? I’m a man of simple tastes.
Why does anyone watch O’Reilly? He’s the reason I refuse to watch Fox News.
Let’s say we did all this. How effective would it be? Typical street criminals can always steal a gun or buy one from another criminal. So-called assault weapon bans mostly affect cosmetic features. Body armor isn’t really a factor in street crime. None of these measures would have prevented the Aurora massacre.
It should be common knowledge by now that the Aurora shooter was NOT wearing body armor. He was wearing a tactical vest. But that wouldn’t play into the MSM’s narrative, would it?
I’m still just stunned that he wants a ban on body armor. Because the proles shouldn’t be allowed to wear armor that would protect them from the thought police. For XMAS I want Bobby to get AIDS.
Costas is a imbecile. 1st because some one has body armor doesn’t mean he cannot be stopped by a CCW holder if you shoot the loser in the head all the body armor is useless. 2nd why bother giving this jerk talking space on our blog? He is anti-gun and want tot ban all guns why bother trying to analyses him?
Costas and his ilk sleep peacefully because rough men stand ready to do violence on his behalf. The perfumed prince need not soil his hands in defense of himself or others.
WOW !….talk about digging your grave even DEEPER ! LOL poor guy