Bob Costas: Did Founders Want Us Buying ‘Cop-Killer, Armor Piercing Bullets?’

Breitbart's Big Journalism ^ | March 21, 2015 | AWR Hawkins

[willyd]

Exactly...the correct response is another question: are members of our government going to be wearing bullet proof vests?

[Organic Panic]

He watched too many “Lethal Weapon” movies. And yes Bob. The founder’s muskets killed enough British constables and soldiers to gain ourindependence.

[Vendome]

Yes, yes, they did, Bob.

Witness: We met some redcoats on a green and out ranged with Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles.

Ours? = 400+ yards

Their? = 50 yards and insignificant...

[doorgunner69]

“Why is the President allowed to be both lawmaker and executor which is against the Constitution and is by definition tyranny?”

Very, very good.

[doorgunner69]

And that means, “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.”

That little jocksniffer actually said all that?

I know he is a tiny runt, but he must have an inordinate fear of everyone stronger than himself. Probably includes his male or female wife.

[concernedcitizen76]

Listened in to Mark Levin on internet. Levin was in great form and carved up this dumb cluck Bob Costas like a turkey.

[freedom6178]

[the same cannon that can still blow a hole clean thru a home today. no problem, as far as the founders were concerned]

My BF’s dad has one sitting in his yard they use for reenacting. Is that o.k. with you, Bob?

[publius911]

Bob Costas: Did Founders Want Us Buying ‘Cop-Killer, Armor Piercing Bullets?’

Actually, NO.
Those didn't fit their favorite weapon, the AK-47.

[OneWingedShark]

Short answer: yes.
Long answer: given that the standing/regular army we see today would have been absolutely mind-boggling to the founders, and that modern police fill the role of “standing army” that the founders knew (organized and armed government agents), and they wanted to ensure that the people would always have the right to throw off just such an eventuality then VERY MUCH SO.

[OneWingedShark]

> What, bullets couldn’t kill cops in 1787?

Actually no — but that’s because [modern] police didn’’t exist until sometime in the 1800s. [Mid, IIRC, but I’m not entirely certain.]
(Traditionally, going back further than the Magna Carta, the Sheriff was the law/peace enforcement officer.)

[jonrick46]

Bob Costas has no clue. He left Syracuse University for KMOX radio in St. Louis. Did he sleep through his American history class? Is his knowledge of American history through the narrative of the American press that journalism students like him focus? Is freedom of the press no different than the freedom to defend oneself from totalitarian government? Bob Costas has no clue that ones freedom is no game but the story of a offense and a defense in the game of liberty.

[maddog55]

Who knew bullets had a mid of their own and killed cops. All of mine go to the target I shoot at.. not one to the best of my knowledge left the area to seek out a cop wearing a bullet proof vest and kill him.

[teeman8r]

Just popped on to say that bob costas is an ass

[csvset]

Boob Costas. Boob should be covering something swishy, like ice skating. No scary guns in ice skating Boob. Then again, there is the Biathlon.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Actually, the history of police goes back only to 1825 or so, with it really kicking in globally in the 1850’s.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

“Actually no — but that’s because [modern] police didn’’t exist until sometime in the 1800s. [Mid, IIRC, but I’m not entirely certain.]
(Traditionally, going back further than the Magna Carta, the Sheriff was the law/peace enforcement officer.)”

Finally, someone on this thread that knows their history.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Actually I think the issue should be "did the founding fathers envision a political system where the government could prohibit you from buying armor piercing bullets"?

The answer is of course they didn't. The bill of rights was adopted to prevent a future government from doing exactly that.

[rollo tomasi]

"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."

Bazookas yes, tanks yes because Founders were alright with private citizens owning cannons (Costas and the tranny lover must be historical Colonial ignoramuses I guess).

Nuclear weapons is straw-man/logical fallacy and not a logical conclusion because nukes are 100% indiscriminate for matters of personnel self-defense and infiltration. Would LEO's use nuclear weapons in order to infiltrate interiors of a particular building in order to subdue perps or subdue a riot/uprising? I mean come on...

[Amagi]

Yo, Bobby, yes the Founders did, but don’t you have more important things to do, like schedule your next face lift and purchasing another pair of elevator shoes?

[glorgau]

Yes, I also agree. We should be able to own artillery also.