Harrison fights Costas in battle of wits…Costas is defeated since he is unarmed

06 Dec
Harrison fights Costas in battle of wits…Costas is defeated since he is unarmed

For those of you who don’t know, James Harrison is a linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers and I have been a huge fan of his for years.  I have always been a fan of his hard play, his effort and his humble beginnings from undrafted rookie to AP Defensive Player of the Year.(the previous link has pics of Harrison getting some trigger time in)

Now I have another reason to be a fan of the Silverback.  The normally media reclusive Harrison has come out against the nonsense that Bob Costas has been spewing this passed week.  Nonsense such as telling Bill O’Reilly that he (Costas) would rather be on the floor getting executed in the Aurora, CO movie theater rather than have a gun to defend himself.

While Costas is spouting off other nonsensical anti gun propaganda about blaming inanimate objects for the criminal actions of people, James Harrison speaks from a place of intellectual authority and experience.

Being introduced to firearms at a young age by his grandfather, Harrison has been fascinated with them and has a collection that has grown to over 20 guns of varying types.  Harrison, according to racist Bob Costas, is everything that is wrong with the NFL and the “gun culture” of America.

“Even if all those guns were obtained legally, you can’t have 65 guys in their 20′s and 30′s, aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening,” -Bob Costas

So, while Costas is using the traditional method of gun control zealots of fear mongering and racism to advance his radical gun control agenda, James Harrison is using common sense and intelligence.

“It’s a big issue as far as what happened and everything, it’s a sad story,” Harrison told USA TODAY Sports. “But the fact of it being part of the guns…they want to say it’s guns and all this other stuff. It’s ridiculous. He did it. And he alone is responsible for it. It has nothing to do with the guns.”

Harrison goes on to say:

“Somebody goes out and kills somebody with a knife, you going to blame the knife? Somebody goes out and kills somebody by pushing somebody in front of a train, you going to start cutting off the guy’s arms? You going to start blaming people’s arms now? It’s the person who did it who is responsible.”

Personal responsibility the America I was brought up in that was a cornerstone of what made this country so great.  Where along the line did we decide to pass the buck off and blame everyone and everything other than ourselves for our own mistakes and errors?  As Harrison says, the decision to do right and wrong rests with us, not some inanimate object that can be anything from a gun to a knife to a bat to a train.

And unlike many who feel like their status of being rich and famous should give them a right denied others Harrison expounds:

“I have my guns. I’m going to keep my guns. I’m going to use my guns responsibly and go from there. It’s not as far as athletes needing guns (for protection). It’s the right to bear firearms. You never know. You may need it for protection. A lot of people like to hunt. And so on and so forth.”

“Everybody has the right to protect themselves. Period.”

So while Bob Costas is regurgitating the talking points of his gun control extremist buddies while he himself is admittedly ignorant on the “gun culture” he attacks, Harrison speaks from the moral authority of knowing what he is talking about.

I don’t think Costas needed any help making himself look like a bigger nitwit in front of America, but if James Harrison wants to lay the boom down, James Harrison will lay down the boom.  This time he used a sound argument and Costas was leveled.


Posted by on December 6, 2012 in Uncategorized


44 responses to “Harrison fights Costas in battle of wits…Costas is defeated since he is unarmed

  1. Randall

    December 6, 2012 at 10:46 am

    I have always been a fan of James Harrison, now I’m a bigger fan. He is one big intelligent badass.

  2. Terry D. Waters

    December 6, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Playing a brutal contact sport hasn’t hurt Harrison’s reasoning ability. I wonder what is Costas’ excuse.

  3. Rick Steele

    December 6, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Bob Costas is and intelectual midget and should have never had the platform to preach his anti-gun agenda! He is the worst sports caster ever!! He always has some obscure fact that no one cares about! He should keep his opinion to himself!

  4. Chris Feagan Irwin

    December 6, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Using Costas’ logic…you also couldn’t ” have 65 guys in their 20′s and 30′s, aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening,” in the midst of young women dressed in tight clothing without them being raped. I’m just tired of all of these young women walking around–we need better laws to keep them off the streets…

  5. Richard Wagener

    December 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Cars are responsible for such huge number of deaths throughout the entire world, that I believe the United Nations should ban all motor vehicles. Wars should also be banned, along with Dictators, and also militaries and all military hardware.

  6. Get a life gun nuts

    December 6, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    lol, if Costas is regurgitating anti-gun zealot propaganda, this piece is doing the exact same thing in the opposite manner.

    Now he is racist cause he is anti-gun. GTFOH.

    By the way, what does ‘ the nonsense that Bob Costas has been spewing this passed weak’ mean? I assume its supposed to say ‘this PAST WEEK’…?

    And Costas is the mental midget… right.

    Let me know when you get your well trained militia ready, then maybe you can talk about the right to bear firearms.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      It’s amusing that you have the gall to nitpick on a supposed grammatical error. Galling because you corrected something that need not be corrected than actually tried to lay an insult at me by insinuating that I am a mental midget.

      For your education:

      Passed – a verb in the past tense

      Passed is the past participle of the verb “to pass”. It can be an intransitive verb (one which doesn’t require an object) or a transitive verb (one which requires both a subject and one or more objects).

      “To pass” means “To proceed, move forward, depart; to cause to do this.” (OED) This can refer to movement forwards in time, in space, or in life (such as “to pass an examination”).

      In so much as it is something we have passed by. Like a house, or a week.

      For example:

      “The weeks passed quickly.” (Intransitive: subject “the weeks” and no object).
      “I passed all my exams!” (Transitive: subject “I” and object “my exams”.)
      “He passed the ball well during the match earlier.” (Transitive: subject “He” and object “the ball”.)

      Or in this case, “this passed week” or in other words “this week that has passed” or “this week that has passed by”.

      Now, if i had used it as an adjective, saying something along the lines of “the weeks of Costas’ inane comments have past” then I would have used past.

      But I didn’t and therefore you’re an idiot. It’s fine to correct someone…but you best be damn sure they are wrong before you do.

      Thanks for playing.

      • ....

        December 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm

        Ok, that explains (weakly) “passed’ instead of ‘past’… now what about ‘weak’ instead of ‘week’ … lmao.

        And I only pointed it out, cause when Costas speaks against guns, even eloquently, he is an idiot.

        So what does that make you?

      • ....

        December 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm

        ‘Now, if i had used it as an adjective, saying something along the lines of “the weeks of Costas’ inane comments have past” then I would have used past.’

        Actually, “passed” would have been correct in this instance… smh.

        Wrong again.

        (Administrator) I can’t reply again to you so I will explain it like this:

        “Past” as an adjective
        The first definition which the OED gives for past as an adjective is “Gone by in time; elapsed; done with; over.”
        For example:
        “The days for mourning are now past.”
        When attributed to a group of people, past can also mean “Having served one’s term of office; former.” (OED)
        “All past presidents of the United States were male.”

        As for weak vs week. It was a typo. If that’s the best argument you have (and truth be told it kind of is, then your summation is rather weak.

      • ....

        December 6, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        lol, so you say that you ‘past’ someone on the highway? Give it up dude, it was a mistake and thats fine.

        Just pointing out the hyprocrisy of saying someone is an idiot, when you can’t even use terms properly.

    • Fight the U.N. and their flawed ideals!

      December 6, 2012 at 3:13 pm

      You sir were born and bred for slavery…that’s right I said it! I suppose you must enjoy a tyrannical government, maybe you should live somewhere that has gun control for awhile I bet it would change your mind. No, probably not…after all, stupid has no cure!

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:11 am

      I don’t know if Costas is a racist or not. I do know that Costas is apparently sadly misinformed about gun owners if he thinks we are all killers and zealots. Most legal gun owners are VERY aware of the extra responsibility that goes with carrying a firearm. We are probably going to walk away from a bad situation first , and let the other guy “win” , because we know that it’s not worth escalating a problem to the point of hurting someone. What Belcher did , was horrible , granted, but it came about due to issues stemming from emotional or mental problems. A gun is a harmless piece of hardware , UNTIL the hand of a human being makes it a weapon. The gun did not make the decision to pull the trigger. Unfortunately , Mr. Belcher did…

  7. Mr Michael Anthony Allen

    December 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You’re both right. It’s about personal responsibility. Hell the President blames everyone else so Americans see that and they blame everyone and everything else. Like Mr. Harrison and yourself I take personal responsability to it’s highest level. I know I’m not perfect and I make mistakes everyday. However I also know when I get mad at someone I don’t pull out my gun and shoot them. I think we need to see more stand up individuals like Mr. Harrison and use his fame to teach a great lesson here on individual responsibility.

  8. Get a life gun nuts

    December 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    BTW, banning cars makes no sense, since they have a purpose other than one that kills…

    What are guns purpose, besides killing?

    That argument makes no sense…

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Guns are useful in what they do. You can kill an animal to eat. You can defend your family by either killing the rapist or murderer who is attacking them or just the presence of a gun can dissuade them from attacking. You can use a gun to dissuade or fight back against tyranny.

      Riddle me this “Get a life”, what do you need a car that goes over the speed limit for? In fact, why is the speed limit at 55 mph or higher? Less crashes and less fatalities are correlated with slower speeds so why don’t we make the speed limit 5 miles per hour. That will save some 30,000 LIVES a year.

      If you need to go someplace in a hurry you can rely on the government and public transportation to take care of you.

      Thanks for stopping by troll. :o)

    • Responsible Firearms Collector.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      I use all my guns, some of which are classified as AW’s even though a more accurate description would be Modern Sporting Rifle, for sporting purposes. I don’t Hunt, at least not as of yet. None of the firearms in my collection, aside from maybe the Garand and K98k which are Vet Bring backs from WWII and Korea, have been used to harm anyone, or anything outside of paper targets.

      I’m a machinist with a background in engineering and I collect guns because the mechanics and precision behind them fascinate me.

      I know your stance comes across as an anti-gun but please don’t boil guns down to things that simply are for killing.

      If you ever get the chance to go to a range and try target shooting please take advantage of the chance, even if its just once. If anything you will gain a greater appreciation and respect for the tool, which is really what a gun is, if not have a lot of fun and pick up a new sport.

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:17 am

      Gun are used to provide food ( Trust me, that steak you had for dinner last night didn’t commit suicide !) They are also used by police officers to protect YOUR safety. They are used by the military to protect YOUR rights , and they were used by our founding fathers to free us from an oppressive ruler , and by the way ,Al Capones chosen weapon was not a gun . ahis normal M.O. was a Louisville Slugger…

  9. Get a life gun nuts

    December 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Its great you guys are all well-adjusted members of society that respect guns… I am worried about the ones WHO DON’T! And if you all have it your way, they will have access to firearms without a problem.

    That doesn’t worry or bother you guys? Is it worth it to have your toys when it endangers others?

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      Short answer: Yes

      Longer answer: My rights should not be contingent on the actions of others. We do not lose the right of the press when the NYT’s prints knowingly false and libelous material.

      We do not lose our right to vote when someone illegally votes numerous times.

      We do not lose our right to be free from illegal search and seizures because a guilty man got off on a technicality.

      Freedom and liberty comes with a price. You call them toys, I call them the exercise of a free individual. To limit my rights due to others failings is to doom us all to an oppressive existence where the State dictates the existence of its people due to its lowest common denominator.

      • Dave Grayson

        December 8, 2012 at 8:30 am

        Well said !

    • jimb1972

      December 7, 2012 at 9:43 am

      I can make a simple gun in my garage in a few hours, banning guns only affects the law abiding citizens.
      If you read the history of the second ammendment you will realize the purpose of it is primarily to protect the citizens from the government. Nearly every genocide in history has been proceeded by disarming all or a particular portion of a society. If you believe all people are basically good and the human race has evolved past their homicidal tendencies you are sadly mistaken.

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:27 am

      You just made our point quite eloquently. There are miscreants out there who would do harm to others. They don’t obey the gun laws. When the law abiding citizens are disarmed, it makes the criminals job much safer. If the government would seriously enforce the gun laws already on the books, and enforce the penalties that are called for, many of the criminals would be unable to prey on the weaker members of society. Places that place undo restrictions on their citizens right to own firearms statistically have a substantially higher rate of violent crime than places that allow their citizens to protect themselves. It’s not propaganda. It’s fact. Please research this and by all means , please feel free to correct any errors I may have made…

  10. Get a life gun nuts

    December 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    More families are HURT and DESTROYED by guns than are protected by them, I guarantee it.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      You guarantee it? How exactly? I’ll use research, both independent and from the Dept of Justice.

      There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.

      Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.

    • Randall

      December 6, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      Do your research, WRONG!

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:33 am

      And even more are destroyed by alcoholism , infidelity , money issues , drug dependancy and so on …

  11. Tony

    December 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Not a troll, Tony, just someone who disagrees with you. You can’t see the difference?

    Sorry for the get a life title, it may have been out of line… but after reading this article and its blatant disrespect, I thought it was appropriate.

  12. Cmon now

    December 6, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    lmao, that is a pretty far reach you got going on there.. we aren’t talking about cars or speeding laws, which are in place to protect people.

    We are talking about the gun lovers who put their right to bear arms, (which was meant in an entirely different spirit back then), over the welfare of the rest of us.

    Where do you guys think criminals get their firearms? Off the black market of course, and those guns are usually stolen, from law abiding people like yourselves.

    Cons outweight the pros, imo.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      The right to bear arms was enumerated in the Constitution as the spirit of defense against tyranny. It is no less true today than when it was written. To contend that the Second Amendment was limited to muskets is akin to saying that the 1st Amendment must be limited to single sheet presses and face to face speech.

      • ....

        December 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm

        Bullshit lol.

        What tyranny are you fighting against, exactly? Cause I just see people getting gunned down daily by losers who feel powerful with a gun and use it on people that ‘”wrong” them by playing their music too loud at a gas station and a bunch of other ridiculous excuses.

        (Administer) An armed people are a free people. A disarmed people are subjects to whoever wields power over them. Let us hope that we, as a people never have to find out just what true tyranny is by losing our ability to resist.

        And as for your narrow sensationalism view of a few isolated incidents, I direct you to

        People are defending themselves all the time and yet the liberal media and Bob Costas’ of the world have no interest in reporting on that, or even acknowledging the existence of armed people defending themselves.

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:44 am

      Yes …when it comes down to it you’re correct . I do put the welfare of my family and myself before yours. However , I and I ALONE am responsible for my welfare. I don’t need someone else to come save my sorry ass , when the bad guys kick in my front door. You call whoever you are depending on to protect you , and hope and pray that you can survive long enough for them to get there . Police officers by neccessity have a reactive rather than proactive role here. They come AFTER the problem arises. If you have 15 minutes to deal with it , then your problem wasn’t really that serious was it? Really ???? Have you ever given any truly SERIOUS thought to this ?

  13. ....

    December 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    To be fair, I am not against HUNTING guns, I can respect that.

    The need to have automatic rifles and a home armament that would make the military proud, not so much…

  14. ....

    December 6, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Seriously, THIS guy is Director Of Media Relations for Gun Owners in America?

    Doing us anti-gun people a favour, lol!!!

    • Tony Oliva

      December 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm

      Seriously. :o)

      And thanks for proving just what the rabid anti gun people are like to all the readers of this blog. It is appreciated.

      By your own admission as an anti gunner you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment except maybe for hunting.

      You don’t believe that people actually use weapons to defend themselves.

      You believe that the minority of criminal use of firearms should disqualify the 90 million law abiding gun owners in American from having firearms.

      You make outlandish claims like “more families are hurt or destroyed by guns than saved by them” and “guarantee” the statements validity while providing NO EVIDENCE or statistic backing you up.

      You comment via the veil of anonymity which is questionable. Perhaps you do not have the moral courage to back up your statements and would rather firebomb others from the safety of anonymity.

      You sir, are a true anti gun zealot. And it is always helpful for people to see that it isn’t only the elites like Bloomberg and Costas who are rabid gun grabbers, but also regular people like yourself.

      You make my job much easier and for that, I thank you.

    • Dave Grayson

      December 8, 2012 at 8:45 am

      You’re kidding , right ??? 🙂

  15. Sorry play again

    December 6, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Sorry, but in a free society there is an inherent relationship between the civilians and military; that being they are one and the same; take Ancient Greece, Rome, Israel, Switzerland, Great Britain (a few hundred years ago), and look. Their defense was dependent on their citizens having military grade arms. In fact it is still federal law in the US to this day that every able bodied citizen above the age of 18 must keep and maintain suitable military grade arms. in the 1930’s Miller vs US, SCOTUS decided that arms of a MILITARY UTILITY are a PROTECTED arms specifically protected by the second amendment (as in the government cannot ban the accessibility to them from the ordinary citizen).

    “The need to have automatic rifles and a home armament that would make the military proud, not so much…”

    So, you don’t see the need? Doesn’t matter, you’re view is flawed and has been proven wrong by history. It is an inherent right we cannot be denied on the sole principle that we are a free and open society and with that comes risk and responsibility. Once you create a barrier between the military and civilian populace you then create a caste system of government, wherein you have your soldier class, your ruling class, and and the rest (subjects who serve the other 2). So to that end i must restate that we must protect our inherent, military, civilian, and law enforcement relationship, in that they are one in the same, it’s just that LEO/Military are the only members of society who are paid a salary to give their full time attention to duties and responsibilities incumbent on all citizens of a free society.

  16. Fight the U.N. and their flawed ideals!

    December 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    If all our great military forces were lost, and the every day citizens had to protect not just their property and family but city and State as well, what would they use… sticks??? We as a nation can’t be left unable to stand for each other. I love my family and care for my Neighbors(including the ignorant ones who believe nothing can harm them) And would help defend their lives if needed. In a disaster like Hurricane Katrina the police, national guard and the ever great FEMA can’t be at every house(can’t even get food and medicine to the super dome) so I urge you to reconsider your options…evil men do evil things…weapons are merely tools! Let me use my tools so evil men wont prevail and harm the those objects and people we care for so deeply!

    Stay 2nd amendment !

  17. Glock-lover

    December 7, 2012 at 3:59 am

    To the idiots who are supporting Costas and his ilk: I just want to know what you’re going to do if they ban guns, and some thug/robber/rapist has a gun pointed at your temple demanding whatever it is he wants (because criminals know no laws). Are you going to “word” him to death with your misguided political rhetoric?!?

    • Dale

      December 7, 2012 at 10:15 am

      To those who oppose gun ownership: An open challenge: I will personally provide a sign for you to proclaim your belief that people should not own guns. We will post it in your front yard, for all to see…
      I PROCLAIM THIS PROPERTY TO BE AN ENTIRELY GUN-FREE ZONE. We, the owners, protest against gun ownership, and will never own one, nor allow one on our Property.

      Post that on your property and let the fun begin…
      Good luck, Skippy

      • Dave Grayson

        December 8, 2012 at 8:55 am

        I’ll post a sign saying that I will respect your right to not own a firearm, and out of that respect, I will not use my firearms to protect you or defend you against a violent attack. Let me know how that works out for you ,ok ?

      • Dale

        December 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

        Mr. Grayson,

        I do not believe you took the time to read my post completely.
        I am a proponent of hunting, target shooting, and carrying firearms for personal defense. In short, I am on your side.
        My challenge was to those opposed to gun ownership, that they PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE that there are no guns to stop criminals available on the property, in short, that their property is ripe for the plucking.
        I think you ought to slow down and read things before lashing out at everybody, or you are going to paint all gun owners as hotheads and prove the antis correct in their assumption that we can’t be trusted to keep our tempers in check.
        Dale Logue

  18. An American In A Foreign World

    December 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Nice to hear amore mature, self-assured, self-reliant person in sports. What a shame that the skirt-wearing Costas types don’t simply shut up and stop being little stoolies for their tyranny-minded masters.

  19. An American In A Foreign World

    December 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Reblogged this on The Founding Fathers Would Start Over and commented:
    This guy sounds like a real patriot. Good for him!

  20. Egres

    December 8, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    try 1200 guy as young as 18, armed to the teeth. It’s called army battalion!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: