From Colonel (Ret.) Craig Tucker, who is the AR-15 “expert” of the Gun Control side in the Rupp v. Bonta (C.D. CA, assault weapon ban):
This moron just said that Eugene Stoner was not and could not been an expert on the AR 15/M4 because he did not use it in battle.
Tucker is just pissed because his earlier document about the evil efficacies of the 5.56 round (decapitating bodies, exploding flesh) has been severely mocked pretty much anywhere in the gun and legal circles.
8 thoughts on “And the dumbest Anti Gun statement you will read all month.”
Apparently there’s some inconsistencies w/ Tucker’s CV as well. He may have lied about the dates of his commands as he was relieved before the date he put on it. https://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?24282-Colonel-relieved-for-%E2%80%98inappropriate-relationship%E2%80%99
How about someone who designs, tests, and manufacturers those weapons for the military? Asking for a friend.
He’s entitled to his own opinion. He is not, however, entitled to his own facts.
And the court, along with the rest of us, is allowed to decide his opinions aren’t worth the electrons they’re displayed with.
By law, an AR-15 is not an NFA described item. An AR-15 is NOT a fully automatic arm, nor does it have burst fire capability, either of which make it a machine gun. The Colonel’s opinion is factually incorrect, a non sequitur and would be unconstitutional if it were law.
So, using that line of reasoning, CQC knife training with a Bowie-type blade cannot be offered to anyone unless the instructor has military combat experience. He uses the word “Weapon” in his statement. By the same reasoning a hand-to-hand CQC trainer must have military combat experience. I guess that leaves out all the CQC military trained personnel who did not go to war. So, killing is a key prerequisite for proper qualifications for ‘weaponry’ training and usage.
Let’s extend that to other fundamental human rights. That would mean that I cannot legally express my opinion, unless I have been employed as a journalist. Nor can I confront my accuser unless I have been employed as a lawyer.
And, while I do not claim “expertise” in either of those fields, I most certainly can, and do, have a right to my opinion, and a right to know what charges are brought against me and by whom.
“In my opinion “…. THAT right there is enough..an “opinion “ no matter who says it is just that, an opinion. Fuk him. Course facts don’t matter a whit…. Again FUK him.
It apparently worked like that on someone’s bicep. 8>)
Login or register to comment.