One time about five years ago, I participated in a live television debate in Springfield for ABC News Channel 20.  One of their anchors hosted the event and I was the sole voice for gun rights in a three-person panel.  There were several people there, including a radical leftist local pastor, the charming (cough) Kathleen Willis (then a State Rep.) and a few other people who went up in a round-robin style event.

The anchor, also named John, tried to ambush me right out of the gate.  He didn’t ask me a softball question.  Instead, he asked me why I needed standard capacity magazines or one of those evil black rifles for self-defense.  Then he went on to say our Founding Fathers could never have imagined such deadly weapons.

“Well, John,” I began.  “The last time I checked our Constitution has a ‘Bill of Rights’ not a ‘Bill of Needs.'”  He tried to keep a poker face, but it was starting to crack.  So I twisted the knife.  “You know, our Founding Fathers could never have imagined televisions or the Internet, but we still offer First Amendment protections for your TV station’s reporting.”  The camera was on me and he didn’t like me much after that.

In present day, the gun control radicals in California have found the bottom of the barrel with which to defend their precious (and unconstitutional) gun and magazine ban.  His name is Col. Craig Tucker.  Tucker claims to be a Marine, but the Marines I know are good and decent men (and a woman), not liars or fabulists.

Here’s Col. Charlatan himself, Craig Tucker.

Several guys have sent me tips on this guy and told me to go research him.  

I did.

Tucker furnished an “expert opinion” about the guns banned by California’s unconstitutional semi-auto rifle ban.  He spends a lot of time opining (you know, opinions are like rectums…  everyone’s got one and you know the rest) about what little people “need” for self-defense.

Overall, his expert opinion wasn’t a word salad but it was full of contradictions and exceptional, fabulist claims.  Totally make-believe like this one:

LOL.  The “round”?  You mean this, a cartridge, Mr. Tucker?

First he doesn’t know the difference between a cartridge, a projectile (bullet) or that bullets don’t tumble, they wobble – or “yaw” if you want to get really fancy.

But the claim of utter decapitation or severing the lower body from the upper body is truly…  make believe.  The .223/5.56 round doesn’t even have enough horsepower (muzzle energy) to use legally (or ethically) to hunt deer in many states!  To say it’s capable to tearing people in two?  Once upon a time, Walter Mitty.

There’s more.  If you want the read it, check it out.  Like I wrote earlier, California must have looked hard to find a big enough village to have a missing idiot this big.  

Col. Charlatan claims that in his fourteen months (fourteen whole months!) he never saw a Marine fire a three-shot burst.  Part of me thinks the good Colonel might not have seen anyone fire a shot in anger during his fourteen whole months of combat.

So, the plaintiffs had the opportunity to file a rebuttal to Col. Charlatan.  Here it is.

But first, you might recognize the attorney’s name at the top of document:  C. D. Michel.  (The last name is pronounced Michelle like the girl’s name.)  C. D. Michel the head of the California firm that the Illinois Firearms Rights Alliance has hired to take on the Illinois Firearms Ban Act.

Make sure you read this Bufurd Boone guy’s professional experience.  He’s the consummate professional unlike Col. Charlatan who led from the rear.

Here’s one section that really resonated.

Amen, brother.

Shame on Rob Bonta for trotting out this fabulist as an “expert.”

5 thoughts on “California’s Rob Bonta: Trying to sell ‘need of self-defense’ instead of ‘right of self-defense’”
  1. Col. Craig is an idiot or someone’s paying him for that bilge… aka a prostitute. Col. Klink from Hogan’s Heroes had more sense that Col. ‘Clueless’. That FBI guy was getting paid $700 an hour for this. Once I read his experience, I saw he was worth every penny.

  2. While in the military we called full bird colonels, full bulls. This colonel is just full of bull shit.

  3. Used to be all Marines were considered to be riflemen. I seriously doubt this jerkoff has ever touched a rifle. The depth of his stupidity on the topics of ballistics and wound science are staggering. This is the same claptrap you hear from the most radical leftists when confronting with actual facts about these topics.
    Boone destroyed the bilge pumped by this Latrine Marine. Well worth the read.

  4. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t rifling primarily so the bullet doesn’t tumble?

    1. Rifling imparts rotation (or spin) on the bullet which makes the bullet more stable in flight so that it travels straighter and is more accurate. In the case of the 5.56x45mm (.223), it was found after many years that the original 1:14 twist was too slow to stabilize the heavier bullet weights. Generally, 1:9 was considered ideal for 55gr. projectiles, and when the 62gr. Penetrators became more common, a 1:7 twist was found to increase accuracy, especially in the shorter barreled M4 over the 20″ M16. Barrel length combined with twist rate plays a critical role in finding proper stabilization of a given bullet design and mass.
      The tumbling fallacy that Col. Mustard tries to sell implies that once the AR round hits the human body, it is designed to tumble end over end creating a larger wound channel. That is absolute nonsense. An M855 (SS109) 62 grain bullet, traveling at about 3000fps, does not tumble. It will fragment off pieces of the bullet, which increases the size of the wound channel through hydrostatic damage. Velocity is a key factor in this. An M193 55gr bullet, at about 3150fps, has about the same wound channel because the added velocity creates a marginally larger hydrostatic effect with less bullet mass where fragmentation (percentage of bullet mass separated from the main bullet core during hydrostatic effect) is approximately equal.

Comments are closed.