California’s Rob Bonta: Trying to sell ‘need of self-defense’ instead of ‘right of self-defense’

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.