Unless you live under a rock, or maybe outside the USA, you are aware of the uproar over firearms and regulation in the US. The hoplophobes (people afraid of arms and an armed citizenry) are eager to condemn magazine capacity and even cosmetic features as evidence of criminal intent. Any objection to their "common-sense gun control regulation" is assumed to be rooted in an irrational desire to inflict mayhem and murder.
Col. Craig Tucker is either an idiot or a blatant liar. It is my expert opinion as a mere mundane citizen with very rudimentary forearm experience that he has dishonored himself by intentional or accidental perjury. Here is the document he offered as testimony. Read it for yourself, if you like, along with a much more factual rebuttal from J. Buford Boone, or watch the video below for highlights.
If you don't have an hour and 18 minutes to watch the video, to say nothing of the time it takes to wade through legal briefs, kindly allow me to summarize.
The .223/5.56mm cartridge was developed in the 1950s from an existing commercial small-bore centerfire cartridge used primarily for target shooting and pest control. It is not a "high-power round," as many assert, and most certainly is not known to decapitate or eviscerate a human with a single shot as asserted by the dishonorable Col. Tucker. Many states do not allow .223/5.56mm for deer hunting because it is perceived to be more likely to wound rather than guarantee a confirmed kill. I would argue this is more due to small bore prejudice than an inherent defect, but it is absurd to argue a round is too weak for whitetail while also comically overpowered for self-defense.
The ergonomic features of the AR15 and similar rifles exist because they improve the shooter's ability to control the firearm. This is universally beneficial. Pistol grips at the trigger, adjustable stocks, forward pistol grips on the forend/handguard, etc. serve a beneficial purpose for anyone, military or civilian. Tucker manages to contradict himself by asserting that such grips enhancing stability are bad, but also a folding or adjustable stock detract from stability, which is also bad. Never mind that folding/telescoping stocks have detents or other mechanisms to ensure they stay open, and allow easier storage or fitment to different shooters or clothing. Progress is good. What benefits a soldier certainly benefits anyone else, too, right? Why does military use justify prohibition for the citizenry?
Technological improvements don't stop at ergonomics, either. Apparently flash suppressors are also a scary thing to be banned. Have you ever fired a gun of any kind at night? Muzzle flash is real, and if you need to defend yourself at night, it may be a real problem when threat assessment is most important. A flash suppressor offers no added danger to anyone, but immense tactical benefit to someone trying to preserve night-adapted vision in a self-defense situation. I know of people who also have actual night vision devices, and who would benefit in exactly the same way from a properly-equipped rifle as special forces soldiers.
Don't even get me started on the arbitrary 10-round limit these people insist we need to accept. If cops and troops think they might ever need more than 10 rounds, so does anyone else. The existence of double standards for government goods undermines their arguments at every turn. Hell, I want to see cops have less rounds to dump into their own squad cars because an acorn fell.
Tucker also asserts without any evidence whatsoever that rifles are inappropriate defensive tools. He insists they are only useful for offense. This is complete nonsense. I certainly would not suggest people carry rifles during their day-to-day lives as a primary self-defense weapon, but that is because they are awkward to carry and not at all discreet. Consider the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. A concealed handgun is far superior for everyday carry if you are so inclined in the first place, and Elisjsha Dicken demonstrated the effectiveness of a handgun and good training when the s=thwarted the Greenwood Mall shooter who had a rifle. That said, an AR15 or similar rifle is a supremely versatile firearm for everything from target shooting to competitions to hunting to yes, home defense.
As a tangent, there is a massive difference between the technical term "assault rifle" and the ambiguous legal term "assault weapon." Assault rifles have one essential feature differentiating them from a modern sporting rifle: the ability to fire repeated shots automatically with a single function of the trigger. An AR15 is not an assault rifle. Semi-automatic rifles have been on the civilian market for well over a century, long before any military was willing to adopt the technology. It is not a new thing, and it is not unusually dangerous. Even if we grant the authoritarian presumption that fully-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, etc. should be regulated or prohibited, they already are in the US, and have been since before World War II. Know what words mean. Use them precisely. Understand what laws already exist.
There are experts whose advise should be sought and whose counsel should be considered. However, when a self-professed expert demonstrates abject failure to describe reality, it is absolutely essential to dismiss and ridicule that expert. Like the false prophets of old, such men and women will lead you down a dark road. They will mask their tyranny with a veneer of compassion, and may even persuade a majority to obey. Don't be a blind follower. Do not be dazzled by titles. Be discerning. An honest man does not fear questions and challenges, because truth is the goal. A dishonest man does not care about the truth at all, but may be dangerous when his lies are challenged.
