Tucker Carlson, YouTuber Hickok45 smash stereotype that AR-15's are ‘weapons of war’

He’s not just a YouTuber.

Sometimes I question if Tucker is a Tuber, sometimes I think he has things figured out. I want to see the video though.

Hickok45 is an institution of firearms knowledge...

With regards to the STTGU...

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2016/01/07/5-embarrassing-gun-quotes-politicians/

I like Tucker and Hickok 45 .... but this won't stop the antigunners from trying to ban guns, or from calling AR-15s "weapons of war" or perpetrating any lie that they think can advance their cause.

Even if they were “weapons of war”, big deal. Many of us on this forum know good and well that there’s not much difference between an M4/16 and an AR, except for the select fire mode. Many combat engagements happen in semi-auto mode anyway, and many civilian AR’s are of better quality than the .mil spec versions anyway.

The whole “weapon of war” mantra is playing into anti’s hands, and again, giving them control of the “narrative”.

But the vid is good.

The flintlock musket was a “weapon of war”.
The trapdoor Springfield was a weapon of war.
The 1903 / 1917 bolt action rifle was a weapon of war.
The M1 Garand was a weapon of war.

The most egregious and devastating weapon of war? The pen in the hands of tyrants and their media.

My highly patinaed 1869 production .50-70 Trapdoor is most definitely a "weapon of war" and has probably seen the elephant at least a few times. I guess it should be banned too.

I was once told the deadliest “weapon of war” in the US was the 1861 Springfield Musket. I don’t know if that’s accurate, but it certainly could be.

I’m not normally the biggest Tucker fan but thanks for posting this, I imagine me and Tucker can get together on this one. I’ll watch as soon as I get the time.

I believe that the Hickocks and Tucker are incorrect in referring to a hand guard as a barrel shroud. My understanding of a barrel shroud is that it confirms closely to the barrel itself, is nearly the full length of the barrel, and has the appearance of being part of the the barrel. A hand guard is something altogether different. Unless they are taking the mickey out of some dimwit legislators or activists calling the hand guard a "barrel shroud".

Pat Riot said:

The flintlock musket was a “weapon of war”.
The trapdoor Springfield was a weapon of war.
The 1903 / 1917 bolt action rifle was a weapon of war.
The M1 Garand was a weapon of war.

The most egregious and devastating weapon of war? The pen in the hands of tyrants and their media.

Click to expand...

Yup, also since at the time of the founding a well regulated militia (i.e. citizens with their own gear) were expected to be able to stand against enemy regulars, they darn well needed "weapons of war" at least remotely equivalent to the enemy.

DocRock said:

I believe that the Hickocks and Tucker are incorrect in referring to a hand guard as a barrel shroud. My understanding of a barrel shroud is that it confirms closely to the barrel itself, is nearly the full length of the barrel, and has the appearance of being part of the the barrel. A hand guard is something altogether different. Unless they are taking the mickey out of some dimwit legislators or activists calling the hand guard a "barrel shroud".

Click to expand...

Barrel shrouds are used on some submachine guns so if the user grabs the barrel his hand does not obtain the "extra crispy recipe". I don't think they have the appearance of being part of the barrel, but that's only my amateur opinion.
I suppose you can conflate "barrel shroud'' with "handguard," as the function might appear similar superficially. But handguards can be called forends .... and shrouds .... not so much.

At least they are taking the time to get the message out on a platform that the younger generation uses and tell things truthfully. They might get more converts by this approach, at least it's worth a try.

The proposed bans will take out semi auto long guns as a general class.
Next, not a weapons of war mantra is not that useful. You are arguing that the guns we should have should be 'nice' and sporting. That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment unless you buy into the prefatory clause that the right is for the organized state militias.
Semis cannot be made to look less dangerous. Go to a carbine match and see how quickly multiple targets can be hit with semis.
Most military usage is semi.
The semi Garand with 8 rounds was the greatest battle rifle. A gun with 30 isn't?
Pointing out that that the ARs for sale are not full auto is worth pointing out.

My summary - trying to protect the guns with euphenisms and excuses that they are nice for sports is useless. We own them as lethal weapons.

GEM said:

The proposed bans will take out semi auto long guns as a general class.
Next, not a weapons of war mantra is not that useful. You are arguing that the guns we should have should be 'nice' and sporting. That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment unless you buy into the prefatory clause that the right is for the organized state militias.
Semis cannot be made to look less dangerous. Go to a carbine match and see how quickly multiple targets can be hit with semis.
Most military usage is semi.
The semi Garand with 8 rounds was the greatest battle rifle. A gun with 30 isn't?
Pointing out that that the ARs for sale are not full auto is worth pointing out.

My summary - trying to protect the guns with euphenisms and excuses that they are nice for sports is useless. We own them as lethal weapons.

Click to expand...

Good summary at the end and gets to the bits and bolts of the 2A. Which was always preserving power in the people’s hands.

I’ve always been of the mind that we start with and drive home the intent of the 2A which is what I stated above and all other reasons for the 2A are supplemental support for the underlying freedom, liberty and safeguard of our union that the 2A provides.

bullpup-addict said:

Hickok45 is an institution of firearms knowledge...

Click to expand...

Not when it comes to the proper way to load an M-60 he isn't. He did a video on firing the M-60 a while back. He opened the cover, WITH THE BOLT FULLY FORWARD, inserted a belt of ammo and then tried to close the cover. After beating on it for a while he finally figured out what was wrong. The first thing you do, when loading an M-60 , is pull the charging handle to the rear, locking the bolt in the rearward position. Trying to close the cover on a forward bolt will usually break things. I know. I was 45B20, Small Arms Repair.

DocRock said:

I believe that the Hickocks and Tucker are incorrect in referring to a hand guard as a barrel shroud. My understanding of a barrel shroud is that it confirms closely to the barrel itself, is nearly the full length of the barrel, and has the appearance of being part of the the barrel. A hand guard is something altogether different. Unless they are taking the mickey out of some dimwit legislators or activists calling the hand guard a "barrel shroud".

Click to expand...

Right you are, Doc. The Mauser model 1888 Commission Rifle has a barrel shroud. The Remington models 8 and 81s have barrel shrouds. ARs have handguards.

Bugs me that the title to the article on the fox site is "Visits an infamous Tennessee Range". Words have meaning and impact. "Infamous" is not a word of positive connotation.

tark said:

Not when it comes to the proper way to load an M-60 he isn't. He did a video on firing the M-60 a while back. He opened the cover, WITH THE BOLT FULLY FORWARD, inserted a belt of ammo and then tried to close the cover. After beating on it for a while he finally figured out what was wrong. The first thing you do, when loading an M-60 , is pull the charging handle to the rear, locking the bolt in the rearward position. Trying to close the cover on a forward bolt will usually break things. I know. I was 45B20, Small Arms Repair.

Right you are, Doc. The Mauser model 1888 Commission Rifle has a barrel shroud. The Remington models 8 and 81s have barrel shrouds. ARs have handguards.

Click to expand...

Geee whizz, how many people know that about loading a crew served, belt fed M-60? I sure didn't !!! Maybe Hickok 45 did know, shoulda knowed better, but forgot. Well, Oooooooooooops!!!

Does anyone know how to load the Vulcan Cannon on an F-15 Eagle? How about the Chaingun on an Apache AH-64? Someone does, but I don't have a clue.

One mistake. One little tiny mistake.

Aim1 said:

And also bust the myth on how the AR15 isn't a fully automatic weapon of war that so many people believe.

Click to expand...

I'll watch this later (I can't now, as the video is blocked).

However, I daresay that haven't smashed any stereotype that the AR-15s are weapons of war.

This is because those of us that have at least two brain cells connected by a single dendrite already understand this, and those whose only mantra is "gun control" do not care, even if they do understand it. Those who don't care to understand this simply won't take the time and effort to watch this, even if it was put in front of them with nothing else for them to do but watch it.

So we'll never see any large scale, or even small measurable scale, change in public opinion based on this.

Small arms, specifically "Weapons of war" are EXACTLY what the 2nd A protects.

I think the "Heller" case cleared that up, Supreme Court style.

The whole "weapons of war" argument is pathetic. The very same politicians who do not believe their constituents can be trusted with weapons whose designs are military in origin, carve out exceptions to allow their law enforcement agencies to employ those very weapons on their constituents. For crying out loud the 9X19 Parbellum used by law enforcement has "prepare for war" in its name. If the argument is that these weapons should be limited to war, then limit them to the military. They can say the legislation is intended to do anything, but what the law is saying is that those weapons should be reserved for the government to use on its populace, and only liars are framing it otherwise.

Saw one little piece when Fox was advertising it, Tucker needs to put his eye PRO on...
Another little part showed him firing full auto (don't recall if it was an M4 or M16), didn't think that was wise when talking about AR15s.

"Weapons of War" over time run from a rock or a stick to a ICBM with MIRVS.

A group of pikemen probably won't do to well against modern infantry,
but on the other hand unarmed peasants probably wouldn't do to well against the pikemen.

You are not going to convince folks that semi auto guns are harmless and toys. Tucker and Hitchcock should understand that. I recall a Guns and Ammo video of two old toots with a full auto M4 and a semi. Blathering how the first is an assault rifle and the semi is not because it isn't full auto. Thus the second is Modern Sporting Rifle. Cut to massacres with semi rifles like ARs, AKs and Mini-14s. Screw you, geezer. Ban both. You should see a buddy of mine shoot an AR, it sounds like full auto. He's a beast with that gun.

It's the same idiocy of don't ban semi pistols as Jerry M can shoot a revolver as fast. OK - ban them both.

Also whenever you say this, you throw NFA guns under the bus for being too awful for schmucks like us.

Heck, if someone developed a toy that you could take to a hotel room and mow down 500 people with Stretch Armstrong, I would ban Stretch Armstrong. The idea is that they are not toys or tools. They are lethal weapons of war and protected by the 2nd Amendment (if you believe our metric) for that purpose. They are not just for self-defense as with the ever popular I only need 5 shots from my Taurus 85 that I never train with threads.

That you only need ... is found in lower court cased supporting AWBs and mag bans.

So Tucker, you ain't so hot with your condescending gun expertise. Understand the 2nd Amendment.