Previous Post
Next Post

Bill O’Reilly was a bully, a blowhard and a not-so-secret statist. For example, the Fox News commentator was happy to put his seal of approval on government gun control. O’Reilly’s replacement, Tucker Carlson, is a gun rights advocate. As you can see in the clip (not magazine) below.

I wouldn’t say Mr. Carlson takes Mark Glaze to pieces in this interview, but he did an excellent job keeping the Guns Down America and former Everytown for Gun Safety jefe on the hot seat.

Mr. Carlson highlighted the fact that the Seattle gun and ammo tax didn’t work, and had a good old go at Mr. Glaze for his [barely hidden] support of gun confiscation. Unfortunately, the Fox anchor failed to take Mr. Glaze to task for stating that “the gun lobby has made it impossible for the federal government to study gun violence.”

Not true! The CDC guidelines for “gun violence” research simply mandates that research cannot be a form of gun control advocacy. But hey, you can’t really expect a news guy to know all the ways that gun control advocates mislead, misdirect and mischaracterize the truth about guns.

The more important point: Mr. Carlson didn’t let Mr. Glaze off the hook. As far as I can remember, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a proper gun control reality check from a mainstream media organization, without letting the civilian disarmament rep weasel word away from the facts.

For this interview alone, Mr. Carlson receives TTAG’s Gun Hero of the Day Award. The fact that the former MSNBC anchor (true story) is now in a commanding position on Fox fills me with hope that the public will encounter more unbridled Second Amendment advocacy. Finally.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yep I now watch Tucker. I love how he destroys leftwing azwholes. I watched Oreilly mainly to yell at him…

    • Tucker Carlson would even more successful if he just introduced his Leftist guests, asked no questions, let them devolve into mania spewing their hate-filled bile for the allotted time and just sat there with his signature look of disbelief on a split screen.

    • Well, in point of fact, I think the reason they passed this gun tax was to try to raise some money so that they could study gun violence, which I think is a good thing to do, I don’t think a $25 gun tax is the reason murders are up there, the reason murders are up there is there are a couple of rival gangs that are killing each other with guns, so I hope the universities there use the research money to good purpose.

      Aside from Tuckers rebuttal in that he didn’t imply that the legislation and tax didn’t increase the crime, but that they didn’t decrease the crime and thus was not useful – Here are my comments:

      1) The federal government is completely restricted from infringing in any way whatsoever regarding “keeping” and “bearing” arms, including with “gun violence research” – (otherwise known as the 2A), leftists instead of trying to change it (which they figure they can’t) instead keeps trying to ignore it, which undermines the purpose and function of the law.

      2) The $25 fee was placed on all gun owners within the city. Why didn’t the city place the $25 tax on the gang perpetrating the violence. Why do law abiding gun owners have to pay the price for the crimes that the moronic gang members perpetrate?? Clearly anti gun legislation that would obviously push lawful gun dealers (who would pay the tax) outside the city, while the unlawful gun dealers (think open sedan trunk in an alley) will not.

      In fairness to the folks in Seattle, I don’t think they imposed an $25 gun tax thinking that would be a silver bullet, no pun intended, that would stop gun violence in the city, what they I think they were responding to was the fact that the gun lobby has made it impossible for the federal government to study gun violence, they basically banned the use of federal dollars for that purpose, so they were trying to raise some money to study things that might work, and I hope they use the money for that purpose.

      The CDC stands for “Center for Disease Control.” Gun owners are not a disease or an epidemic. Crime perpetrated by criminals are not a disease, their acts are criminal, they need to apprehended and their actions brought to justice. Words matter, and these should be addressed by what they are, not twisted into socialist doublespeak. The CDC was corrupted, extremely bias, and P.W. O’Carroll – Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control at the CDC stated and I quote: “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” This nonsense was quelled by congress by defunding the CDC for this specific research. Not because they were doing research, but because it was explicitly political with aims from the beginning – i.e. an agenda to be executed. NOT research. Which is likely what the Seattle study will be doing, given their extreme bias.

      Then lets not do the gun tax, lets look at other things that we actually know the public wants and that are effective. For example, in gun violence most often the guns the gangs use are semi automatic with high capacity magazines, which by the way, was almost the same gun that was used to assassinate Steve Scalise. Get rid of those, why don’t we try that in Seattle.

      Blatant lie, called out also by a smiling Tucker. SKS’s (used by the bernie sanders shooter) and described as “almost the same gun used to assassinate Scalise” are in no way, at all, “most often used” by gangs or criminals. Like 1 or 2 percent of all crimes perpetrated with a firearm are a rifle. Furthermore, his nonsense used to describe them: semi-automatic w/ high capacity magazines” include almost every handgun in existence. When he dropped this little cookie, all assumptions of a reasonable debate completely evaporated for me. This was dishonest anti-freedom propaganda talk.

      The biggest part of the problem is handguns and we actually know one of the things we could do to reduce gun violence from handguns which is to impose a universal background check system where everybody who buys a gun no matter where can back a criminal background check; we know that would save a lot of lives but the gun lobby stops us from doing that.

      Aside from tucker stating that we don’t know that “imposing” universal background checks (UBCs) will lower crime, which is true, we don’t know – my comments:

      1) His statement above is a complete 180 from his prior statement. He says the biggest problem is handguns here, but in his last statement he said that “most often” the guns used by gangs and criminals were “almost the same gun” used by the scalise shooter. The scalise shooter used a rifle which is very rare for criminals to use. Complete 180 here.

      2) UBCs require a complete gun registry of hundreds of millions of Americans. There is absolutely no way around this. It is completely unenforceable without also having this registry. You aren’t going to know who has what guns and if those guns have unlawfully changed hands, unless you also have a registry. Registry = bad. If you are a democrat and are reading this, the only way the republican regime can come take your guns that you are using as part of the “resistance” is if they have a complete list of who has what. Republican or Democrat, the people need privacy. Criminals should be pursued for their actions, gun owners shouldn’t be pursued because of their possessions. This is exactly what this legislation does. It puts gun owners in the same boat as criminals. Guns aren’t the problem. Gun owners aren’t the problem. Criminals are.

      My dad was a gun dealer. I grew up shooting guns probably just like you. I’m actually in theory open to the idea we outta be able to have… [Tucker interrupts] In theory we outta be able to have as many guns as we want in this country, but we basically run a pilot project on that proposition, and it has failed catastrophically. which means, and I think you are absolutely right, unless we have dramatically fewer guns and we make them dramatically harder to get, its impossible to craft laws that is going to stop all of the bad guys but let the good guys do what they want. I think we have to have [unintelligible] … programs.

      And here we have it. This is it. He insinuates too many guns in the US is the problem. Assumes criminal injury and death can be prevented with law, and calls for more law, and possibly totalitarian government. A government that keeps track of everyone and their guns/possessions is a totalitarian government in my opinion. Feel free to look that up. Mark Glaze is an interesting person in this case. And not in a good way. Apparently. He likes guns, shoots guns, grew up shooting guns, etc etc. But he is not a freedom and responsible individual kind of guy who wants to live in a world were individuals are empowered and responsible for their actions. Instead, he wants to live in a totalitarian one where he trusts the government completely, and wants to empower the government over him, to keep track of everyone, and control their possessions and transactions (guns). And this is horrifying to me. It is absolutely the complete opposite of a free nation with proud and responsible people. Instead it is a socialist totalitarian republic with big government and watchful eyes. The punishment for the crime was the deterrent for the crime, but this is not enough for Glaze. He wants the government to rule over us and prevent crimes before they happen. A gather quite a bit from Glaze’s nanny state comment above alone. He is a big government statist – a big nanny government statist.

      Tucker: You also know that states with massive levels of gun ownership, Vermont, Wyoming, have realitively low gun death rates. Vermont is I think is number third lowest in the country and it’s got the loosest gun laws, there is no connection between the number of guns people have and the number of crimes people commit with guns, that’s just not true…

      Well, two points about that. The states that have the weakest gun laws tend to have the highest rates of gun crime. They may be lower in absolute numbers… [Tucker interrupts]- It is true – But you know Matt Damon said something interesting when he was promoting his movie Borne, and he got a little bit of flak about it, but less than I expected, He said you know I’ve been to Australia, and people there are pretty happy, they have basically, not just after a mass shooting, they not only banned assault weapons, they actually had the government buy them back, and they have not had a mass shooting since, and I happen to think that is something we should think about.

      1)Tucker is right. There is no connection between the number of guns a region has and crimes with guns in that region. He makes the perfect point – Vermont. Vermont has virtually no gun laws. People can carry rifles or handguns openly on the their person with no permit or license, etc. Pretty much zero gun laws, and they are 3rd in the nation for gun homicide “RATE” which is what Tucker said and what Glaze twisted into “absolute numbers.” New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, respectively. NH, VT, ME all have extremely loose guns laws. HI has many many gun laws on the books. Appears as if there is no correlation at all with gun ownership and crime. Source:

      2) Who cares what Matt Damon thinks on public policy?

      3) Tucker was right again. The buyback wasn’t voluntary. It was mandatory. The government would prosecute you later and possibly imprison you if they later found out you didn’t sell your gun to the government. In other words, it was a crack down on criminals, it was a crack down on gun owners, and gun owners were once again put in the same boat as criminals. And this is typically the view from leftists – people with guns are bad.

      4) “Assault weapons” which constitute scary looking guns are used in approximately 1 to 2% of perpetrated crimes (with guns) in the US.

      5) Australia has had several “mass murders” but not many “mass shootings” in Australia. That said, they barely had any mass shootings before the port arthur massacre anyways. So either the legislation works and murderers resorted to a different method, or the legislation didn’t work and there haven’t “yet” had any massacres with guns. Either way, their freedom has been diminished and sacrificed by the crimes of a very very very few (mass murders with guns).

      6) Freedom entails risk, but with risk comes sweet freedom, and in the end, we all die anyways. Having the government dictate your life and ownership of things is no way to live to me.

      • > > For example, in gun violence most often the guns the gangs use are semi automatic with high capacity magazines, which by the way, was almost the same gun that was used to assassinate Steve Scalise.

        > > The biggest part of the problem is handguns

        > His statement above is a complete 180 from his prior statement. He says the biggest problem is handguns here, but in his last statement he said that “most often” the guns used by gangs and criminals were “almost the same gun” used by the scalise shooter.

        To debate fairly and effectively, rather than to summarily shut him out (stick our fingers in our ears and say LA LA LA), his statement wasn’t really inconsistent. His main point was about “semi automatic with high capacity magazines”; he made an (incorrect) aside about the SKS. We could also say that most intentional crowd collisions and drive-by shootings are done from cars with automatic transmissions, but that wouldn’t make banning them acceptable. (But I’d sure like to see more clutch pedals, damnit!)

        His “by the way” aside about the Scalise shooting was certainly very wrong; Scalise wasn’t assassinated at all (it was an ATTEMPTED assassination), and the SKS’s 10 round fixed internal magazine is not considered “high capacity” by anyone I’ve heard of, including all of the worst magazine ban laws, so it is not a “semi automatic with high capacity magazines”. This mistake is good for questioning his education on the issues, but it isn’t the failure in his point and doesn’t make his following statement about handguns inconsistent.

        > 4) “Assault weapons” which constitute scary looking guns are used in approximately 1 to 2% of perpetrated crimes (with guns) in the US.

        This is the standard response but I think we need to flip it around. “98 to 99% of crimes perpetrated with guns in the US do not involve so-called assault weapons.” That statement says the same thing in a much more poignant, memorable, quotable way, and should raise questions in people’s minds — as well as, merely by sounding different, momentarily help break thoughts out of their molds and let people think freely until they reign their thoughts back in to their agenda again.

        • To debate fairly and effectively, rather than to summarily shut him out (stick our fingers in our ears and say LA LA LA), his statement wasn’t really inconsistent.

          I didn’t shut him out. I called him a liar, which he is. If he would like to debate on if he is a liar, I would welcome that also, especially since I know I would win. His statement was false and he changed it, and I believe he very much knows the difference between and SKS and a handgun. Very much so. He implied that the problem is “most often” the guns used by gangs and criminals were “almost the same gun” used by the scalise shooter. Which is a blatant lie which he reversed in his next statement, saying that handguns were the problem not “the guns almost the same as those used by the scalise shooter” (SKS). His “dad” is a gun dealer and he is knowledgeable about firearms. He knows the difference between an SKS and a handgun. His first argument obviously targeted rifles such as the sks and the like. Tucker called him on it, and he changed his argument to handguns (which is NOT like the firearm used by the Scalise shooter).

          I agree with your other statements.

          • “I didn’t shut him out. I called him a liar, which he is. If he would like to debate on if he is a liar, I would welcome that also, especially since I know [I] would win.” – You deserve an award of some sort. That is gold right there.

  2. He and Bret Baier are the only FNC shows I can watch without throwing the remote or cursing the TV.

    • Whenever Brit Hume does anything it’s great. He did Fox News Sunday today.

      Also, Martha MacCallum is pretty good. I’ve seen her slam so bs coming from a gun grabber.

      The problem with news people on the gun issue is that they are going to be ignorant to a lot of the stuff that seems basic to us denizens of TTAG. That is true of any specific issue in which they have no expertise.

  3. Wow, I’ve only heard of Mr Tucker, briefly mentioned every once in a while, I think I’ll be watching him now

  4. Carlson didn’t address several points where I would have eviscerated him. Glaze claims the Scalise shooter was using a high cap rifle, when as we know, it was a SKS with a 5(?) round internal. Then Glaze launches into the nonsense of ‘knowing’ universal background checks would save lives – Carson misses driving the semi through the barn door by reminding Glaze that Scalise shooter had passed Fed and state checks. There were a couple of other easy ones that Carlson missed because of his dogged insistence to pursue an answer he likely not get anyway.

    Carlson is pretty good, but he needs more show prep. Oft times watching him he misses key weaknesses factual or otherwise, of the guests. Letting them slide on things that would bury them.

    • The SKS had been modified to accept a 30 round mag and a folding stock added before the gunman joined anti-Republican groups, moved to a parking lot next to a Republican ballfield, and asked if there were Republicans on the field. So, if there were actually such a thing as an “assault weapon” this would be one.

      But he had no plan, and they were just random targets, and nobody was killed, so…Hey! SQUIRREL!

      • Didn’t know about the mag mod, thanks. (Which is why show prep, and a good producer in your ear, is important…)

        Speaking of squirrels, I used to run a funding plank that called for “Legalization and monopolization of the marijuana industry by the Federal government”. (1980s) Some were smart enough to ignore it, but damn, some would ignore the entirety of caseside, and do nothing but nuke that one funding plank. Hilarious.

    • The SKS comes with a 10 round box mag which may be stripper clip top fed or popped open and fed (inverted) from the bottom. Removal of the box mag simply requires removal of the trigger assembly by firm pressure on the release button. The majority of SKS’s use a duckbill magazine which typically comes in 5, 10, 20, and 30 round capacities. 50, 75 and even 100 round drum magazines are also available, however these are plagued with feeding issues. The duckbill magazine arrangement is not the smoothest or easiest system to swap magazines. Some SKS’s were manufactured to accept the AK magazine which eliminates the duckbill tab. And there are instructions and videos on how to modify virtually any SKS to accept the AK magazine, however the process renders the original style magazines useless. Iron sights on the SKS are adequate for perhaps up to 150 yards if properly set. The barrels are chrome lined and the receivers milled. These are extremely reliable weapons and can be used nicely for hunting large game. Installation of optics is problematic since there are no barrel or receiver mounting points. The recoil spring cover can be replaced with those designed for optics, however this component is not fixed and will not provide optical repeatability. There are a plethora of aftermarket stocks available including those with fore mountable optics rails. Though more reliable than the recoil spring units, these require long eye relief scopes and are still not completely rigid. Hope that helps.

      • I’m sure there’s all sortsa stuff you can do with the SKS platform. I just never thought that many were actually ever sold. Back in the early ’90s, a Norinco AK was $120ish out the door, the SKS was $100. The place I bought my AKs back in the day had a stack of SKSs that never moved. I don’t know anyone that has an SKS, or at least that takes it out and shoots it, so I’m not really familiar with the gun. .

        • Good Lord! There are literally millions and millions of SKS rifles in the USA. They were imported by the millions and sold like hotcakes in every gun show, yard sale, flea market etc you’d care to mention. It is one of the most ubiquitous military rifles on the planet. Any self-respecting gun-guy that doesn’t have one (or more) is really missing the boat!

        • The sks was classed as a C&R, even in CA, for years. They sold like hotcakes at every gun show cause there was no waiting period. I bought mine for 99 bucks, filled out the single sheet of paperwork and walked out the door with it.

          You’re quite literally the first person that I have heard say they don’t know anybody that shoots one.

        • I like taking my Norinco SKS to the local range and when there is a cease-fire, counting the shell casings stuck in the spray foam insulation of the overhead awning. Sometimes it’s like flipping pencils at a drop ceiling tile!

        • I know multiple collectors of Springfields, Garands, AKs, Mausers, Mosins, Enfields, etc. I’m sure there are a bunch of SKSs in closets bought as one-offs, or on a whim. I’ve just never met the SKS collector. I’m sure he’s out there, but I’ve never met him. I guess it would be rather cheap way to collect everything, since there are what, 50-75 variations total?

          As others have noted, it was a $99 rifle. You could get the AK that replaced it (not really since the US Kalashnikov-clone is semi-auto…) for another $20. Easily available accessories by the ton, the AK was the default choice when presented with a choice. I ended up with at least a dozen thumbholes at one point, just because it was easier to buy one if we decided to burn a case of ammo for fun one day than go home and grab my AK.

          I’m sure I know someone that has one somewhere in the nether regions of their safe/gun room. It’s just not something that ever comes out when we go shooting. Or that anybody ever talks about. Even my redneck friends would point and ask “why?” at the SKSs, and then buy a coupla AKs for an extra $40. There just never seemed to be a point to them. To me, anyway.

          As with all guns, you like what you like, you own what you can afford, and it’s not important what you shoot, it’s that you shoot.

      • Solutions for mounting optics that will hold zero do exist for the SKS, the main sticking point is they require permanent modification of the base rifle, which generally means installation by a gunsmith. Given the mindset of the usual SKS buyer: someone wanting a cheap Soviet/ChiCom surplus rifle that shoots cheap surplus ammo, parts or modifications that require paying a competent smith to install aren’t as popular as the “plug and play” solutions like the Promag duckbills and dust cover optic mounts.

        I would like to get my hands on one of the Chinese factory converted sporters that take AK magazines though. I’m okay with the minute of pie plate accuracy with cheap Wolf Military Classic for carbine classes and general plinking duty.

        • I’ve played the gambit of SKS modifications and come to the conclusion that other than a nice stock to increase the LOP from the original short stock, the SKS is a fine rifle, at a reasonable price, just as it is. Sometimes irons are the best way. If one really wants optics, get a rifle designed for it. I own 6 Norinco’s and each one is a fine addition to my collection and a joy to shoot. At my age with my eyesight I’m sure they are all more accurate at 100 yards than my eyesight anyway. And they are as cheap to shoot as a 9mm.

    • The other thing he could have highlighted was that the tax generated nowhere near the amount of money the city said it would because most people stopped buying guns in the city.

      Secondly, the the gun control advocate called for universal background checks Tucker could have said “Washington state passed universal background checks at the same time this law was passed and the murder rate and violence rate still increased, so please explain again why universal background checks would help?”

      • It gets worse, because they not only did they collect only about $100,000, but they spent around $275,000 from the general fund launching the program. That doesn’t even factor in the money they’re spending defending it in court, and oh, by the way, because it’s in litigation, none of the money collected has been spent.

        On top of all that, general sales tax revenue has been lost. Finally, the retailer that paid about 80% of the gun tax is eyeing a move out of the city. If they do, the tax would collect less than a tenth of what was promised, and the city would have hundreds of thousands in sales tax revenue.

      • He mentioned it in a different segment on another episode. So much fail, it can’t fit in one episode.

    • I liked the interview generally — but Tucker missed the biggest hole of all. The guy said Seattle needed better things like Universal background checks — but Washington passed a universal background check law 2 (?) years ago, so when you compare one year to the next for violent crime, you’re doing it either comparing pre-u-check yr vs, u-check-required year. Meaning Seattle’s violence rose significantly DESPITE the existence of the U-check. In WA and Seattle, not only are all sales — public/dealer and private — subject to background checks, but if I want to lend my shotgun to my brother-in-law for him to go shoot skeet, I must get a NICS check on him when I give it to him AND THEN he needs to run a NICS on me before he can give it back!

  5. he needs to wear his bow ties once in a while….other than that he is doing a way above average job….then theirs Hannity…

  6. I think the biggest problem with these media folks is, that from our perspective, they simply don’t understand the true complexity of most issues. Certainly they cannot be expected to be experts on every topic, but IMHO if you plan to have a segment on a topic you really should have researchers prep you better. He made good points and missed a few. These programs are host centric. There isn’t a single media outlet practicing a topic centric approach where one host is assigned a single topic. As long as this paradigm continues, it’s more about the personality and their career than the more important issues.

  7. Loved that line, “…the other 35% will be a tough nut to crack, and I’m one of them.”

    Also, Washington State has passed UBC, last time I checked. How’s that working out?

    Finally, who could have predicted that when Seattle passed a (unconstitutional) tax on guns and ammo the dealers would move to the suburbs? What I want to know, and I suspect the City of Seattle won’t provide, is how much has actually been collected to fund these gun-control studies and other efforts?

    • I’d sure like to know where they concocted that poll that said 65% of Americans including gun owners would support forced gun buy backs.

      • It’s about how you structure and word the question, and the people you select to be asked that question,

        If the buyer knows how they want the results to look – it’s a pretty simple thing to deliver. Especially if you are getting paid to come to the ‘right’ result.

        • Also the vast majority of gun owners don’t own machine guns (which was what he said the question was about, assault rifles), and if I can’t have a machine gun, no one can!

          I want an assault rifle, and I’m pretty sure 90% of my desire comes from not being able to have one.

        • There are plenty of college and university courses on polling and how they are constructed to achieve specific ends. The communists have used those methods for generations. The Democrats have been using them at least since the 1960s… not that the government in general hasn’t used them.

      • We ALL know damn well who they polled to get that 65%, it was the anti-gun harpies and testosterone deficient Beta-“males” that belong to Shannon Watts’ Mom’s Demand cabal.

    • There’s a lawsuit about getting those numbers underway, last I heard. The city was stalling due to privacy concerns, since there’s only one FFL in “the city” who even does transfers any more. Driving 5 minutes north or south on I5 (or crossing either bridge) will put you in a completely different city.

      I’d say it was just the city of Seattle lying to get what they want, but that would be stating the obvious, I guess.

    • “What I want to know, and I suspect the City of Seattle won’t provide, is how much has actually been collected to fund these gun-control studies and other efforts?”

      You’re correct, Seattle won’t provide those numbers. But they are being sued, and they will have to. It won’t be pretty.

  8. TTAG should send Mr Carlson an email congratulating him, and inviting him to participate in this blog so he can even better prepared for future debates. Though I wouldn’t say it’s the first time for fox, it is MUCH better than blowhard “gun control” Bill. But Hannity and Eric from the five have made some fairly successful pro gun arguments on their respective segments as well.

    • What Hank said. (Assuming our Dear Overlords diligently read the comments.)

      Better, point out the resources available here for interview prep: guns for beginners, facts about guns, and the recurring gun hero of the day, and should have been a DGU.

      When interviewing advocate, TC relies on a pretty well-tuned rhetoric and fallacy detector; less on exhaustive command of the facts (although he does make sure what he, himself claims he can back up.) It’s the baseless assertions that get him boring in. And the progressive folk always spin sideways, to some other topic.

      TC with Stossel or Kennedy would make a very interesting panel. (Maybe they can make a side business: “The Other Guys”, offering panel services for whatever screech fest needs to fill their pro / con, pulled based on availability from TC, Gutfeld, Stossel, Kennedy, Andy Levy, and Milo. Maybe rotate in Mark Steyn or Charles CW Cooke for the accent. /more popcorn)

      Stossel more or less talked himself into his limited government POV, while being a consumer interest reporter. He found lots of not-protection and cost where there was regulation. Indeed, his basic POV is looking at government from the perspective of a consumer of government services. As products they suck. If it worked better, I suspect he’d be for more of it.

  9. There is already an extra tax on firearms and ammo. Then local/state sales taxes. Not sure what extra tax they want placed on firearms.

    (c) Rates of tax. Tax is imposed on the sale of the articles specified in section 4181 of the Code at the rates indicated below.
    (1) Pistols 10%
    (2) Revolvers 10%
    (3) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers) 11%
    (4) Shells and cartridges 11%;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=b6abd9ef6b129d8f81193077436d9e1f;idno=27;region=DIV1;q1=53.61;rgn=div8;view=text;node=27%3A2.

  10. I like Tucker much better than Bill O. I wrote in to Bill awhile ago opposing his support for gun control and got the standard “weapons of war have no place on city streets” bull sh!t.

    Fox News is ok, but One America News is much better. It’s actual journalism mixed with American History, conservative commentary, and originalist views and explanations of the Constitution.

    • Vehicles of war have no place on city streets. Sorry, Jeep owners.

      Hummer owners I just laugh at in the locker room.

    • Thanks for brining that up. Never heard of one America and decided to check it out. It’s VERY refreshing. I think my favorite part is the lack of bullshit all over the screen, and lack of trashy click bait ads on the website. It’s nice. Reminds me of what news was like 20 years ago.

  11. He will only get better with more familiarity but good job Tucker. To many here at Ttag think they would do better but I severely doubt it. It’s easy behind the computer screen where you get time to think through your thoughts. He has no such luxury. Carlson has eviscerated multiple lefty apologists and I for one appreciate this take down. Don’t lose sight of the good for the perfect people.

    • It’s also harder than it is at home on the couch watching it. As someone who occasionally argues for money, the pressure of doing it live makes it harder.

      • What I like is that Mr. Carlson lets his guests speak — unlike his interrupting cow predecessor. Mr. Carlson is civil, and I value that.

    • “To many here at Ttag think they would do better but I severely doubt it. It’s easy behind the computer screen where you get time to think through your thoughts. He has no such luxury.”

      The Voice is not a collection of extremely talented singers. It’s a collection of people you can find everywhere there are people, who the producers deemed would “make good television”. Please attend a dozen black churches near you, and a few places with booked live music. The crap you see on that show is just that – mediocre twaddle, albeit with a sellable story, for TV

      Semi-recently I judged some high schoolers who had to react in seconds, and didn’t have the luxury of TC’s production staff in an earbud to give them instant prompts. If they did well in a decent sized tournament they’d debate in front of hundreds (or more) smart and critical peers who watched them in real time, looking for any error.

      Just because you may not be able to analyze and respond quickly under pressure, does not mean there are others who can’t. What TC does is hardly impressive, I’ve seen better focus in HS kids. But they weren’t a TV product, they we’re actually looking to win on the merits of their argument.

      TC isn’t bad, isn’t stupid, but he’s still a product, and rather middle-of-the-road one at that.

      • As a long time teacher and judge of debates believe me I am well aware of what motivated students are capable of doing but I think your wrong about Mr. Carlson. He has handed more than a couple lefty apologists their rear ends. He is not a Winston Churchill or a William F Buckley but who on television actually debates anymore? All I see are a bunch of people shouting over each other. Mark Steyn is one of the few exceptions. He has no wire to the ears..

        • We’ll agree to disagree then. In 2 years I picked up a coupla rubies from the NFL, and was included in the Harvard Invitational.

          If TC had a background in forensics, he’d have acquitted himself better.

  12. Been watching Tucker for years on different media sources. The guy knows his stuff and uses that knowledge to defeat all kinds of bloviating fools. The one thing they can never defeat is facts. Mr. Carlson relies on facts to prove his points not beliefs and emotion. That’s the main difference between people like Tucker and the average liberal. They live in a world based on emotion. While people like Mr. Carlson have emotions. They know that real solutions require facts.

  13. Robert, you had me at “Bill O’Reilly was a bully, a blowhard and a not-so-secret statist.”

    • O’Reilly was only in it for the money, tane and fame.
      I don’t think he really believed in half of what he said.

      • He also seemed kind of dumb at times. He never seemed able to grasp any complex issue. I don’t know if he really didn’t get it or it was a put on for the benefit of viewers.

          • Anybody who can make the kind of money the way he did can’t be that stupid. He made himself into an intensely popular product. I don’t think he actually was the product he presented himself as. I could be wrong, and he was incredibly lucky to be the perfect fit for such a large market.

        • The Lardassians make ‘that kind’ of money in a few months.

          Please expound on their IQs…

          • 1. I think Kris Jenner is the brains of that operation.

            2. O’Reilly made money by arguing with people and convincing a large portion of the public that he was right. He was the highest rated news program for 19 or 20 years.

            3. The “Lardassians” made money by exploiting a sex tape, being “attractive,” and being a freak show. That’s different than how O’Reilly made money.

            4. I’ve already admitted I could be wrong and that O’Reilly was just really lucky. This isn’t some article of faith for me, just an opinion.

  14. never heard of him.
    simply wonderful to finally see for the first time an msm anchor doing some pro gun ripshit. unexpected.
    carlson and sheriff clark should have a love child.

    it’s not enough to get me to watch the news, but i look forward to selcted highlights. too bad nobody that needs to hear this watches fox.

    same thing with gun/ ammo tax here, except it’s the whole frickin’ county. i’d like to see the revenue losses for the cabela’s that was built a few hundred yards inside of cook.

  15. I lost all respect fro Bill O’Reilly years ago and it wasn’t about gun control at all. During one of his shows he felt the need to tell everyone one a macho guy he is by tearing down another guy. It wasn’t about politics at all. I don’t even know the politics of the man he disparaged although he is a well known businessman. Every American would know who he is.

    O’Reilly, being the coward he is had the gall to tell this story about being in turbulence on a jet where this other guy was also a passenger. Apparently the guy freaked out and according to O’Reilly the Coward he started “screaming like a woman.” Why did O’Reilly feel the need to tell this story which was apropos to nothing he was talking about? To tell the world what a big brave man he is.

    Anyone that has faced danger on a regular basis knows that the whole courage thing is overblown. A man can be brave one day and not the next depending on mostly how he sees the situation or maybe what he had for breakfast. O’Reilly wasn’t at all brave in this incident despite his bragging. He was just seeing reality, that there was no danger. While the other guy saw danger where it didn’t exist. I mean make a joke with the guy and clam him down but to make fun of him on national television by name was completely uncalled for and shows what a worthless human being O’Reilly is.

    O’Reilly is a lowlife. I have no doubt he molested women. He has the character for it. He is a big, blustering blowhard that has to make himself look good by putting others down. Maybe the jerk should read Joesph Conrad’s Lord Jim to understand courage.

  16. His face annoys me and I’m not sure why people agree to go on his show if they disagree with him.

  17. Carlson is a worthy successor to horse’s-ass O’Reilly. He holds his own against single-issue leftists as well as any journeyman conservative or libertarian generalist could. After several months of shredding the opposition in prime-time, it’s hard to believe they can still find commie guests to appear on his show. Hannity might be the stauncher 2A advocate, but often can’t get out of his own way. Tucker gives me hope for the future of FNC.

  18. I watched that segment and Tucker made Mark Glaze look like….well… the uneducated moron that he is. There’s a reason that many people like Maxine Waters and other Dumbocrats will not accept invitations to be on Tucker’s show…..he turns them into Train Wrecks. The one’s who do accept, regret it immediately.

    • “The one’s who do accept, regret it immediately.” Except for the ones who keep coming back.

  19. Mark Glaze was already fired from Everytown and MomsDemand so he tries to start a new gun control group yet he continues to argue that the gun studies the CDC performed and was an EO from Obama back in 2013 but proved him wrong so they ignored it. LMAO

  20. “the reason murders are up there is there are a couple of rival gangs that are killing each other with guns”. So, they know the reason gun violence is up but need a $25 tax on every sale so they can study the cause of gun violence. Mark, you sound like an intelligent person. Please turn on your brain and your common sense.

  21. He could have done better. He really needed to point out the Washington already requires universal background checks.

    It is fun when he makes gun control advocates look stupid though. Thanks to him, we got one of our favorite memes.

Comments are closed.