Get the Duct Tape: This DIY Demo Will Teach You EXACTLY How to Add a Chainsaw to Your AR-15

November 09, 2017

Writer

As if the mainstream media hadn't already proven how gun-illiterate they are, USA Today decided to push the envelope and go all-in on the gun insanity.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, USA Today shared a video showing "common" and "rare" modifications to an AR-15 rifle that would turn your Walmart Special into a video game-esque, zombie-hunting chainsaw-shotgun-laser-hybrid from your worst nightmare.

Let’s Have a Real Conversation About Solutions for Gun Violence

Check out the tweet:

A look at the gun used in the Texas church shooting. https://t.co/xdxIf5fR77 pic.twitter.com/sUY1mCCLZC
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) November 8, 2017

When he first saw the video, Glenn said he thought it was a joke and reacted accordingly.

"So when I saw the chainsaw bayonet, first of all, I was like, I’ve got to get me one of them," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "The second thing that I thought of is this: the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chainsaw to AR's."

He then proceeded with a little DIY gun-modification project of his own. Stu captured the moment on Facebook Live.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Maybe Glenn and Stu didn't get it quite right. Have a suggestion for them? Share your favorite modification ideas in the comments section below.

GLENN: So I saw something yesterday I thought had to be joke. It's really not.

STU: Yeah. Because you seem to be joking a lot so far in the show.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: You're mocking people who were screaming helplessly at the sky. But what are you supposed to do in a culture that allows legal chain saw bayonets on their guns?

GLENN: Right! Am I right?

STU: Right? And you might think it's a joke. You might think it's some silly thing. I don't know. But, I mean, I can tell you this. It scared the hell out of me when I saw it yesterday from USA Today.

GLENN: Okay. So USA Today put out a video of all of the attachments. Like a flash light. Good God, you could put a flash flight on the end of a gun. Why would someone ever need something like that?

STU: It's almost as if you'd want to see where the bullets were going.

GLENN: See what's in front of you. It's crazy these -- then they showed a laser site.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hello. Does anybody remember Dr. Evil? What was he putting at the top of sharks' heads? Lasers.

STU: So that is really -- they actually did do this video, if you haven't seen it. First, they go through the actual attachments that were on the gun, that the shooter used. Then they go through some other possible attachments that are available.

GLENN: That are available.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And people do this, they put lasers on their guns.

STU: It says possible modifications. One hundred round drum magazine. They also have a shotgun attachment.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment.

STU: So you had attach another shotgun below the gun.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment, now, that is not something I've seen before. But if it's in USA Today, it's a shotgun attachment. I get that.

STU: And, of course, most terrifying is the chain saw baneet.

GLENN: Don't even say that out loud.

STU: Well, I unfortunately have. So it's impossible to stop now.

GLENN: I wish you hadn't. Because once people get the idea that this is available, that you can go out in a store and you can buy an attachment for your AR, and it's a chain saw and you just mount that chain saw underneath the barrel so it's -- it's a chain saw bayonet. My gosh, do you know the kind of carnage?

STU: Oh, my gosh. Everyone is going to have one by the end of the week. And that's what's terrifying to me. You know, I used to be for the Second Amendment. Then chain saw bayonet.

GLENN: So now let me just say that I don't think -- and I'm doing something at 5 o'clock tonight that I believe -- we're going to take you through the fantasy land that Hollywood lives in. Because I don't think that they can find the difference between truth and fiction. I really -- you know, it's like these actors who are like, well, when I was climbing the -- the Himalayas with HEP Niblick. With who?

He was my Sherpa guy. That was a movie, man. That was a movie. And they have no idea the difference between real life and movies and fiction. George Takei yesterday tweeted out how in the United Federation of Planets, they had universal health care.

George, I want you to -- I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United Federation of Planets, doesn't exist. It's a TV show.

STU: It's also movies.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So...

GLENN: So.

STU: Back up. Second source there. That's how it works, right?

GLENN: When you're right, you're right.

So when I saw the chain saw bayonet --

STU: Hmm. Terrifying.

GLENN: First of all, I was like, I've got to get me one of them.

STU: I actually think I do want one if they exist.

GLENN: And then the second thing that I thought of is this -- the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chain saw to ARs. That that is something -- you know, I'm --

STU: I'm going to Cabela's.

GLENN: I'm going to Cabela's. I'm just going to grab a chain saw attachment, honey. I'll be right back.

STU: That's like a totally normal thing to them.

GLENN: Right. That they would attach them. And they would -- it's ridiculous to believe. So we started to look into it. The gun exists. And I have it.

STU: You do? And this is -- by the way, do not try this at home. Because this is a very dangerous weapon.

GLENN: This is the actual gun, that they are basing -- and I'm not kidding you. This is the gun that they're basing that attachment on. And as you see, Stu, I don't want to point it to you.

STU: Please don't. It's very scary.

GLENN: I'm putting it at the camera. You will see that this is an AR.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I don't know if it's an actual --

GLENN: And right underneath it's a chain saw.

STU: Now, some would say that potentially, that gun seems to come from the video game games of war -- Gears of War.

GLENN: That's what some would say. What's the difference between real life and a video game?

STU: Apparently to many in the media, nothing.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right.

This is from the video game --

STU: And a lot of people actually think that's where they got that idea. It's a popular video game from the '90s.

GLENN: Where else would you get that idea? Have you ever heard of that?

STU: I've never heard of that. There's a few YouTubers who have sort of jokingly attached, you know, chain saws to guns. I guess they then use the chain saw. But it's not like it's an actual functional thing. There's no reason --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, Stu, you are so stupid. I am going to -- you know what, could we get -- here, here, I got it. I got it.

I brought in a few things today.

STU: He brought in a few things, he's across the room now.

GLENN: So I brought in the AR.

STU: Okay. Be careful with that.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Yeah, no, I know. I brought the AR in. And I brought in a chain saw.

STU: That's a -- and a real chain saw.

GLENN: So I have the AR and the chain saw.

Wait a minute. I've got more.

I also have a shotgun.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Handgun. And some duct tape.

Now, I am -- I am of the mindset.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That USA Today was on to something.

And I believe that we need to make one of these.

So could we -- is Jason around?

Come here, Jason. Jason is our -- today in-house weapons expert.

Now, Jason, what I would like to do is first I would like to take the AR. And it is unloaded and safe.

I would like you to take the AR, and we want to attach the chain saw right here. Come here. We want to attach the chain saw. Now, I'm left-hand. So I'm going to be shooting like this. So I would like the chain saw right here, so I can -- you know what I mean? So I think it should be like that. Because that's --

STU: Wait. That's not how the design is on the actual chain saw bayonet. The chain saw bayonet from USA Today has it underneath.

GLENN: You know, you can go -- you can go with that. Sure, you can do that.

STU: I have the schematic right here.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I don't want it that way. I want it right there.

STU: You want it on the side basically?

GLENN: They have it like this. Yeah, because I want it on the side. Because I want to be able to chop their heads off.

STU: Wait. The concept of this would be you would shoot the person.

GLENN: You would shoot the person and then you would chop their heads off.

STU: After you've shot them?

GLENN: Sure.

STU: Why would you want -- what's the purpose of chopping their heads off after you've already --

GLENN: Because then there's dead, and then there's, that was sick.

STU: So straight out bloodlust?

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Making sure.

GLENN: Are you a member of the NRA?

STU: I'm not. So maybe I don't understand real blood lust.

GLENN: Yeah. It's just every member of the NRA knows, I want to shoot something, and then I want to take a chain saw and just hack it up.

STU: Really? Because the guy who was an NRA instructor who stopped the shooting.

GLENN: Yeah, he used one of these.

STU: He used the if one, not the chain saw.

GLENN: Yeah, he used the AR. ARs have to be removed only when killing people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Except he didn't kill him. He wounded him and stopped the slaughter with his AR. But pay no attention to that. You know, because he didn't kill him.

STU: A lot of people aren't paying attention to him, it seems like.

GLENN: Yeah. So he had just the AR. But I'm going to have the AR with just the attachment. Okay? So can we work on that right now? Can you just take that over there? Because I'd got some other attachments that I would like to add to it as well.

For instance, Stu, what is this?

STU: Well, that's a knife.

GLENN: A knife. What kind of knife is it?

STU: I would say steak knife.

GLENN: That's what you would think.

STU: Looks like a steak knife to me. Is that what it is?

GLENN: Yeah. That's it. Just a regular knife.

I don't want you to freak out. I don't want you to freak out.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But what is this?

STU: That appears to be another knife.

GLENN: Another knife.

STU: It's slightly larger. It's like a butcher knife. Not quite --

GLENN: So a butcher knife. Okay.

You don't see the difference here?

Besides the size. Oh, my gosh.

STU: What's the -- it looks like --

GLENN: What is this?

STU: That's like a butcher knife.

GLENN: That's a butcher knife, right?

STU: That's a butcher knife. Regular butcher knife, right?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Does it make you afraid.

STU: No, we have them --

GLENN: What's this?

STU: Basically a butcher knife. I don't know the exact at the table term of that knife.

GLENN: But it makes you afraid?

STU: No.

GLENN: Yes, it does.

STU: It does?

GLENN: This one is spray-painted black. (?) this is a tabling knife. This is a steak knife. This doesn't make you afraid. This doesn't make you afraid. But I spray pained this one black, so it's now a tactical knife.

Don't you --

STU: But would they all be sharp and dangerous and stab you in the same --

GLENN: Yeah, but this one is more frightening.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I come at you with this.

STU: Oh, that's just a normal silver knife.

GLENN: He's just going to come at me and maybe we're going to butcher some meat together. I believe at you with this, (?), but I come at you with this, and you know I have deadly intent.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: And I'm a serial killer.

STU: Right. Because it's painted.

GLENN: It's pained black.

STU: Okay. Now I'm getting it. (?)

GLENN: Good. We need to put the tactical knife. I was thinking, if we put -- except, I don't like the look of the tactical (?)

STU: It's just silver.

GLENN: No, it's just silver.

STU: That part is just scary.

GLENN: That part is scary. If I came (?) then you would be terrified.

STU: But you had the barrel.

GLENN: As soon as I put the barrel, and you see it's silver, you're like --

STU: It's not a big deal. By the way, that is essentially the subscription of the new Feinstein bill. It's basically her new (?) is it a black weapon? Then it must be banned.

GLENN: Wow. Racist. Listen to the racism.

STU: That's typical progressives.

GLENN: Hey, can I have some of that duct tape. Because I'm going to show you here at home, if you happen to be listening, you can go to TheBlaze TV and capture this sometimes later today, in case you want to make some of this yourself. But I'll try to be very descriptive on radio. But, again, if you can't follow this, and you want to get this exactly right --

STU: And we're getting this live on Facebook. Stu Burguiere on Facebook. (?) you can see this happen.

GLENN: You take a Smith & Wesson here. Okay? Regular Smith and resin. Because I can carry this. I'm going to show you how to make a concealed weapon with an at home attachment to make it a little more sick.

STU: Oh, my gosh. And this is legal, right?

GLENN: Oh, this is totally legal. Totally legal.

STU: Because the NRA. The freaking NRA.

GLENN: We'll do that just a second. (?)

STU: No, it's just silver.

GLENN: We'll go through all this. Because I'm an NRA member. And I know. And we'll also show you the finished product of the real chain saw AR coming up in a second.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.