Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 1,322
- Reactions
- 2,300
2 reasons:If you play by their narrative, why even bother? They falsely create a class of weapon then try to hold you to that fake standard. All weapons or tools used for the purpose of defense should fall into the same category. They want to slime their way to limit the people to a wheel gun and say that isn't a weapon of war, when some of those actually were, but put a fake label on a non-military spec rifle with no official standards and call it whatever they want. Surprisingly weapons of war actually have standards and specifications.
1. To expose how hollow and squirmy the term is to begin with. The only definition that makes any real sense to me and is consistent is something like, "a weapon both suitable and desirable for use in combat" - so yes, this means spears all the way up to things that obliterate their targets. Anything else is filled with problems and contradictions as soon as you scratch past the surface (oh, this AR-15 isn't a weapon of war, but that 1911/M9 etc. is, since it was issued to the military? And you want to ban non-weapons of war like ARs while letting the others like M9's stay in circulation?").
2. Because it's not dudes like you and me that need convincing, it's the public at large who doesn't know much about these things. The term is only scary to them because they're ignorant (this is partly because it's not clearly defined, so anything the gun grabbers want to demonize is suddenly a WoW). So, I say embrace it: "fine, it's a WoW. Now can we get on to the real issue? WoW are the point and that's what 2A protects, so calling it a WoW is meaningless to the debate since WoW are protected to begin with, and besides, that single action army revolver is a WoW too, are you going to try to ban those now?"
I realize that some will not like this approach because it's "playing along" in some sense - I prefer to think of it as "flipping the script" on them.