JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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.
2 reasons:

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.
 
2 reasons:

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.
I understand what you are saying but that only works on a personal level. Say you have a flag or lawn ornament a neighbor doesn't like. Oh, you think it's hateful? OK it is. Have a nice day!

In a case where lawmakers lie and mislead those easily fooled into handing away rights not easily able to recoup. I can't agree to an, aw so what, stance. Some will say, you're overreacting and playing into their plan. It's a better plan than watching your **** get stolen because you didn't react.
 
I understand what you are saying but that only works on a personal level. Say you have a flag or lawn ornament a neighbor doesn't like. Oh, you think it's hateful? OK it is. Have a nice day!

In a case where lawmakers lie and mislead those easily fooled into handing away rights not easily able to recoup. I can't agree to an, aw so what, stance. Some will say, you're overreacting and playing into their plan. It's a better plan than watching your **** get stolen because you didn't react.

The term is mainstreamed whether we like it or not. It's in the public consciousness. It's made out to be something to be feared. And, I would argue, treating it as something to be feared (by acting as if "weapons of war" have some kind of special status apart from other firearms) only adds to that perception.

Much better to flip it IMO.

"That's a weapon of war!"

"Yep. So?"

"Reeeeee, you want weapons of war on the streets!"

"Yeah, I do. And so do you, because you support people being able to defend themselves with weapons that are desirable and useful for combat. That's all a 'weapon of war' really is, after all. Your grandpappy's double barreled shotgun is a 'weapon of war' too. Junior's baseball bat is a 'weapon of war'. Not so scary when you think about it."

"But that's different! It's a fully semiautomatic death machine with 30 clips per second!!!" (or whatever absurd nonsense they throw out)

"Really? Okay, so tell me what's so different about it, and what is it different from, exactly?"

And of course then we could school them about how there really aren't any significant functional differences between an AR or AK platform rifle, for example, vs. a semi-auto Remington hunting rifle, etc., and that the AR/AK is actually probably less powerful than most hunting rifles, etc. We could also talk about how select fire is a massive difference in terms of being able to spit out lead, but it's only really useful in certain situations, etc., and that the weapons we have access to as civilians (Class III rarities excepted) don't have that capability (which, I think, is the point that most of the "nuh-uh, it's not a weapon of war!" crowd is trying to say).

Either way, the "weapon of war" term is short circuited because it's:
1) shown to be not some big bad scary thing that's so different from the other guns already out there
2) not denied, like it's something to be scared of, but rather embraced, as if it's no big deal (because it isn't a big deal)
3) exposed as not advancing the gun grabber agenda like they hoped it would be

To the people opposed because it's letting "them" dictate the terms: Well, yeah - we lost that opportunity a long time ago. The "assault weapons" and "weapons of war" word games have been strategized for literally decades and propagated. They're all over the media. Our protestations: "nuh-huh! No they aren't! That's silly!" are falling on deaf ears, because to the general public, we're just denying stuff as if we have something to hide. Gun grabbers know this, and that's why they use the terms - because they know the effect it has on everyday moms and dads who are skeered of school shootings. Folks like you and me know it's empty rhetoric, but average people don't.

On top of that, we have this guy telling the whole world that the AR-15 is a "weapon of war" and that anyone who denies it is being intentionally misleading or worse.

Again, it doesn't matter to the general public if guys like you and me know he's playing stupid word games. His credentials speak for themselves to average Americans - the guy was a Major General in charge of the Army's Infantry program, FFS. He's got the ear of John & Jane Q Public far more than ANY "pro-gun" advocate out there, and the public will believe him (and again, denying what he says only looks like we're being deceptive in their eyes). The damage is done.

There are two ways to deal with the problem of this term now that I can see: one is to fight back against the language itself, but that's really only effective when it's first introduced, and would need to be very stiff pushback - a coordinated effort to discredit those who bring up such vague terminology. And that time is long gone IMO - we lost our chance there, and they've successfully injected the terms into mainstream discourse, AND with their negative connotations (plus this guy).

The other way to deal with it is to, instead of disputing the term, embrace it and flip it on them... "steal the thunder", so to speak, by making it either completely powerless ("they're pretty much ALL weapons of war, so what's your point?") or doubling down ("Yeah, okay, but the point of 2A is to protect weapons of war to begin with, so you're not making a case against them with that label"). I use both strategies to varying effect, depending on whom I'm talking to, and at what point in the conversation we are.
 
Stabbed and beat. I know that block. The best carnitas ever is just across the river.
Well.... with stabbing and beatings, I would be worried about where they got the meat...

No Way Reaction GIF by Laff
 
Mitch needs to be told in no uncertain terms that if he lets this thing out of Committee and refuses to use every parliamentary dirty trick he has killing it, he might as well have the Caucus march out onto the floor and plunge tantos into their own guts en-masse, because the GOP will be dead as a political party.
 
Mitch needs to be told in no uncertain terms that if he lets this thing out of Committee and refuses to use every parliamentary dirty trick he has killing it, he might as well have the Caucus march out onto the floor and plunge tantos into their own guts en-masse, because the GOP will be dead as a political party.
The Dems would love that, many or their "followers" and yes, I said followers since we are indeed dealing with a cult; have been screaming for a one-party system for a while now. Imagine how terrifying that would be...
 
The Dems would love that, many or their "followers" and yes, I said followers since we are indeed dealing with a cult; have been screaming for a one-party system for a while now. Imagine how terrifying that would be...
Don't forget, most of those in Congress also want the SCOTUS to essentially be a rubber stamp "court" to legitimize their antiConstitutional bills.
 
The Dems would love that, many or their "followers" and yes, I said followers since we are indeed dealing with a cult; have been screaming for a one-party system for a while now. Imagine how terrifying that would be...
And how would that be any different than the "token resistance" Failure Theater of today? When Biden needed a win, Mitch and Cornhole gave him Red Flags on a silver platter...
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top