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

Is the AR-15 a "weapon of war"?

  • The AR-15 is indeed a "weapon of war" and we should embrace the label as 2A was designed for "WoW"

  • The AR-15 isn't a "weapon of war" because it's not currently used by the military during wartime.

  • The AR-15 is indeed a "weapon of war" but we shouldn't call it so, because it's unnecessarily scary.

  • The AR-15 isn't a "weapon of war" and we should be firm about the distinction.

  • Something else - the above choices don't fit my views at all.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Messages
1,324
Reactions
2,300
So, I've been going round and round on this with some of my fellow 2A advocates for a while now, as my thinking has evolved on the issue.

For a long time, I resisted weapons like the AR-15 being called "weapons of war" - because the liberals and lefties (think "Beta" O'Rourke, especially - and no, that's not a typo, Robert is certainly a Beta) tend to emphasize it in a way that induces fear and revulsion in folks who just don't know any better.

"What? A "weapon of war"? We can't have that on the streets... we don't want wars in our streets!" etc.

However - some time ago, I decided to embrace the label instead, and in some sense, publicly "reclaim" what in my view, and the view of many other 2A advocates, the Second Amendment is about: protecting access to "weapons of war" for civilians so that they could defend themselves and those they care about against all enemies (foreign and domestic).

And so, I've embraced the "weapon of war" label, because I absolutely want access to the best weapons available for me to defend myself and those I care about.

The issue also turns on the definition of "weapon of war" to some degree, so to be clear, mine is something like, "a weapon that is suitable for warfare" - not necessarily IDEAL for warfare (though of course this is preferable). I realize that this encompasses most, if not all, modern firearms today, and I'm fine with that. If people want to quibble about something "currently in use by the military" as a way to avoid the WoW designation, I think that's a losing fight, especially given sidearms and bolt actions, shotguns, and other ARs (AR/308 style etc.) rifles that ARE in current use by the military. At any rate, the AR-15 is more or less an M-16 with a different BCG and no select fire capability, so why act like it's something completely unrelated or split hairs about it? But I digress...

However, despite all this - I still run into some resistance amongst other gun owners and 2A fans who don't like the label (I'm guessing for the same, or similar, reasons I used to dislike it), and so instead of embracing it like i have, they run from it. I think this is counterproductive.

What do you guys think? Is the AR-15 a "weapon of war"? And if not, why not, and why is it okay to own a Glock 19 or Beretta M9 or Sig M17/M18 etc. which are definitely "weapons of war" but we shy away from the AR being called one?

IMG_6021.JPEG
 
Anything can be a "weapon of war"...
Rocks have been around for a long time...and countless numbers of them have been used in warfare.
So...are we to call rocks weapons of war...?


The AR15 is just a rifle....no more , no less.
You could get picky and call it a semiauto rifle...but its still just a rifle.
So call it what is...a rifle.

I dilslike the use of trendy phrases , especially those words , terms and phrases that can be used against me.
"Weapon of war" is dangerous term that can be made to fit almost anything...therefore I won't use it.
Andy
Edit to add :
I wish the poll had a none of the above option...
Since none of the options truly fit for me.
 
Last Edited:
Anti gunners will use whatever labels they can to further their twisted goals. Labels make zero difference to me. Weapons of war refers to a situation not a gun. Lever guns, single shots, bolt actions, revolvers, shotguns were all weapons of war. The same gun used for target practice hunting whatever can be a weapon of war depending on the situation, not the gun.
 
Since the last time that WAR was actually declared (by the USA was WW2). And, since the AR was developed after that.

How can it be a "Weapon Of War"?

Dems_Covid_Response.png


Aloha, Mark
 
So, I've been going round and round on this with some of my fellow 2A advocates for a while now, as my thinking has evolved on the issue.

For a long time, I resisted weapons like the AR-15 being called "weapons of war" - because the liberals and lefties (think "Beta" O'Rourke, especially - and no, that's not a typo, Robert is certainly a Beta) tend to emphasize it in a way that induces fear and revulsion in folks who just don't know any better.

"What? A "weapon of war"? We can't have that on the streets... we don't want wars in our streets!" etc.

However - some time ago, I decided to embrace the label instead, and in some sense, publicly "reclaim" what in my view, and the view of many other 2A advocates, the Second Amendment is about: protecting access to "weapons of war" for civilians so that they could defend themselves and those they care about against all enemies (foreign and domestic).

And so, I've embraced the "weapon of war" label, because I absolutely want access to the best weapons available for me to defend myself and those I care about.

The issue also turns on the definition of "weapon of war" to some degree, so to be clear, mine is something like, "a weapon that is suitable for warfare" - not necessarily IDEAL for warfare (though of course this is preferable). I realize that this encompasses most, if not all, modern firearms today, and I'm fine with that. If people want to quibble about something "currently in use by the military" as a way to avoid the WoW designation, I think that's a losing fight, especially given sidearms and bolt actions, shotguns, and other ARs (AR/308 style etc.) rifles that ARE in current use by the military. At any rate, the AR-15 is more or less an M-16 with a different BCG and no select fire capability, so why act like it's something completely unrelated or split hairs about it? But I digress...

However, despite all this - I still run into some resistance amongst other gun owners and 2A fans who don't like the label (I'm guessing for the same, or similar, reasons I used to dislike it), and so instead of embracing it like i have, they run from it. I think this is counterproductive.

What do you guys think? Is the AR-15 a "weapon of war"? And if not, why not, and why is it okay to own a Glock 19 or Beretta M9 or Sig M17/M18 etc. which are definitely "weapons of war" but we shy away from the AR being called one?

View attachment 1217784
The left calls a potato an abused minority so I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Since the last time that WAR was actually declared (by the USA was WW2). And, since the AR was developed after that.

How can it be a "Weapon Of War"?

Aloha, Mark


The issue also turns on the definition of "weapon of war" to some degree, so to be clear, mine is something like, "a weapon that is suitable for warfare" - not necessarily IDEAL for warfare (though of course this is preferable). I realize that this encompasses most, if not all, modern firearms today, and I'm fine with that. If people want to quibble about something "currently in use by the military" as a way to avoid the WoW designation, I think that's a losing fight, especially given sidearms and bolt actions, shotguns, and other ARs (AR/308 style etc.) rifles that ARE in current use by the military. At any rate, the AR-15 is more or less an M-16 with a different BCG and no select fire capability, so why act like it's something completely unrelated or split hairs about it? But I digress...
 
Anything can be a "weapon of war"...
Rocks have been around for a long time...and countless numbers of them have been used in warfare.
So...are we to call rocks weapons of war...?


The AR15 is just a rifle....no more , no less.
You could get picky and call it a semiauto rifle...but its still just a rifle.
So call it what is...a rifle.

I dilslike the use of trendy phrases , especially those words , terms and phrases that can be used against me.
"Weapon of war" is dangerous term that can be made to fit almost anything...therefore I won't use it.
Andy
Edit to add :
I wish the poll had a none of the above option...
Since none of the options truly fit for me.
100% agree with this. Having been involved in a combat engagement at extremely short range that went sideways, I've personally used an entrenching tool and a PRC-77 handset as "weapons of war". It's a meaningless term that's designed for nothing more than triggering a negative emotional response regarding whatever object it's being applied to.
 
All firearms today are either weapons of war or loosely based on weapons of war or were designed to hopefully win a military contract to become weapons of war.

Now it seems, if I remember right, Americans own more guns than most militaries and most of these guns have never been used in a war or will ever be, so they are not truly weapons of war are they.

Yes, they could be used in a war but so can my jeep, my tractor, my ham radio equipment and everything else I have if a war were to break out today in the US.

Think about Ukraine do you think their hunting rifles and shotguns aren't being used as weapons of war.

The inventers in the beginning may not have designed it to be a weapon of war but once working, man used it that way.

The same with air planes, trucks, cars, radios and in return many leaps in technology have come out of war like in medicine and improvements in all the above made Items.

So, you can call it what you wish like a walking stick, a crutch, a splint or one side of a homemade stretcher as many rifles in past wars have been used as these items and also to mark the graves of the dead who gave up their lives to support what they felt was freedom.

So yes, they could be a weapon of war if needed to protect the American people from enemies both foreign and domestic but currently they are not they are hunting rifles, competition rifles and just fun rifles to shot.

Remember the people who own them also can be considered a weapon of war and some on this forum have been.

So is an AR15 a weapon of war, not until I need it to be.
 
Last Edited:
The AR15 is just a rifle....no more , no less.
You could get picky and call it a semiauto rifle...but its still just a rifle.
So call it what is...a rifle.
This! 👆

What point does it serve trying to put a "label" on it? All that does is create a bias, one way or the other, and is simply pandering along with the media's demand that whatever they are attacking has to have a catchy label on it... for effect.

No rifle has any one purpose and can't be classified as such. It's a rifle... Period.

(Guess what I voted. ;) )
 
100% agree with this. Having been involved in a combat engagement at extremely short range that went sideways, I've personally used an entrenching tool and a PRC-77 handset as "weapons of war". It's a meaningless term that's designed for nothing more than triggering a negative emotional response regarding whatever object it's being applied to.
Yarome said:
This! 👆

What point does it serve trying to put a "label" on it? All that does is create a bias, one way or the other, and is simply pandering along with the media's demand that whatever they are attacking has to have a catchy label on it... for effect.

No rifle has any one purpose and can't be classified as such. It's a rifle... Period.

(Guess what I voted. ;) )

So why not own and embrace it? Isn't that what 2A was for - to protect ordinary people's right to defend themselves with "weapons of war"?
 
All firearm types were originally developed as "weapons of war", from black powder (all lock types) to revolvers, lever, break and bolt actions, shotguns, etc.. If one, even a sporterized version of an Mwhatevah, can be banned because of that then they ALL can be banned because of that.

Also note that "weapons of war" are those arms specifically referred to in the 2A.

Truthfully it's an emotional catch phrase that implies if you are for their ownership then you a for violence and mayhem "in the streets" when we have seen for decades that gun control is exactly what causes that condition.
 
It's a meaningless term that's designed for nothing more than triggering a negative emotional response regarding whatever object it's being applied to.
This!
So why not own and embrace it? Isn't that what 2A was for - to protect ordinary people's right to defend themselves with "weapons of war"?
I don't embrace turds..
 
A trained military can make war with swords. The average gun owner is not trained in soldiering. So there is no "war" to be made.

The AR15 has been successfully used to fend off multiple home invaders. It is also an effective deterrent against disrespectful neighbors who might otherwise entertain ideas.
 
Last Edited:

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