Gold Supporter
- 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?
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?