Poll: "Weapons of war"

[shoengine]

Words can be weapons of war, much more effectively than an AR-15.

 

[arakboss]

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. )

What if my AR15 is a pistol?

 

[ma96782]

View attachment 1217794

Aloha, Mark

 

[Member 3687]

What if my AR15 is a pistol?

Your good its a .22 cal pistol but if it was a 9mm then all bets are off

 

[ma96782]

I don't embrace turds..

Aloha, Mark

 

[Mikej]

View attachment 1217822

Aloha, Mark

No, seriously .

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[Mikej]

Then you will continue to be defined by them. Good luck with that.

I refuse to embrace "Propaganda" and "Misinformation" too. Will I be defined by those also? Propaganda and misinformation are certainly "Weapons of War".

 

[Member 34319]

I watch CNN, therefore i am an expert….

 

[Caveman Jim]

If they want to try to kill the 2A then turnabout is fair play right?
They want to find out about what weapons are used in a civil war then keep it up.

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #29

I follow Hillary. Because, she is the smartest woman in America (next to Kamala and Nancy).



Aloha, Mark

 

[Mikej]

I watch CNN, therefore i am an expert….

Well that would explain how you totally missed my post on that self defense shooting in the shipping store? Chicken Noodle News watchers tend to not see what they don't want to?

 

[raftman]

The way I see it is "weapon of war" is a meaningless term, just like "designed for military use." One of the rifles below is undoubtedly a "weapon of war" and "designed for military use" and the other isn't (it was not used in any war and not intended for military adoption). How effective would it be to point that out in some sort of debate with a gun control advocate? About as effective as any other fact or reason.

 

[HA556]

Propaganda and misinformation are certainly "Weapons of War".

Yes they are and a most deadly form! It's a psychological effect and this day and age, doesn't seem to take much to sway people into believing their crap! Sheeple want to always be cuddled up in wool!

 

[Paolung]

Your good its a .22 cal pistol but if it was a 9mm then all bets are off

 

[Paolung]

I refuse to embrace "Propaganda" and "Misinformation" too. Will I be defined by those also? Propaganda and misinformation are certainly "Weapons of War".

I get what you're saying here, believe me.

I just don't see that as a winning strategy in this fight. The liberal left are masters of propaganda and word games - that's the whole reason "weapon of war" is even a "thing".

But ignoring them doesn't work, and they won't go away. As @arakboss mentioned in another thread :

Are full auto firearms produced and sold to every Joe who wants one? Did the FFL scheme evaporate so we can privately transfer all firearms across state lines as we please? Truth is, even if you choose to ignore the firearm restrictions they will still exist.

Our rights are being slowly stripped away, and the liberal/left keeps coming and coming and coming.

All I'm arguing for here is taking control of the conversation / "taking the power back", so to speak - so hell yes, it's a "weapon of war", and "weapons of war" are what were explicitly protected by 2A, and that's exactly what I intend to own and use to protect myself and those I care about.

We won't shift the conversation by not having it.

 

[The B]

im just not interested in playing into the anti's labels and especially hyperbole. "weapon of war" is hyperbole.

 

[titsonritz]

The original assault weapon.

 

[Mikej]

I get what you're saying here, believe me.

I just don't see that as a winning strategy in this fight. The liberal left are masters of propaganda and word games - that's the whole reason "weapon of war" is even a "thing".

But ignoring them doesn't work, and they won't go away. As @arakboss mentioned in another thread :



Our rights are being slowly stripped away, and the liberal/left keeps coming and coming and coming.

All I'm arguing for here is taking control of the conversation / "taking the power back", so to speak - so hell yes, it's a "weapon of war", and "weapons of war" are what were explicitly protected by 2A, and that's exactly what I intend to own and use to protect myself and those I care about.

We won't shift the conversation by not having it.

View attachment 1217841

If you can't bring reason to a conversation using facts and common sense, it doesn't matter what you embrace. You will never convince "them" to leave you the hell alone! That's the sad truth of things here.

 

[Yarome]

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"?

Embrace what?? Labelling my rifle as a "weapon of war"? Embrace the media calling it an "assault rifle"? I think I was pretty clear of my opinion.

It's not a "hunting rifle", "varmit gun", an "assault weapon", "weapon of war", "pimp popper", "bunny blaster" or a "tactical gun". Although it may be used in a variety of capacities.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing "weapons of war" anywhere in the 2A. It's pretty short. I think I would remember.

The closest thing I can think of with any accuracy, if it MUST be labelled, would be a "freedom stick", but..... It's just a rifle.