Poll: "Weapons of war"

[ron]

The AR-15 is a competition target rifle that totally dominates Highpower Rifle Competition and is capable
of perfect scores out to 600 yards.
Slow fire prone at 600yards.

 

[ilostmypswrd]

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.

What Andy said....anything can be a wepon of war, just ask all those who died at the hands of the Zulu`s.

 

[Mikej]

The AR-15 is a competition target rifle that totally dominates Highpower Rifle Competition and is capable
of perfect scores out to 600 yards.
Slow fire prone at 600yards.
View attachment 1217883

Man, I don't think they're THAT special. Myself these days, I much prefer something a little older. Though it was pleasurable last time taking my long neglected AR up to the range and shoot out a little further with a scope. It just seems there's too much noise going on inside that AR.

 

[Yarome]

....Besides.... the government has spoken:



Source and additional summary.

 

[VanceInWA]

Of course an AR15 is a "weapon of war." But that doesn't mean anything. Consider any stone you can palm in your hand. Every child is familiar with 1 Samuel 17 wherein David killed Goliath with a mere stone during the war between Israelites and Philistines. That stone was used as a weapon of war, and quite effectively at that. A weapon of war can literally be anything, knife, stick, stone, fist, lead pipe, you name it and it has been used as a weapon of war.

A ridiculous phrase like "weapon of war" is just another example of political propaganda intended to manipulate emotions. That's all. See it for what it is, please.

 

[FALshot]

Of course an AR15 is a "weapon of war." But that doesn't mean anything. Consider any stone you can palm in your hand. Every child is familiar with 1 Samuel 17 wherein David killed Goliath with a mere stone during the war between Israelites and Philistines. That stone was used as a weapon of war, and quite effectively at that. A weapon of war can literally be anything, knife, stick, stone, fist, lead pipe, you name it and it has been used as a weapon of war.

A ridiculous phrase like "weapon of war" is just another example of political propaganda intended to manipulate emotions. That's all. See it for what it is, please.

Precisely,...

Instantly when agreeing to the Leftist's "weapons of war" nomenclature the media relations argument is lost.

Can you just see the headlines on the Chicken Noodle News network? (CNN) "Ultra-Rightest Nationals say weapons of war are their birthright!" (It is not heroic to lose a fight by putting a bullseye on your back just to say that you went down swinging.)

By using the inflammatory rhetoric of the Left, "Guns of War," you have stacked the deck against your position in the eyes of the left leaning media. It's just plain foolish.

On the same note, (as an example) This is why I have never used the word "Prepper" in reference to my actions.

Why should I call myself a "Prepper" when it is obvious that the media at large has been able to successfully portray "Preppers" as anti-government loonies who likely have low education and/or intelligence?

In reference to my activities, I am "Following our FEMA's recommendations regarding "National Preparedness?" (With some modifications that fit my family's circumstances.)

National Preparedness

Every day, we take steps to help people and communities to be more prepared by developing the capabilities needed to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all threats and hazards. Whether we face risks related to earthquakes, cyberattacks or chemical spills...

www.fema.gov

I realize that my response may not be popular.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

The AR "looks" like its select fire brethren. But that does not make it a weapon of war. (That I know of) No civilian produced AR in the US has gone over seas, fought in a conflict then came back to be placed in a safe.. thus they are not weapons of war.

One "could" argue that surplus firearms are indeed "weapons of war" as they were produced during wartime, were used or stationed in conflict zones.. so my 91/30 and SKS are more "weapons of war" than my various AR15's.

 

[HA556]

thus they are not weapons of war.

Yep, none of my AR's declared war on anyone ever! With gas prices lately, they've been quietly standing in the safe.

 

[FALshot]

The AR "looks" like its select fire brethren. But that does not make it a weapon of war. (That I know of) No civilian produced AR in the US has gone over seas, fought in a conflict then came back to be placed in a safe.. thus they are not weapons of war.

One "could" argue that surplus firearms are indeed "weapons of war" as they were produced during wartime, were used or stationed in conflict zones.. so my 91/30 and SKS are more "weapons of war" than my various AR15's.

I agree. You are speaking with rational objectivity and our propaganda outlets masquerading as a Free Press do not speak that language.

I believe that my SKS looks a lot more like, say, an M1 Garand, and a lot less intimidating in the eyes of a willfully ignorant public.

 

[OldTengu]

AR15s aren't weapons of war. You know what are? Mossberg 590s and Remington 700s.
Language is important.

 

[Paolung]

What Andy said....anything can be a wepon of war, just ask all those who died at the hands of the Zulu`s.

Cool, then we're in agreement that the AR is too.

 

[Paolung]

Of course an AR15 is a "weapon of war." But that doesn't mean anything. Consider any stone you can palm in your hand. Every child is familiar with 1 Samuel 17 wherein David killed Goliath with a mere stone during the war between Israelites and Philistines. That stone was used as a weapon of war, and quite effectively at that. A weapon of war can literally be anything, knife, stick, stone, fist, lead pipe, you name it and it has been used as a weapon of war.

A ridiculous phrase like "weapon of war" is just another example of political propaganda intended to manipulate emotions. That's all. See it for what it is, please.

Oh I do. That's why I commandeer it and turn it right back around on them.

Because I believe such "weapons of war" are exactly the kinds of arms that 2A was intended to protect the rights of citizens like myself to keep and bear.

When it was written, the standard "weapon of war" for a citizen to keep around for use was a musket. In later years, it was a lever action or maybe an M1 Garand.

Today, it's the AR-15.

 

[VanceInWA]

Cool, then we're in agreement that the AR is too.

And as I indicated in Post #45, that doesn't mean anything...

 

[Paolung]

Precisely,...

Instantly when agreeing to the Leftist's "weapons of war" nomenclature the media relations argument is lost.

Can you just see the headlines on the Chicken Noodle News network? (CNN) "Ultra-Rightest Nationals say weapons of war are their birthright!" (It is not heroic to lose a fight by putting a bullseye on your back just to say that you went down swinging.)

By using the inflammatory rhetoric of the Left, "Guns of War," you have stacked the deck against your position in the eyes of the left leaning media. It's just plain foolish.

On the same note, (as an example) This is why I have never used the word "Prepper" in reference to my actions.

Why should I call myself a "Prepper" when it is obvious that the media at large has been able to successfully portray "Preppers" as anti-government loonies who likely have low education and/or intelligence?

In reference to my activities, I am "Following our FEMA's recommendations regarding "National Preparedness?" (With some modifications that fit my family's circumstances.)

National Preparedness

Every day, we take steps to help people and communities to be more prepared by developing the capabilities needed to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all threats and hazards. Whether we face risks related to earthquakes, cyberattacks or chemical spills...

www.fema.gov

I realize that my response may not be popular.

I will not cede any linguistic territory to the idiots and morons on the left who want to paint me as a bad person because I deem a weapon most useful at protecting myself and those I care about. If it happens to be useful at war (and it is), that's fine too.

The solution isn't to run from the term (when has that EVER been a viable solution?), it's to normalize it.

These fools play language games. I'm taking it to them on their own turf.

Prepper, weapon of war, sure - and proud of it. It's only "scary" because they dominate the discussion, not because it's factually scary.

As others have pointed out, practically anything can be a "weapon of war"... So what's the problem?

Some lefty liberal wants to paint me as a bad guy because I embrace the term and proudly declare that I definitely want my "weapons of war" because that's what my Constitution protects? Since when do I retreat from that?

Never.

The AR "looks" like its select fire brethren. But that does not make it a weapon of war. (That I know of) No civilian produced AR in the US has gone over seas, fought in a conflict then came back to be placed in a safe.. thus they are not weapons of war.

One "could" argue that surplus firearms are indeed "weapons of war" as they were produced during wartime, were used or stationed in conflict zones.. so my 91/30 and SKS are more "weapons of war" than my various AR15's.

Okay, then my Glock is a "weapon of war", my M9 is a "weapon of war", etc.

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...

As far as I'm concerned, nearly all firearms are "weapons of war"

 

[FALshot]

Why not just refuse to call any firearm a "Weapon of war?" You are only aiding your political enemy.

 

[FALshot]

I will not cede any linguistic territory to the idiots and morons on the left who want to paint me as a bad person because I deem a weapon most useful at protecting myself and those I care about. If it happens to be useful at war (and it is), that's fine too.

The solution isn't to run from the term (when has that EVER been a viable solution?), it's to normalize it.

These fools play language games. I'm taking it to them on their own turf.

Prepper, weapon of war, sure - and proud of it. It's only "scary" because they dominate the discussion, not because it's factually scary.

As others have pointed out, practically anything can be a "weapon of war"... So what's the problem?

Some lefty liberal wants to paint me as a bad guy because I embrace the term and proudly declare that I definitely want my "weapons of war" because that's what my Constitution protects? Since when do I retreat from that?

Never.



Okay, then my Glock is a "weapon of war", my M9 is a "weapon of war", etc.

I can tell, there is not common ground between us in terms of agreement on fighting the Leftists.

Your position is correct but but by taking the tact that you advocate our movement will be successfully portrayed as extremists by a dishonest partisan corporate owned media. (Who's ultimate aim is to outlaw the private ownership of firearms in the USA.)

Let's face it, in a fight for one's own life anything that you can put your hands on is a "Weapon of War." You've read the stories of positions being overrun,.....Bayonets, a branch of wood laying around, an empty ammo box, or your bare hands to strangle the other fella who's trying to kill you,....

 

[Paolung]

Why not just refuse to call any firearm a "Weapon of war?" You are only aiding your political enemy.

Why not just call all firearms "weapons of war"?

It's only aiding those people if you believe the term is a negative one, and I don't believe that at all.

It's either a positive one in the sense that "hell yes, I want weapons of war to defend myself and those I care about", or it's a nonsensical one (which is the position of many here), and doesn't hold any sway.

The only reason it holds sway now is because people are scared of it - so bust that wide open and show them that there's nothing to be scared of.

Your position is correct but but by taking the tact that you advocate our movement will be successfully portrayed as extremists by a dishonest partisan corporate owned media. (Who's ultimate aim is to outlaw the private ownership of firearms in the USA.)

They already do that.

What's better? Cowering away from some term because soccer moms are scared of it too? Or educating said soccer moms that "hey, this is actually a good thing, and it's by design that the right to keep and bear these is protected"?


Look, they're going to get us on "weapons of war" one way or the other - because Glocks and M9s and such ARE used by militaries around the world, full stop. So they fit that definition, no matter how you cut it.


I'm saying, let's get ahead of the game here and grab that term before it's too late.

 

[FALshot]

Why not just call all firearms "weapons of war"?

It's only aiding those people if you believe the term is a negative one, and I don't believe that at all.

It's either a positive one in the sense that "hell yes, I want weapons of war to defend myself and those I care about", or it's a nonsensical one (which is the position of many here), and doesn't hold any sway.

The only reason it holds sway now is because people are scared of it - so bust that wide open and show them that there's nothing to be scared of.



They already do that.

What's better? Cowering away from some term because soccer moms are scared of it too? Or educating said soccer moms that "hey, this is actually a good thing, and it's by design that the right to keep and bear these is protected"?

No, they do not already (Successfully) do that.

And that is why a majority of Americans, even those who have never owned a firearm, still overwhelmingly support our Second Amendment. And, because of this, Leftists have adopted inflammatory language that is designed to turn a majority who support our Second Amendment against all of us.

And you aid them by fighting, (politically) by the dishonest rules that they have set.

And if someone disagrees with your methods, you portray them as "Cowering."

You say: "It's only aiding those people if you believe the term is a negative one, and I don't believe that at all." False. By using the dishonest nomenclature of the corporate owned Leftist media you help them portray us as extreme people who want "Weapons of War."

And if gun owners can be successfully portrayed as extreme, then the millions of people who support our Second Amendment, and may not even own guns, may be turned against us. I believe that you help them towards that end by your rhetoric.

With respect you your personally, (Whom I do not know) it is my belief that, given the tone and tenor of your remarks, you are not going to be able to "Educate" a soccer Mom" and win her over to your position.

 

[Paolung]

And that is why a majority of Americans, even those who have never owned a firearm, still overwhelmingly support our Second Amendment. And, because of this, Leftists have adopted inflammatory language that is designed to turn a majority who support our Second Amendment against all of us.

And you aid them by fighting, (politically) by the dishonest rules that they set.

And if someone disagrees with you, you portray them as "Cowering."

With respect you your personally, (Whom I do not know) it is my belief that, given the tone and tenor of your remarks, you are not going to be able to "Educate" a soccer Mom" and win her over to your position.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think that agreeing with these gun grabbing types that we do indeed own "weapons of war" will somehow lead people to no longer support our Second Amendment.

Either "weapons of war" is meaningful, or it isn't. If it's meaningful, I say we should lean into it and say, "yes, we have weapons of war, and that's not a bad thing, and here's why." If it isn't meaningful, then we can say, "yes, we have weapons of war, but so what?" Either way, it takes the "scary" out of it and confronts it head-on.

As I mentioned earlier, at some point, the discussion will turn to pistols (since they are, by far, the most commonly used weapon in 'mass shooting' events). This is why using definitions like "guns only count as weapons of war if they're currently in use by, or have been in use by, some military power" is an uphill battle that we will lose, because when Glocks and M9s etc. are on the table, then what? Then we say, "ok, fine, these guns are weapons of war, but those aren't".....?

How do you see that going?


My comment regarding "cowering" wasn't directed at you specifically or someone who disagrees with me per se, it was directed at much of the "gun community" at large, whom I do see as afraid of the term. Why? What's to be afraid of? It's like some folks (not necessarily you) are so scared of using that term that speaking it is anathema to gun rights and will banish them simply due to the vocalization. I don't think it is at all. It's not some Voldemort "that which cannot be spoken of" term. It's a term that has been appropriated, unfairly and improperly, by those who want to ban gun ownership.

Am I going to let them keep it? Not a prayer. They use the term dishonestly, I don't. The term is already in the public mind - I say we clear it up, not avoid it.

The only thing gun owners who respect the 2A should fear is losing their guns, not some misused terminology. And if it's misused (and it clearly is), why not correct it? EIther NO guns are "weapons of war" (I think that's a pretty untenable position), SOME guns are (see my note on Glocks etc. above), or ALL guns are (with the obvious minor exceptions of flare guns, starting guns, and the like).

I've won several people over to my position already with this, including a few moms. Not sure if they're "soccer" or not And apologies if you took my comment about cowering to be directed at you or anyone here, specifically - it wasn't meant that way. I should have been more clear - my bad on that.

 

[Mikej]

One "could" argue that surplus firearms are indeed "weapons of war" as they were produced during wartime, were used or stationed in conflict zones.. so my 91/30 and SKS are more "weapons of war" than my various AR15's.

Bingo! The BSA 1918 Lee Enfield I own and shoot at the range certainly saw war up close. The 1902 Swedish Mauser I have didn't see actual battle I wouldn't think. But you can bet that Mauser was sitting somewhere fully ready and able to become active in one or both world wars. And the M1 Garand? Couldn't say positively what parts of it saw actual battle, but considering there are parts from 1944-1953 in it, it's likely parts of it were in a weapon of war at one time. But mine and wifey's AR15s? Nah, not even close. Just another semi-auto .22 caliber rifle. With a heck-of-a-lot more parts than the real "Weapons of War" I have.