Poll: "Weapons of war"

[FALshot]

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.

I do not know how to make my position any clearer.

The phrase "Weapons of War" was not coined by Second Amendment advocates. It was coined by people who want to ultimately outlaw private firearms ownership in the USA.

They coined the phrase to portray us as anti-government, potentially violent, extremists. It is not a good thing to be portrayed as a anti-government, warlike, potentially violent, extremists.

If Second Amendment supporters are able to be portrayed as extremists then millions of citizens who support the Second Amendment, (Think Soccer Mom's) may be turned against private firearms ownership.

Politics is theater requiring all to play their roles. You will either take part in the theater or you will be taken apart by the theater.

 

[TTSX]

I don't like the phrase, though I understand the concept and fully support their use in that capacity and for that purpose, along with any other arms. I really have no problem calling them whatever so long as it's recognized these rifles are legal and constitutionally protected for ownership based on any reason the owner likes or no reason at all

 

[Mikej]

I do not know how to make my position any clearer.

The phrase "Weapons of War" was not coined by Second Amendment advocates. It was coined by people who want to ultimately outlaw private firearms ownership in the USA.

They coined the phrase to portray us as anti-government, potentially violent, extremists. It is not good thing to be portrayed as a anti-government, warlike, potentially violent, extremist.

If Second Amendment supporters are able to be portrayed as extremists then millions of citizens who support the Second Amendment, (Think Soccer Mom's) may be turned against private firearms ownership.

Politics is theater requiring all to play their roles. You will either take part in the theater or you will be taken apart by the theater.

That's real good man. Don't know how you could say it any better.

 

[Paolung]

I do not know how to make my position any clearer.

The phrase "Weapons of War" was not coined by Second Amendment advocates. It was coined by people who want to ultimately outlaw private firearms ownership in the USA.

They coined the phrase to portray us as anti-government, potentially violent, extremists. It is not good thing to be portrayed as a anti-government, warlike, potentially violent, extremist.

If Second Amendment supporters are able to be portrayed as extremists then millions of citizens who support the Second Amendment, (Think Soccer Mom's) may be turned against private firearms ownership.

Politics is theater requiring all to play their roles. You will either take part in the theater or you will be taken apart by the theater.

Interesting take.


I'm completely aware of their intent. That's why it's important for us to short-circuit it.

You've got a Major General saying, "yep, weapons of war alright." That's what you're up against when you say "no, they aren't, that's bs political language."

You think that's going to convince those soccer moms? You, some guy (I don't know much about you at all, so I'm sorry I can't speak to your public credibility) vs. a Major General who was Chief of Infantry?

That fight is lost. The term is out of the bag, and it's not going back in. Either grab onto it and steer it in the right direction, or get mowed down trying to stop it. It's too late to ignore it and hope it goes away.

At any rate, we're on the same side here - the side of 2A - so despite our differences of opinion on what to do with the phrase, I wish you the best of luck defending 2A in the best way you know how.

 

[Yarome]

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

What exactly is fueling your strong desire that everyone accept your will to call AR-15's "weapons of war"... to the point of twisting peoples responses into some type of acceptance of your terminology????

It seems as if there is some type of agenda beyond actual interest in what most are actually saying.

If you want to consider your AR-15's as "weapons of war"... or... whatever else floats your boat... more power to you! That's your right, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to agree or "own it" by considering theirs the same.

 

[Yarome]

That fight is lost. The term is out of the bag, and it's not going back in. Either grab onto it and steer it in the right direction, or get mowed down trying to stop it. It's too late to ignore it and hope it goes away.

IMO, That's utter nonsense!

I can think of more than a FEW terms/labels coined and main stream propagated by the general public that where venomously fought against by those most damaged by it. They reeducated the general public and eventually won out their cases... and rightly so. I don't want to list a bunch but I'm sure you're at least familiar with the "N" word and the term "F*g" or "Re***d"... and can come up with your own more expansive list if you so desire.

Your view is that they should have just "owned it" as we should just "own" our rifles being labelled in an effort to demonize them... and then... what? Change public perception that your average homeowner/neighbor is well within their rights to own vastly more deadly military grade hardware of any type?? Everyone knows "weapons of war" are much more deadly and have the sole purpose of killing other human beings, right?

GOOD LUCK with that!!

Personally, I choose to "steer it in the right direction" by reeducating those that ignorantly toss around labels like that. If we don't, then you're right. It will never go away.

If you, personally, don't want to go to the effort to try and reeducate others, give up, accept the media's generalization and demonizing of your firearms, that's entirely up to you, but trying to rationalize it or recruit other to do the same is a disservice, IMHO.

 

[Rkangel]

It is an effective tool, used by warriors as well as civilians. Like any tool it can be used and misused. Anything can become a weapon of war, when someone declares war against you.

 

[Yarome]

Anything can become a weapon of war, when someone declares war against you.

Very true! Look at current events. Granpap's sipppin juice over in Ukraine is now a weapon of war... once you stuff a rag in the top of the bottle.

Try and criminialize MY sippin juice... I'll prove that I actively exercise my 2A rights.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[Stomper]

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.

When you get right down to it, the WIELDER is the weapon, not just the instrument(s) they choose to implement and wage violence.

 

[Stomper]

Very true! Look at current events. Granpap's sipppin juice over in Ukraine is now a weapon of war... once you stuff a rag in the top of the bottle.

Try and criminialize MY sippin juice... I'll prove that I actively exercise my 2A rights.

Yeah, drink that sippin' juice, then "recycle" it back into that bottle and I'd bet it'd STILL light a fire!

 

[Yarome]

Yeah, drink that sippin' juice, then "recycle" it back into that bottle and I'd bet it'd STILL light a fire!

No doubt... now there's going to be a youtube out on that soon....

 

[OldTengu]

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

To elaborate, Mossberg 590s and Remington 700s are actually used in war. They're also super common for home defense and hunting. If they can get the public to latch on to the idea that AR15s are "weapons of war" despite not actually being issued to soldiers, the next things to go will be the things that are.

 

[Mark W.]

So in my rack my
Hawkin style precession.50cal muzzle loader
1905 Winchester model 1895 in 30-40krag
1905 Winchester model 1897 12ga shotgun
1925/1938/1966 Winchester model 1894's
1918 Springfield 1903 30-06
Inland M1 carbine
Springfield M1 Grand
All my bolt action hunting rifles except my model 12 Savage
Remington 870 shotgun
1911
Star model B
Navy Arms 1858 New model Army .44cal

Are all weapons of war. Whats your point?

 

[Yarome]

Are all weapons of war. Whats your point?

All I heard from that was... you have one too many 1895's, I have one too few, but I wouldn't be greedy and settle for you giving me the funky 1966 one.

What was the question again??

 

[American123]

As Andy already said, any weapon can be used for war. The AR15 may not be utilized as a military rifle by any country in the world, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. It is otherwise identical to military variants that are capable of firing full auto.

The second Amendment was purposely written to protect Americans right to access, ownership, and bearing of arms (weapons of war) without infringement, to stave off tyranny both foreign and domestic.

 

[Paolung]

What exactly is fueling your strong desire that everyone accept your will to call AR-15's "weapons of war"... to the point of twisting peoples responses into some type of acceptance of your terminology????

It seems as if there is some type of agenda beyond actual interest in what most are actually saying.

If you want to consider your AR-15's as "weapons of war"... or... whatever else floats your boat... more power to you! That's your right, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to agree or "own it" by considering theirs the same.

No agenda, and no twisting - I just see the writing on the wall on this. It's not going away, gun haters will continue to hound 2A supporters about it, and that's to our detriment.

You're mistaking my strong and forceful arguing for "forcing everyone to accept" something. People can take it or leave it, that's fine,. But I'm going to argue my side, and no one should expect me not to because they disagree. I may or may not persuade people. I've already persuaded two to come over to my side on this very topic just today, so if it doesn't work on you or some others, that's fine too.

We're all 2A supporters here, presumably. You argue for it your way, @FALshot has their way of going about it, I have mine. Reasonable folks can disagree.

IMO, That's utter nonsense!

I can think of more than a FEW terms/labels coined and main stream propagated by the general public that where venomously fought against by those most damaged by it. They reeducated the general public and eventually won out their cases... and rightly so. I don't want to list a bunch but I'm sure you're at least familiar with the "N" word and the term "F*g" or "Re***d"... and can come up with your own more expansive list if you so desire.

Your view is that they should have just "owned it" as we should just "own" our rifles being labelled in an effort to demonize them... and then... what? Change public perception that your average homeowner/neighbor is well within their rights to own vastly more deadly military grade hardware of any type?? Everyone knows "weapons of war" are much more deadly and have the sole purpose of killing other human beings, right?

GOOD LUCK with that!!

Personally, I choose to "steer it in the right direction" by reeducating those that ignorantly toss around labels like that. If we don't, then you're right. It will never go away.

If you, personally, don't want to go to the effort to try and reeducate others, give up, accept the media's generalization and demonizing of your firearms, that's entirely up to you, but trying to rationalize it or recruit other to do the same is a disservice, IMHO.

The "n" word is a perfect example of what I am talking about, actually - it was owned and reclaimed by those to whom it originally referred, and they turned it around so it doesn't have the same sting (at least when they say it) to most of them. F*g is similar - reclaimed by those it was once intended to insult. They DID own it, and turned it around. So, you just proved my point with that, thanks!

"Vastly more deadly military grade hardware of any type" - talk about misleading. No, everyone DOESN'T know that ""weapons of war" are much more deadly", and many were designed to kill human beings. So what?

You're completely misreading me here bud. You seem to think I'm just planning to shout other people down like, "F you buddy, it's a weapon of war and I want my F-16s and 2A says so, now give them to me!" Of course that won't work. But that's not what I'm suggesting, either.

"Reeducating" is exactly what I'm advocating. "Yes, Ms. Soccer Mom, they are weapons of war, just as every firearm made is either originally a weapon devised for war or descended from one. So, calling it a 'weapon of war' really isn't a bad thing, it's just a term that tries to scare people who don't know any better - because 'weapons of war' are the point." And then I'd go on to explain how 2A was devised precisely so we'd have access to these kinds of weapons, and that's because the founders knew that we'd need to have our rights protected so we could defend ourselves and those we care about.

Doesn't sound at all like you dreamed up, does it?

I personally DO go through the effort, and if you don't like the way I go about it, that's on you - and it's fine.+

Very true! Look at current events. Granpap's sipppin juice over in Ukraine is now a weapon of war... once you stuff a rag in the top of the bottle.

Try and criminialize MY sippin juice... I'll prove that I actively exercise my 2A rights.

Not sure Molotovs are a big concern here by the gun grabbing crowd, but fair enough.

 

[Paolung]

To elaborate, Mossberg 590s and Remington 700s are actually used in war. They're also super common for home defense and hunting. If they can get the public to latch on to the idea that AR15s are "weapons of war" despite not actually being issued to soldiers, the next things to go will be the things that are.

That's why the solution here, IMO, is to desensitize people to the term. There are three options here: 1) no guns are weapons of war; 2) some guns are weapons of war; 3) practically all guns are weapons of war.

I think #1 is obviously a nonstarter. #2 is problematic based on how it's defined, and in every definition I've seen (including here), Glocks and M9s (as low hanging fruit, easy examples - certainly not all-inclusive) are "weapons of war" - they're used by militaries around the world and have been for quite some time now.

But let's say we successfully fend off the "AR-15s are weapons of war!" crowd (not likely) by saying, "nuh-uh! No they aren't! THESE are, but THOSE aren't!" Then what? They go after handguns. And shotguns. And so on. Because we backed ourselves into a corner by admitting that "some" are, and therefore, they'll go after those "some".

I see it as a losing battle to try to "define" our way out of this... just like when some 2A supporters split hairs and say, "ok, define assault weapon!" triumphantly, as if that's anything but a momentary speedbump in the gun grabber's strategy. They just move on and convince the public that we're either denying it, or outright lying about it - and we are losing the battle in the public eye as evidenced by creeping gun legislation all over the country. Sure, there are strongholds like Texas that aren't really affected much at the state level, but even Texas is subject to federal laws and regulations.

The other option is #3, which seems to me to be the only viable one. They're ALL "weapons of war" , which takes away the scary. They're all "weapons of war", and that's why 2A exists - to protect our right to defend ourselves and those we care about with the best weapons we can get our hands on.

"If they're all weapons of war, even my 15 year old nephew's lever action .22, maybe saying it's a 'weapon of war' aren't as big a deal as I first thought...hmm..."

I've literally brought people around to see the light with this reasoning. But, YMMV, and I'll grant that it's not the approach for everyone.

Are all weapons of war. Whats your point?

Perfect. That's exactly right.

Them: "Weapons of war!"
Us: "Yeah, so what, what's your point?"

As Andy already said, any weapon can be used for war. The AR15 may not be utilized as a military rifle by any country in the world, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. It is otherwise identical to military variants that are capable of firing full auto.

The second Amendment was purposely written to protect Americans right to access, ownership, and bearing of arms (weapons of war) without infringement, to stave off tyranny both foreign and domestic.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Don't need no steenking laws.. apparently.

 

[Yarome]

- reclaimed by those it was once intended to insult. They DID own it, and turned it around. So, you just proved my point with that, thanks!

Hardly. Internalizing it within your accpetable community is not what we are talking about here... or... then.

What we are talking about is the use of a label in the mass media or general public in a derogatory way in an effort to progress an agenda.

You can say those two groups "owned it"since they allow it's use among themselves, but it's a no go in the public that they fought for and even laws have been written with associated penalties.

I have no problem hanging around the campfire with my buddies at elk camp and someone says, "See my new weapon of war?", but I certainly don't want a specific class of firearm that I own being labelled and associated in a derogatory way in an effort to demonize my rifle and further infringe on my rights.

Apples and oranges, Bud.

Imagine if we had told those two groups you mentioned... "well, it's out there, there's nothing you can do about it, everyones going to keep calling you that, so just OWN IT!".