Poll: "Weapons of war"

[Aero Denezol]

Here is a very brief documentary demonstrating the actions and prowess of those who seek to relieve you of your 'weapons of war'

Highly punchable face

 

[nwslopoke]

Highly punchable face

Fist are a weapon of war.

 

[Xaevian]

It's not the phrase, it is the context and motives behind its use by the opposition that are at issue.

These types of phrases, "weapons of war" and "assault rifle", for example, are known as rhetoric, which is persuasive language intended to sway using emotion, not necessarily logic.

You counter rhetoric with rhetoric, not logic, or you will usually be ignored or worse.

 

[Capn Jack]

Personally,
I refer to AR15s as HMS Rifles. (Hang More $hit)

 

[ma96782]

Please define your stuff.

Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown used the same kind of/sort of......explanation for "woman."

Yeah......and, look what happened. Must be or maybe it's a..........

White
Male

thing?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....IT WAS MERELY A QUESTION. NOT/NEVER INTENDED to sound like, or hint at, or something that you might "think."

 

[nwslopoke]

It's not the phrase, it is the context and motives behind its use by the opposition that are at issue.

These types of phrases, "weapons of war" and "assault rifle", for example, are known as rhetoric, which is persuasive language intended to sway using emotion, not necessarily logic.

You counter rhetoric with rhetoric, not logic, or you will usually be ignored or worse.

Don't forget, high power. They use terms and phrases outside of their circles that don't stand up to scrutiny.

If 5.56 is high power what is 300WM? What are millions of rifles not killing the public?

 

[Paolung]

Don't forget, high power. They use terms and phrases outside of their circles that don't stand up to scrutiny.

If 5.56 is high power what is 300WM? What are millions of rifles not killing the public?

Super Ultra Mega Deluxe Power, of course!

 

[gryghin]

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"?

Shouldn't the M16 and M4 be readily available then?

 

[Paolung]

Shouldn't the M16 and M4 be readily available then?

100%

 

[gryghin]

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.

I think you misspelled "M16"

That's what I was trained on in the Navy.

And you're right, we the people should have access to those.

 

[Paolung]

I think you misspelled "M16"

That's what I was trained on in the Navy.

And you're right, we the people should have access to those.

Unfortunately, those aren't currently around for the vast majority of citizens to reach for, although it they should be.

 

[bradsteen]

...but since I'm here...

I understand the rationale of your "embrace the label" argument, but I don't think it's the right approach. The anti-gun groups use that label because of the negative connotations it evokes for those uninformed about guns and their use. Unfortunately, it is being used to great effect by them against our cause, so your odds of repatriating that usage and turning it to the advantage of the 2A movement are slim to none.

Applying pejorative labels to inanimate objects is the anti-gun movement's primary method of influencing public opinion. In the 80s they started propagating the term "high capacity magazines". Fast forward to today and a large block of the population (including some gun owners) now believes that 10 rounds of ammunition or less is "normal", and anything that holds more than that is excessive. Around the same time they started adding the term "assault" to firearm types. That term "assault rifle" is now used in virtually every news reporting that involves a semi-auto rifle. Both are examples of horribly inaccurate and intentionally negative terminology that are now mainstream in our society, sometimes even used by gun owners who don't know any better.

Words have meaning, and labels directly impact the success or failure of any movement. The best advice I ever got about communication is that your words must be able to stand on their own. You will not be able to explain what your interpretation of "weapons of war" means to the majority of people. They will interpret those words based on their life experiences and opinions, and their interpretation will be most influenced by the anti-gun perspective because it is well-funded and consistently reinforced via popular media.

Beyond that, optics matter. You don't convince large groups of people to join your side by embracing a negative slogan or label, especially one that implies large-scale violence and death. There are a lot of gun owners out there, but we are not the majority - we are a large minority. ~30-40% of adults in the US own a gun (depending on what research you look at), and not all of them view their guns as tools of self-protection. The term "weapons of war" will not resonate with those who hunt or target shoot - it will push them away.

In summary, I think using that term does more harm then good.
(a) It reinforces the anti-gun movement's efforts to put limits and caveats on the constitutional rights that we hold dear.
(b) It inappropriately shifts focus away a person's actions and onto the tool they use.
(c) It ignores the countless positive and beneficial uses of firearms for personal protection, hunting, and sport.
(d) It casts a negative light on gun owners by making them sound hyperaggressive and violent.
(e) It undermines the herculean efforts the 2A movement has made over the past 40 years to normalize firearm ownership and usage in today's society.

All that being said, they're your guns - call them what you want.

Personally, any time I encounter a person uses that or any other intentionally negative terms related to firearms, I will politely educate them on proper terminology and provide the necessary context about firearms that popular media and anti-gun propaganda conveniently leave out. I've found that people are generally pretty receptive to someone who can have a calm, rational discussion and approaches it with a genuine willingness to help others. Really, that's what this is all about - helping people to better understand the realities of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, why those rights are so important, and how laws and regulations affect us as gun owners. They don't always agree with my perspective at the end (you can't win them all), but that approach tends to have a much greater positive impact on peoples' view of guns and gun owners than anything else.

 

[Paolung]

View attachment 1221098

...but since I'm here...

I understand the rationale of your "embrace the label" argument, but I don't think it's the right approach. The anti-gun groups use that label because of the negative connotations it evokes for those uninformed about guns and their use. Unfortunately, it is being used to great effect by them against our cause, so your odds of repatriating that usage and turning it to the advantage of the 2A movement are slim to none.

Applying pejorative labels to inanimate objects is the anti-gun movement's primary method of influencing public opinion. In the 80s they started propagating the term "high capacity magazines". Fast forward to today and a large block of the population (including some gun owners) now believes that 10 rounds of ammunition or less is "normal", and anything that holds more than that is excessive. Around the same time they started adding the term "assault" to firearm types. That term "assault rifle" is now used in virtually every news reporting that involves a semi-auto rifle. Both are examples of horribly inaccurate and intentionally negative terminology that are now mainstream in our society, sometimes even used by gun owners who don't know any better.

Words have meaning, and labels directly impact the success or failure of any movement. The best advice I ever got about communication is that your words must be able to stand on their own. You will not be able to explain what your interpretation of "weapons of war" means to the majority of people. They will interpret those words based on their life experiences and opinions, and their interpretation will be most influenced by the anti-gun perspective because it is well-funded and consistently reinforced via popular media.

Beyond that, optics matter. You don't convince large groups of people to join your side by embracing a negative slogan or label, especially one that implies large-scale violence and death. There are a lot of gun owners out there, but we are not the majority - we are a large minority. ~30-40% of adults in the US own a gun (depending on what research you look at), and not all of them view their guns as tools of self-protection. The term "weapons of war" will not resonate with those who hunt or target shoot - it will push them away.

In summary, I think using that term does more harm then good.
(a) It reinforces the anti-gun movement's efforts to put limits and caveats on the constitutional rights that we hold dear.
(b) It inappropriately shifts focus away a person's actions and onto the tool they use.
(c) It ignores the countless positive and beneficial uses of firearms for personal protection, hunting, and sport.
(d) It casts a negative light on gun owners by making them sound hyperaggressive and violent.
(e) It undermines the herculean efforts the 2A movement has made over the past 40 years to normalize firearm ownership and usage in today's society.

All that being said, they're your guns - call them what you want.

Personally, any time I encounter a person uses that or any other intentionally negative terms related to firearms, I will politely educate them on proper terminology and provide the necessary context about firearms that popular media and anti-gun propaganda conveniently leave out. I've found that people are generally pretty receptive to someone who can have a calm, rational discussion and approaches it with a genuine willingness to help others. Really, that's what this is all about - helping people to better understand the realities of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, why those rights are so important, and how laws and regulations affect us as gun owners. They don't always agree with my perspective at the end (you can't win them all), but that approach tends to have a much greater positive impact on peoples' view of guns and gun owners than anything else.

A thoughtful and well-written response. Thank you.

 

[ma96782]

Weapon of War?



Rrrright.....and now we have......

And so.....NEXT?




Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

The original assault weapon.

View attachment 1217850

Aloha, Mark

 

[Rkangel]

Everyday items originally developed for the military and used in times of war:

Feminine Hygiene Products (absorbent material used in maxi pads and tampons)
Wrist Watches
EpiPens
Penicillin
Digital Cameras
The internet
Virtual Reality
Drones
Ambulances
Jeeps
Aviator Sunglasses
Super Glue
GPS
Microwave Ovens
Duct Tape

Do we consider these weapons of war, too?

"Sir, you are under arrest for using duct tape in a manner other than approved by the AFT."
"Ma'am, do you have your tampon CCW?"
"Your honor, this man stands accused of illegally and recklessly cooking his TV dinner."
"Why would anyone need to fix their broken vase in less than 15 seconds. There should be at least a 2-hour waiting period. The founding fathers only intended us to use slow drying epoxy."
"Ambulances are way too fast and loud to actually save lives."
"The first amendment only applies to an ink well and quill, not this new-fangled instant communication."
"Fully-semi auto maps should be outlawed."

 

[cigars]

The hub-bub about those evil black guns is just a distraction. What they have turned into weapons of war against us and our society are social media and the education system.

 

[po18guy]

There were ships used in WWII that were called "Liberty Ships."
Therefore, the AR15 et al are Weapons of Liberty.
"Weapon of Choice" was already taken.

 

[jackrv]

My weapons of war are:
M1 Garand with bayonet, 1903A3, 1906 Ross Rifle, 1911, 1911A1, 1917 S&W and an M1898 Krag.

Jack

 

[GrayGoose]

Is the AR-15 a "weapon of war"?
Only if they try to take them. Until then, the AR-15 is a weapon of peace.