Poll: "Weapons of war"

[AK0perator47]

You can gender identify the AR any way you like, I call them Pirate guns because it's fun to say Arrrrrrrrr-15. Yes this discussion is that silly to me.

Ok so how many people read this and started saying Arrrrrr-15? That's the real question

 

[The B]

AR15s literally are not weapons of war. they look like M16s, but function differently. m16s are weapons of war, we arent really allowed to have them.

so your weapon of war distinction is not only pointless, its also plain incorrect.

 

[Paolung]

AR15s literally are not weapons of war. they look like M16s, but function differently. m16s are weapons of war, we arent really allowed to have them.

so your weapon of war distinction is not only pointless, its also plain incorrect.

I disagree, and that doesn't make it "plain incorrect" - especially since you haven't defined your terms.

 

[Yarome]

-especially since you haven't defined your terms.

He did say, to the effect of... "not literally". Most people would take that to be defined as... not in current or historical use by any officially established military.... which is pretty clear.

If I've read it correctly, the very vague definition you want to encourage is more along the lines of... "any weapon that may be used by any individual as a tool to combat enemies during a time of war".

That could include your every day kitchen knife or a baseball bat. I have to agree that kind of distinction/definition is not congruent with the accepted definition of what constitues a "weapon of war".

It also doesn't further a clearer understanding of what an AR-15 actually is. A rifle... plain and simple. It does however further the negative connotation and "imagery" the anti-2A woke-tards are attempting to propogate in the American minds.

Hence the resistance to "own it", "use it" and further distance ourselves from re-educating those that mistakenly consider the AR-15 as such. Exclusively a "weapon of war".

 

[Wombat of Doom]

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?

View attachment 1217784

My 1844 waters pistol is a weapon of war. I have a few swords that were as well. (some that date from Napoleonic wars) My ars are not. I have a fair selection of pistols from the great war and a few from WWII. The term is meaningless and sensational. Quite literally most of my true weapons of war are in calibers considered anemic by modern standards. a few come in calibers no longer used pretty much anywhere.

The big mistake you make here is that select fire capability is a HUGE difference. to say it is more or less an m-16 is profoundly wrong and foolish. It isn't splitting hairs. an ar-15 is a semi auto. an M-16 is a machine gun. There is a huge capability difference there, even if they are cosmetically similar.

This is not to say that the second amendment was not designed for weapons of war. It was.

 

[Paolung]

He did say, to the effect of... "not literally". Most people would take that to be defined as... not in current or historical use by any officially established military.... which is pretty clear.

If I've read it correctly, the very vague definition you want to encourage is more along the lines of... "any weapon that may be used by any individual as a tool to combat enemies during a time of war".

That could include your every day kitchen knife or a baseball bat. I have to agree that kind of distinction/definition is not congruent with the accepted definition of what constitues a "weapon of war".

It also doesn't further a clearer understanding of what an AR-15 actually is. A rifle... plain and simple. It does however further the negative connotation and "imagery" the anti-2A woke-tards are attempting to propogate in the American minds.

Hence the resistance to "own it", "use it" and further distance ourselves from re-educating those that mistakenly consider the AR-15 as such. Exclusively a "weapon of war".

You can have your own opinion on the matter, but you cannot have your own facts.

If your definition of "weapon of war" is "in current or historical use by any officially established military", then the AR-15 most certainly *IS* a "weapon of war" indeed - albeit not in the current (semi-automatic only) configuration sold legally to civilians without the correct Class III rigamorole.

I understand the reluctance to label it as such, I just think it's a pointless and pedantic argument to have with liberals and leftists.

For some reason, many on this site are far more reluctant to embrace the label than on the several other pro-2A places I've posted this discussion on, where I've received hardly any pushback from 2A supporters.

I haven't quite figured out why that is.

At any rate, it won't be formally settled until a definition is agreed upon and in common use, similar to the much-maligned "assault weapon" term.

 

[Paolung]

My 1844 waters pistol is a weapon of war. I have a few swords that were as well. (some that date from Napoleonic wars) My ars are not. I have a fair selection of pistols from the great war and a few from WWII. The term is meaningless and sensational. Quite literally most of my true weapons of war are in calibers considered anemic by modern standards. a few come in calibers no longer used pretty much anywhere.

The big mistake you make here is that select fire capability is a HUGE difference. to say it is more or less an m-16 is profoundly wrong and foolish. It isn't splitting hairs. an ar-15 is a semi auto. an M-16 is a machine gun. There is a huge capability difference there, even if they are cosmetically similar.

This is not to say that the second amendment was not designed for weapons of war. It was.

That's fair. My definition is more about what's desirable and suitable for combat, not necessarily ideal.

However, bolt actions are used by militaries all over the globe, and have been for centuries, for military combat engagements.

While the distinction between semiauto and select fire is meaningful and an AR-15 isn't the same thing as an M-16, I don't consider the distinction enough to make the AR-15 a non-contender for combat, including military combat.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider here is :

No matter what you or anyone else calls a AR15 .....
It will still be villified by those who wish to ban or restrict its use and ownership.
For that matter the same could be said for any firearm.....
Andy

 

[Wombat of Doom]

That's fair. My definition is more about what's desirable and suitable for combat, not necessarily ideal.

However, bolt actions are used by militaries all over the globe, and have been for centuries, for military combat engagements.

While the distinction between semiauto and select fire is meaningful and an AR-15 isn't the same thing as an M-16, I don't consider the distinction enough to make the AR-15 a non-contender for combat, including military combat.

I definitely would not want an AR15 to go against select fire weapons. That distinction is huge. The ability to lay down suppressing fire or burst fire are hugely significant. Bolt actions are not any modern military''s primary weapon. Yes they have a use, as do knives. But an ar15 lacks the capabilities of an m4 or m16. You are falling for sensational terms whose only point is civil rights violators getting their wish. Which is why this thread is fundamentally harmful to our rights.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

You can have your own opinion on the matter, but you cannot have your own facts.

If your definition of "weapon of war" is "in current or historical use by any officially established military", then the AR-15 most certainly *IS* a "weapon of war" indeed - albeit not in the current (semi-automatic only) configuration sold legally to civilians without the correct Class III rigamorole.

In other words, it isn't. At all, period.By your own admission

 

[Yarome]

If your definition of "weapon of war" is "not in current or historical use by any officially established military", then the AR-15 most certainly *IS* a "weapon of war" indeed - albeit not in the current (semi-automatic only) configuration sold legally to civilians without the correct Class III rigamorole.

That's not "my facts". That's what most people would call "reality". You should join us! "Well, not in that configuration" or the fact that no military uses it as a weapon of war puts it well outside the definition.

I get what you are "trying" to say though. If it looks similar to an M16 then it must be an M16 too. That simply does not change the facts though. It's not... as much as you might like everyone to agree with you that it is. Just like my kitchen knife isn't a bayonet.

Trying to make the argument that "everyone else agrees with me, so why don't you all?" I can't answer too. They are mainly 2A-"but" folks that don't know any better? They haven't stopped to think about what that moniker connotes to the average american anti-2A folks... or just don't care? Who is to say.

The bottom line. It is undeniable that the term propogates the negative connotation the anti-gunners are trying to further in the minds of the people. It puts every AR-15 owner in a weakened position to argue their right to own a "weapon of war"... vs... to defend their right to own a "rifle". If you've given up the fight to try and re-educate and change minds... that's entirely your choice, but it certainly doesn't apply to me... or many that I associate with.

 

[Paolung]

In other words, it isn't. At all, period.By your own admission

That's not what I said.

The AR-15 HAS been used, by military, in actual combat, and this is an indisputable fact that is easily proven. You're just ignorant of it.

Furthermore, if your assertion is that 2A protects our right to keep and bear "weapons of war" (as is mine), what's the objection? Because it doesn't have select fire? Nonsense.

Your assertion that select-fire is superior is agreed with. So what? That doesn't mean a semi-automatic is useless in combat. See practically every sidearm issued for the past century for details.

If bolt actions are used by militaries now and in the past (note, I never claimed "primary") - AND THEY ARE, by your own admission - and those are weapons of war, what's your criteria for a "weapon of war"? Still waiting for a coherent definition from you rather than attacking mine.

If you truly think a simple thread is a "danger to our rights", we have nothing to discuss because we aren't even on the same plane of reality. We both know the leftists and liberals will want to take ALL firearms away - THAT is the threat. They're trying to make it sound "oh-so-scary" with their terms, and I'm not buying it.

So you can stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here, because I'm not. 2A constitutionally protects my right to keep and bear arms, without restriction, period - "weapon of war" or otherwise, and I'm not afraid to call my AR-15 a "weapon of war" because some liberal or leftist snowflake is scared of the term (undefined as it may be). Your nonsensical claim that my calling it that is somehow "fundamentally harmful to our rights" is ridiculous - I'm not the one going after 2A.

 

[Paolung]

That's not "my facts". That's what most people would call "reality". You should join us! "Well, not in that configuration" or the fact that no military uses it as a weapon of war puts it well outside the definition.

I get what you are "trying" to say though. If it looks similar to an M16 then it must be an M16 too. That simply does not change the facts though. It's not... as much as you might like everyone to agree with you that it is. Just like my kitchen knife isn't a bayonet.

Trying to make the argument that "everyone else agrees with me, so why don't you all?" I can't answer too. They are mainly 2A-"but" folks that don't know any better? They haven't stopped to think about what that moniker connotes to the average american anti-2A folks... or just don't care? Who is to say.

The bottom line. It is undeniable that the term propogates the negative connotation the anti-gunners are trying to further in the minds of the people. It puts every AR-15 owner in a weakened position to argue their right to own a "weapon of war"... vs... to defend their right to own a "rifle". If you've given up the fight to try and re-educate and change minds... that's entirely your choice, but it certainly doesn't apply to me... or many that I associate with.

No, you don't "get" what I'm saying.

I'll say it again, as clearly as I can.

The AR-15 has been used, by military, historically, in combat. This qualifies it as a WoW by your own defintion.

It's true that the select fire capability was removed before it was sold to civilians. That's also factual. But you cannot (truthfully) claim that it wasn't an AR-15 or that a military did not use it in combat.

It has nothing to do with the appearance - we agree on this point.

We've already beaten the zombie horse on the whole "educate" people thing, so there's no point in rehashing it.

This latest reply was about how it's defined and if it's been "in current or historical use by any officially established military", and this is indisputably true. Therefore, if you want to claim it's not a WoW, you'll have to broaden or change that definition.

 

[Xaevian]

Isn't the UN a peacekeeping force? What do they use? Those would be weapons of peace, and probably way more palatable to the intelligence-challenged general public.

 

[Paolung]

@Wombat of Doom @Yarome

You are both making inaccurate assumptions about me that are taking away from productive discussion on this; including but not limited to the idea that I'm confusing an AR15 with an M16, that I don't know the value of selective fire, don't know the rifle, want to "endanger" rights, etc.

When you do this, I have to backtrack and correct your incorrect assumptions, which is a waste of everyone's time.

If you aren't sure where I stand on something, just ask - don't assume. Neither of you knows me from Adam, or my positions (other than what I've already gone over here), so please - I'm asking as politely as I can - let's discuss this in good faith and not come with preconceived notions about who cares about gun rights or who knows things about rifles.

Tempers get heated at times, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, but we're on the same side (presuming you both care about 2A, which I feel confident is the case based on what's been already said).

 

[Yarome]

The AR-15 HAS been used, by military, in actual combat, and this is an indisputable fact that is easily proven. You're just ignorant of it.

I guess I'm ignorant, too. When and what military was ever issued an AR-15 for actual combat assignments? Educate us.

 

[Paolung]

Something to consider here is :

No matter what you or anyone else calls a AR15 .....
It will still be villified by those who wish to ban or restrict its use and ownership.
For that matter the same could be said for any firearm.....
Andy

Thanks for helping keep things in perspective, @Andy54Hawken

 

[DunRanull]

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.

Hitler apparently came up with the term "assault rifle"- sturmgewehr- for the so-called MP-44. Works for me.

 

[Paolung]

I guess I'm ignorant, too. When and what military was ever issued an AR-15 for actual combat assignments? Educate us.

Thank you for the civil reply, sir.

It's a common misconception - I only found out myself last week when I was researching it.

I'm really not understanding why it's not common knowledge, or the "it's never been used by any military" is such a common refrain, but facts do matter.

This is from DoD. 10 AR-15 rifles were shipped to Vietnam in '61, and 1000 in '62, for a combination of standard testing (accuracy, reliability, ease of training, etc.) and actual combat trials where they were used on the enemy.

Pay special attention to "Annex A", where combat evaluations of the AR-15 were done when VC were shot with them.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2859676/ARPA-AR-15.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Q9Vsfxv4N-2rqsghjo3cnTtSXdKGkg0rnIjaH_ezJdf-mzr4_xiSOlV0

 

[Paolung]

Hitler apparently came up with the term "assault rifle"- sturmgewehr- for the so-called MP-44. Works for me.

Yeah, "assault rifle" is a standardized term with an agreed-upon definition. "Assault weapon", unfortunately, is not, so it's open to interpretation (which invariably has negative connotations to the gun grabbers, as @Yarome and others have rightfully pointed out).