Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 2,716
- Reactions
- 5,806
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What Andy said....anything can be a wepon of war, just ask all those who died at the hands of the Zulu`s.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.
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.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
Precisely,...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.
Yep, none of my AR's declared war on anyone ever! With gas prices lately, they've been quietly standing in the safe.thus they are not weapons of war.
I agree. You are speaking with rational objectivity and our propaganda outlets masquerading as a Free Press do not speak that language.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.
Cool, then we're in agreement that the AR is too.What Andy said....anything can be a wepon of war, just ask all those who died at the hands of the Zulu`s.
Oh I do. That's why I commandeer it and turn it right back around on them.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.
And as I indicated in Post #45, that doesn't mean anything...Cool, then we're in agreement that the AR is too.
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.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.
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.
Paolung said: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...
I can tell, there is not common ground between us in terms of agreement on fighting the Leftists.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.
Why not just refuse to call any firearm a "Weapon of war?" You are only aiding your political enemy.
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.)
No, they do not already (Successfully) do that.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"?
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.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.
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.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.