Can we get a proper definition of "Weapons of War" please?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bootney Lee Farnsworth, Mar 20, 2019.

  1. Bootney Lee Farnsworth
    Online

    Bootney Lee Farnsworth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,324
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Tejas
    Ratings:
    +13,113
    All the leftist gun grabbers had started using the term "weapons of war."

    MSNBC Host's Reason For Why We Should Ban AR-15s Blows Up In His Face

    Is the aim to ban "weapons of war" from the civilian population?

    What is the definition of a "weapon of war"?

    For help, here are some weapons actually used in war:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    Here is a weapon NEVER used in a war:

    [​IMG]


    So, what's the definition of "weapons of war" so we can know which guns you intend to ban.

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. JWBooth
    Offline

    JWBooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    8,746
    Thanks Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Fredonia Republic
    Ratings:
    +3,859
    Any weapon that has been acquired by the DOD.
     
  3. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    23,728
    Thanks Received:
    4,113
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +14,530
    They have to continually try to shock you. Now, the language is "weapons of war", ooohhhhh, thats scary.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. easyt65
    Online

    easyt65 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2015
    Messages:
    51,988
    Thanks Received:
    11,127
    Trophy Points:
    2,140
    Ratings:
    +58,892
    A long time ago there were race riots in LA.

    I watched a live news report on TV showing blacks blocking a road pull the driver of a Semi that had stopped out of his truck, and beat him. At one point one of the individuals picked up a BRICK from the side of the road, hold it up, and drive it down onto the truck driver's head. The attacker then danced around his unconscious victim in celebration.

    The truck driver survived. His attackers were identified from the video footage and arrested. The man who had used the brick was charged with 'attempted murder'.

    Long story short - a 'jury of his peers' found him innocent. The reason they gave was that a brick was a piece of construction material, NOT a WEAPON.

    :wtf:


    My point is that the premise of this thread is flawed in this way....

    There are those out there that will insist the definition of 'WAR' be decided upon 1st.
    Then the official participants - soldiers - have to be defined.
    The definition of an 'Army' must be defined.
    etc....

    Sometimes some people can be so legalistic that it is almost too exhausting to even try to say 'It's a nice day' to them because you know doing so will result in a 10 minute conversation...

    :rolleyes:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. progressive hunter
    Offline

    progressive hunter Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    3,835
    Thanks Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +1,961
    the one problem with this argument is that as per the original intent of 2nd amendment was specifically for weapons of war not against them,,,

    and to have the people the 2nd was meant to protect us against control what we are allowed to have is nothing less than treason
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Bootney Lee Farnsworth
    Online

    Bootney Lee Farnsworth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,324
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Tejas
    Ratings:
    +13,113
    So, when they say we should ban "weapons of war" what the really mean is ALL weapons.

    Can we go ahead and assume that they want complete ban and confiscation?

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    8,480
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    There has been some milestone years that has rocked the 2nd amendment on it's ear.

    1858......The introduction of the Walker Colt. It became a problem at the end of the Civil War when hundreds of thousands of troops were released taking their Colts, Remingtons, etc. revolvers with them. Since jobs were now very scarce, they headed west. By 1871, the West started having to have Gun Regulations in their towns and cities because they got tired of drunken cowboys shooting up, not only themselves, but everything else around them. Cowboys with pistols were inherently poor shots. The last 5 words of the 2nd becomes not absolute.

    1898.......The Spanish American War. Up until then, the US Military (army, not Navy) was limited to 75,000 troops. Not enough to wage any war outside of one with a poorly equipped and manned country like Mexico. Spain was a different animal. It took troops, lots of people. The first law that enabled the States Guards to be Nationalized was passed but it was quite milk toast. The Governors could choose to ignore it. But in 1917, in preperation for WWI, the Federal National Guard Act was passed which gave the President the power to nationalize the State Guards (which became the National Guards). It also enabled the Federals to spend oodles of money in training the National Guards in each state. WWI showed that war had outgrown the 2nd amendment. It's on thing to guard against a small force but another to do it on a world scale. This pretty completely supersedes the first 2/3rds of the 2nd amendment.

    The Weapons of war have all grown past the sane person's usage. At some point, limits have to be placed. The real question that should come up is not whether there should or should not be limits. But the real question that should come up is where the limits need to exist. The AR is actually a lousy varmint gun. There are others of more traditional design that run circles around the AR. If the only reason for having an AR is because it's a Varmint Rifle, that's a very poor excuse unless you are being attacked by a horde of gophers all armed with AK-47s. Spooner designed the AR with features that are only really important in a firefight by a young 18 year old kid, pumping adrenaline, poor training and lots and lots of people wanting to ruin his day as if it could get any worse. It could get worse. The reason the AR looks like it does is that in order to keep the weight down and have those features, it has to look only one certain way. No one has figured out a way to make a gun that you don't need to roll around on a trolly with those features that looks any different and do the same job in a firefight. Yes, Dorathy, a 308 M-14 is a better gun but try carrying it around for 18 hours a day, run, jump, etc. with it and carry 6 fully loaded 20 shot mags then tell me that you would rather have it than an AR Family firearm. And don't give me that crap about the M-14 is fully auto capable and the A-3/4 isn't. You only have 6 mags. Run out and your blood runs out of your body fast. Ii would l think that having a lighter gun and carry an extra 2 20 shot mags would make sense and still be lighter. The AR is a weapon of War. And in many metro areas, it WILL be severely restricted or outright banned. Get used to it and get over it.
     
  8. Bootney Lee Farnsworth
    Online

    Bootney Lee Farnsworth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,324
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Tejas
    Ratings:
    +13,113
    So is every other weapon ever invented or manufactured.

    So, whether you are advocating for a total ban or not, you are constructively doing so by perpetuating this bullshit distinction.

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Bootney Lee Farnsworth
    Online

    Bootney Lee Farnsworth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,324
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Tejas
    Ratings:
    +13,113
    Should we ban the m-14?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Timmy
    Offline

    Timmy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,576
    Thanks Received:
    2,583
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +16,058
    Yes. No weapon specifically designed for military use and designed to efficiently kill a number of people.
     

Share This Page