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

[hunarcy]

The AR is a weapon of War.

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.

.

The AR really has only one thing it's good at and that's a firefight. And there is nothing out there better. Spooner took all the good qualities of all the other weapons and put them into one small,light package with only one thing in mind. And it wasn't varmint hunting. The fact that the M-1 is also a very good Deer and Elk rifle means it has other uses than war. It doesn't fit the criteria of todays "Weapon of War" like the AR does. The AR is a piss poor hunting rifle but it's the BEST personal Professional Soldiers Rifle out there because it's designed to be exactly that. Evey feature in it is for that scared shitless, adrenaline pumping poorly trained troop to use in a firefight in battle. It's looks are governed by it's features. Not the other way around. Nothing is left for cosmetics. It's ugly because that's what you get when you purpose build a rifle for combat. If you have never been faced in a overrun situation like I have, you will never appreciate the AR family of Rifles. Of course, the M-60 and the M-2 was greatly appreciated as well. When you are faced with a 20 to one odds, the AR family does the job. It had better. And Spooner designed it for the task. The M-1 no longer could handle the job since it could also be a great deer rifle and could have cosmetics added to it without taking away it's function. The M-16 (or AR family) cannot have cosmetics added to it without taking away it's function.

To give you an idea. There are wooden stocks for the AR-15 which also fit the M-16 and the M-4. The M-4 with a 30 round mag weighs just over 7 lbs. Add the wood stocks to replace the plastic pieces and the weight is over 10 lbs. This also applies to the AR-15 Model 750. Cosmetically, the Wood Stock AR looks pretty damned good and you can do all sorts of overlays and trim and really doll that puppy up. But since you increased the weight, you also defeated one of the features that makes the AR a weapon of war. You added 3 pounds or more of weight. I can think of several semi auto 223 wooden stocked rifles of the same weight that will shoot circles around the AR-15 and cost to purchase. If you can think of a way to mount a Hot Tub on an AR, I might consider buying an AR.

I see you are betraying your ignorance again. An AR is PERFECT for varmint hunting, including feral pigs. An AR is not built for combat. NO soldier would take an AR into combat instead of an M-16 or M-4. You SHOULD stop posting, but since you're just an ignorant troll, you certainly won't.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

.

Cute. They shouldn't use that terminology. It's gonna hurt them in the end.

When the weapons main purpose is that of WAr and it's the best in the world at it. And that same weapon is a really bad weapon for either hunting, sport shooting or home defense then we can safely call it a Weapon of War. And the AR family securely fits that bill.

 

[progressive hunter]

that is all irrelevant to the 2nd since the point is to have an equally armed citizenry as the government to fend of tyranny,,,

That was the original idea. But the Military has far outstripped anything even a State can afford to have for defense, much less an individual. Your idea ended in WWI along with the limited numbers of Army Personnel.

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hell, I can't even find an assault rifle in any catalogue.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The AR is a weapon of War.

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.

.

The AR really has only one thing it's good at and that's a firefight. And there is nothing out there better. Spooner took all the good qualities of all the other weapons and put them into one small,light package with only one thing in mind. And it wasn't varmint hunting. The fact that the M-1 is also a very good Deer and Elk rifle means it has other uses than war. It doesn't fit the criteria of todays "Weapon of War" like the AR does. The AR is a piss poor hunting rifle but it's the BEST personal Professional Soldiers Rifle out there because it's designed to be exactly that. Evey feature in it is for that scared shitless, adrenaline pumping poorly trained troop to use in a firefight in battle. It's looks are governed by it's features. Not the other way around. Nothing is left for cosmetics. It's ugly because that's what you get when you purpose build a rifle for combat. If you have never been faced in a overrun situation like I have, you will never appreciate the AR family of Rifles. Of course, the M-60 and the M-2 was greatly appreciated as well. When you are faced with a 20 to one odds, the AR family does the job. It had better. And Spooner designed it for the task. The M-1 no longer could handle the job since it could also be a great deer rifle and could have cosmetics added to it without taking away it's function. The M-16 (or AR family) cannot have cosmetics added to it without taking away it's function.

To give you an idea. There are wooden stocks for the AR-15 which also fit the M-16 and the M-4. The M-4 with a 30 round mag weighs just over 7 lbs. Add the wood stocks to replace the plastic pieces and the weight is over 10 lbs. This also applies to the AR-15 Model 750. Cosmetically, the Wood Stock AR looks pretty damned good and you can do all sorts of overlays and trim and really doll that puppy up. But since you increased the weight, you also defeated one of the features that makes the AR a weapon of war. You added 3 pounds or more of weight. I can think of several semi auto 223 wooden stocked rifles of the same weight that will shoot circles around the AR-15 and cost to purchase. If you can think of a way to mount a Hot Tub on an AR, I might consider buying an AR.

I see you are betraying your ignorance again. An AR is PERFECT for varmint hunting, including feral pigs. An AR is not built for combat. NO soldier would take an AR into combat instead of an M-16 or M-4. You SHOULD stop posting, but since you're just an ignorant troll, you certainly won't.

Yes, you can take an AR into the field and varmint hunt with it. Or you can take any number of 223 semi auto rifles as well. And the other Rifles will shoot rings around the AR at a cheaper price. If you need to shoot a feral hog 30 times to get the kill, maybe you shouldn't be out there hunting at all.

As for the AR never being taken into combat, it has. The US Army has a number of them in their inventory. And they are stamped with M-16 on the side, not AR-15 since all weapons in the US Army inventory must have a M identifier. How or Why they got there, I really don't have a clue but they are just there. And they are semi auto only. Maybe there was a shortage or backlog of M-4s and M-16s at the time and the Military badly needed replacement rifles, or something else since the AR-15, the M-4 and the M-16 cost exactly or close to the same amount to manufacture since they share almost all the same parts. Plus, many countries are using the AR in their Army Inventory around the world. It actually costs slightly less to use in combat than either the M-4 or the M-16 because some idiot will try and use the 3 shot burst setting when it's not necessary at all.

I used a screw driver to open a package because I couldn't easily find my box cutter. Does that mean that I should tell you that my screw driver is as good as a Box Cutter in opening packages?

Your belief that an AR is good for hunting over other 223 semi auto rifles just earned you your first award. Keep at it, there are bronze clusters to go with it as well.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That was the original idea. But the Military has far outstripped anything even a State can afford to have for defense, much less an individual. Your idea ended in WWI along with the limited numbers of Army Personnel.

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Since I have always stated that we need to update it to modern times, nowhere did I say we needed to get rid of it. Guess what, you just earned your first Bronze Cluster.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hell, I can't even find an assault rifle in any catalogue.

It was a bad term that was held over from the old Stoner days before the M-16 was adopted by the US Army.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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.

that is all irrelevant to the 2nd since the point is to have an equally armed citizenry as the government to fend of tyranny,,,

Wrong.

The Second Amendment doesn't authorize insurrectionist dogma.

 

[progressive hunter]

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Since I have always stated that we need to update it to modern times, nowhere did I say we needed to get rid of it. Guess what, you just earned your first Bronze Cluster.

View attachment 251240

I see no reason to update it,,,its fine how it is

but out of curiosity what do you propose???

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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.

that is all irrelevant to the 2nd since the point is to have an equally armed citizenry as the government to fend of tyranny,,,

Wrong.

The Second Amendment doesn't authorize insurrectionist dogma.

is that what case law tells you??

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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:

Here is a weapon NEVER used in a war:

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

.

Yes. No weapon specifically designed for military use and designed to efficiently kill a number of people.

Come get them.

Careful, now. In 14 States and soon to be 15, your relatives might take that as sign that you are a threat to yourself and others around you and have a judge temporarily have the cops come and do exactly that. So keep sounding internet tough.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That was the original idea. But the Military has far outstripped anything even a State can afford to have for defense, much less an individual. Your idea ended in WWI along with the limited numbers of Army Personnel.

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Wrong again.

No one wants to "get rid" of the Second Amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Wrong again.

No one wants to "get rid" of the Second Amendment.

daryl does, and not to mention a long list of progressives in both parties

 

[miketx]

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:

Here is a weapon NEVER used in a war:

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

.

Yes. No weapon specifically designed for military use and designed to efficiently kill a number of people.

Come get them.

Careful, now. In 14 States and soon to be 15, your relatives might take that as sign that you are a threat to yourself and others around you and have a judge temporarily have the cops come and do exactly that. So keep sounding internet tough.

Perhaps you don't understand what come get them means.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If anything there needs to be less gun restrictions for sane, law-abiding citizens.

 

[miketx]

but the law and original intent still stands

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Wrong again.

No one wants to "get rid" of the Second Amendment.

You do, liar.

 

[progressive hunter]

If anything there needs to be less gun restrictions for sane, law-abiding citizens.

thats a limited list and closer to zero since we cant comprehend all the laws on the books

 

[miketx]

If anything there needs to be less gun restrictions for sane, law-abiding citizens.

thats a limited list and closer to zero since we cant comprehend all the laws on the books

I think the government should just give us all free guns.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If a law is no longer applicable, what do we do about it? Do we have these long winded discussions where you keep saying how we should abide by an out of date law that no longer applies? Or should we be updating the law to a modern standard?

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Since I have always stated that we need to update it to modern times, nowhere did I say we needed to get rid of it. Guess what, you just earned your first Bronze Cluster.

View attachment 251240

I see no reason to update it,,,its fine how it is

but out of curiosity what do you propose???

I suggest you read it again and then think about it. While you are at it read the 1916/17 National Guard act as well as Heller V DC among others. And don't start screaming "That's Unconstitutional" because those are very constitutional. If they aren't, you need to bring suit against them and get them changed. So far, they have stood. Who knows, you may be right but first you have to get a Supreme Court or a Law Passed by Congress and signed by the President or passed in each state to agree with you. So far, you have been wrong in that respect. But read the background. There should be more to making a decision than "My Handler Told Me So".

 

[progressive hunter]

the law is still applicable,,,just because you gave up doesnt mean we all have to

if youre not going to lead or follow please get out of the way

First of all, you will notice that I keep standing in between two fruitcake groups of sub human people on all this. I don't advocate we gather up your guns (unless you are a fruitcake and dangerous to yourself and others around you which might be the case) nor do I propose we force every household to have to have a gun in the ready position and every citizen must carry a gun on their hips. Your debating skills just won you a nice award. Hope you enjoy it.

View attachment 251234

but you openly advocate for getting rid of the 2nd with ridiculous views

Since I have always stated that we need to update it to modern times, nowhere did I say we needed to get rid of it. Guess what, you just earned your first Bronze Cluster.

View attachment 251240

I see no reason to update it,,,its fine how it is

but out of curiosity what do you propose???

I suggest you read it again and then think about it. While you are at it read the 1916/17 National Guard act as well as Heller V DC among others. And don't start

only an amendment can repeal the 2ndscreaming "That's Unconstitutional" because those are very constitutional. If they aren't, you need to bring suit against them and get them changed. So far, they have stood. Who knows, you may be right but first you have to get a Supreme Court or a Law Passed by Congress and signed by the President or passed in each state to agree with you. So far, you have been wrong in that respect. But read the background. There should be more to making a decision than "My Handler Told Me So".

only an amendment can repeal the 2nd,,,and as of yet that has not been done,,,what you list is treason and to support it makes one a trader to their country