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

[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

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

at least the surplus,,, instead of destroying them

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I used to teach the M-16 when the army was converting from the M-14 and I never heard that term.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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??

Not long ago, the State of New Mexico raided a group that left Alabama and relocated into NM. They had mostly legal weapons. But their training was for defending and attacking Police Stations and Military Bases. They never did go through with those actions. The State of Alabama would have treated it exactly like the State of NM did. They raided the compound, seized all the weapons, arrest the leaders, convicted the leaders on treason and sent them to prison for a very long time. Yes, case law does tell us that.

You just won another

 

[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.

I used to teach the M-16 when the army was converting from the M-14 and I never heard that term.

I never liked that term. Assault isn't the act, it's the threat of doing the act. There is nothing threatening about an AR going off at a fast rate. I guess we need to change that to a Terrifying Weapon which fits it much better.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I used to teach the M-16 when the army was converting from the M-14 and I never heard that term.

I never liked that term. Assault isn't the act, it's the threat of doing the act. There is nothing threatening about an AR going off at a fast rate. I guess we need to change that to a Terrifying Weapon which fits it much better.

I have been around hundreds of people with M-16s and I was not at all terrified.

 

[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.

I used to teach the M-16 when the army was converting from the M-14 and I never heard that term.

I never liked that term. Assault isn't the act, it's the threat of doing the act. There is nothing threatening about an AR going off at a fast rate. I guess we need to change that to a Terrifying Weapon which fits it much better.

I have been around hundreds of people with M-16s and I was not at all terrified.

I can't say the same. But of course, the bad guys weren't using M-16s at the time. I imagine they had similar thoughts about ours as well. We won, they lost or at least they decided not to push it any further which is a win in my mind.

Think about what I just typed. Not being terrified means you have never been in a combat situation where some other guy is seriously trying to ruin and severely shorten your day. If you aren't terrified then you weren't there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

.

You can assume whatever you want to assume.

The list in the OP defines tools, but to argue their singular use, by the claim they are weapons of war and thus are a target for the Democrats is silly.

[Consider the opening of the movie 2001; A Space Odyssey, is this a tool or a weapon used to secure power?]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

So, my deer rifle (originally SPECIFICALLY designed for war) is banned?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The list in the OP defines tools, but to argue their singular use, by the claim they are weapons of war and thus are a target for the Democrats is silly.

Then, GIVE ME A DEFINITION that doesn't include ALL FIREARMS!!!!

You can't. You know it.

So STFU!!!

.

 

[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.

is that what case law tells you??

You're at liberty to read it yourself.

 

[Timmy]

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.

.

Enough of this gun nerd bullshit . We are talking modern weapons of war . Not what they were originally used for .

Bi planes were war weapons . That doesn’t make them equal to modern F-15s .

 

[Wry Catcher]

The list in the OP defines tools, but to argue their singular use, by the claim they are weapons of war and thus are a target for the Democrats is silly.

Then, GIVE ME A DEFINITION that doesn't include ALL FIREARMS!!!!

You can't. You know it.

So STFU!!!

.

YOU missed the point.

The claim was Democrats want to confiscate all the guns in America. That's not only silly / bullshit, but is impractical; prohibitions never work, and in fact create black markets and criminality.

Gun control / gun safety regulations are not fixated on confiscation - those who make the claim (as in all, for only a small minority may actually seek guns be taken by the government from law abiding, sober and sane persons) are purveyors of a BIG LIE.