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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

 

[JWBooth]

Any weapon that has been acquired by the DOD.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They have to continually try to shock you. Now, the language is "weapons of war", ooohhhhh, thats scary.

 

[easyt65]

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.




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...

 

[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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

.

 

[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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, Dorathy, a 308 M-14 is a better gun

Should we ban the m-14?

 

[Timmy]

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.

 

[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,,,

 

[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.

 

[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,,,

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.

 

[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,,,

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

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, Dorathy, a 308 M-14 is a better gun

Should we ban the m-14?

No, the M-14 is not banned but it does fall under the various Firearms acts governing the Automatic Firearms Laws. Almost nothing is banned. Well, outside of Nuclear Weapons of course. Careful, Bootboy, there might be a bronze cluster coming soon.

 

[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,,,

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?

 

[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,,,

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

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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,,,

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.