They just don't get it ...

[Alchemist17]

Every time I hear some twit (like, say, our erstwhile VP) opine about how we need to get these "weapons of war" off the streets, it becomes clear that they simply do not understand. The Second Amendment was explicitly added to preserve the ability of the citizens of this nation to purchase, maintain, and use EXACTLY these "weapons of war" to defend our lives, liberty, and freedom and to explicitly prohibit government from "getting them off the street".

Ok, end rant.

 

[willbdavis]

Oh, I think they get it all right.

 

[noxin]

Nevermind the implications it's had during the World Wars when other nations specifically did not attack us due to the amount of armed citizenry that would have responded.

Everyone makes fun of Red Dawn, but do you really think that wouldn't be the case if someone attacked us?

 

[n1bsbri]

If we accept the premise that "weapons of war" do not belong on our US streets, why do the Police have them? Who are they at war with?

 

[DarrenL]

Oh, I think they get it all right.

+1

Technically, even a brown bess musket is a weapon of war, since it was used by a military in a war. So is every bolt, pump, lever, and semi-auto. So is an axe. "weapon of war" is a meaningless term used to confuse and distract. What they want is all weapons of any kind out of peoples hands.

 

[WallHack]

Dupe

I must be slacking at work, because this was sent using Tapatalk

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If these are personal aquaintances, ask them if they ever intend to break the cycle of willful ignorance in their life.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Nevermind the implications it's had during the World Wars when other nations specifically did not attack us due to the amount of armed citizenry that would have responded.

Everyone makes fun of Red Dawn, but do you really think that wouldn't be the case if someone attacked us?

Awesome movie, just saw it the other night. I think thats more likely then DHS dropping Airborne guys out of C-130s.

 

[namedpipes]

I'm sorry. Just how many bank robberies and muggings (outside of Hollywood) are committed using weapons acquired by lawful means?

And of THOSE, just how many ar AR-15 or AK-47 rifles?

And when was the last time a lawfully possessed automatic machine gun was used in a homicide? It's happened, what, twice since 1934?

 

[Tyke]

Nevermind the implications it's had during the World Wars when other nations specifically did not attack us due to the amount of armed citizenry that would have responded.

Everyone makes fun of Red Dawn, but do you really think that wouldn't be the case if someone attacked us?

If you're specifically talking about the Japanese, that's a false quote. It, however, is not far from the truth. If a foreign enemy did invade our shores I'm bet good money that there would indeed be a rifle behind every blade of grass defending our homeland.

 

[PrimusTactical]

The us military carries the M4 carbine. I'd say it's a weapon of war, it's been developed for the explicite purpose of us bringing it over seas and laying waste to bad guys. The good old M16A1 (A2, A3, A4, etc), we're designed for the gov. and the military. Designed during Vietnam and constantly tweaked to be better for soliders, BY soldiers. No the only difference between that M4 and a Stag Arms version is a good old Selector switch to make it 3 round burst. Now I guess maybe we can say it's a complete different weapon because of that selector switch, but it's tough to say that since the other 99% of the weapon is the same. Ever wonder why you buy things like Buffer Tubes and it says "MILL SPEC" or "COM"? it's because it's literally patented after the same rifle we carry over seas... If I remember correctly, the orginal Ars were an exact replica of the "military "version. They were made for GIs coming home to use and is why they sodl so well because they were familiar with the weapon. So personally it's tough to call a M4 a weapon of war and a Stag Arms Model 8 (other then it being rod operated) not one...

 

[EddieCoyle]

it's been developed for the explicite purpose of us bringing it over seas and laying waste to bad guys.

So, you're saying the police should not have them.

 

[AF83]

The us military carries the M4 carbine. I'd say it's a weapon of war, it's been developed for the explicite purpose of us bringing it over seas and laying waste to bad guys. The good old M16A1 (A2, A3, A4, etc), we're designed for the gov. and the military. Designed during Vietnam and constantly tweaked to be better for soliders, BY soldiers. No the only difference between that M4 and a Stag Arms version is a good old Selector switch to make it 3 round burst. Now I guess maybe we can say it's a complete different weapon because of that selector switch, but it's tough to say that since the other 99% of the weapon is the same. Ever wonder why you buy things like Buffer Tubes and it says "MILL SPEC" or "COM"? it's because it's literally patented after the same rifle we carry over seas... If I remember correctly, the orginal Ars were an exact replica of the "military "version. They were made for GIs coming home to use and is why they sodl so well because they were familiar with the weapon. So personally it's tough to call a M4 a weapon of war and a Stag Arms Model 8 (other then it being rod operated) not one...

FAIL.

 

[PrimusTactical]

So, you're saying the police should not have them.

I'm not going down that road. If I due I'm sure the thread will get shut down real quick, since it'll turn into a poop fest (pics, swears, gifs, etc.). I'm staying on topic and referring only to NOMENCLATURE of the weapon. "Weapon of War" is a title thrown around to scare people, which I don't agree with. Just saying it's tough to fight the name, kind of like when guys say an M4 (AR-15) isn't designed to kill people.... um it is. It's a weapon first, a plinker second.

 

[GunGrey]

So, you're saying the police should not have them.

i stand by my earlier assumptions that PT is :

a hyocrite and a moron

 

[AF83]

So by your definition of weapon of war, we should not be able to own any firearms that were used or designed by or for the military. There goes 80% of my guns.

 

[xtry51]

Maybe if our country stopped creating wars to fight, this argument wouldn't exist.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Maybe if our country stopped creating wars to fight, this argument wouldn't exist.

Well said, we agree on something. +1

 

[WallHack]

I'm not going down that road. If I due I'm sure the thread will get shut down real quick, since it'll turn into a poop fest (pics, swears, gifs, etc.). I'm staying on topic and referring only to NOMENCLATURE of the weapon. "Weapon of War" is a title thrown around to scare people, which I don't agree with. Just saying it's tough to fight the name, kind of like when guys say an M4 (AR-15) isn't designed to kill people.... um it is. It's a weapon first, a plinker second.

Another Primus thread. Great.

I'll say this: of COURSE they're deadly. That's the way I like my firearms, don't know about everyone else.

I must be slacking at work, because this was sent using Tapatalk

 

[xcom]

So by your definition of weapon of war, we should not be able to own any firearms that were used or designed by or for the military. There goes 80% of my guns.

Don't forget the Remington 700 (i.e., the M24/M40), that sniper rifle/weapon of war has killed many a Vietcong (and deer).

 

[MisterHappy]

It's not a "weapon" until it's used as such.

If you have a killy EBR, and put holes in targets, it's a target rifle.
If you have a $5000 single-shot specialized Olympic-quality .22 rifle, and shoot a person, it's a weapon.

Your shoes are clothing, until you kick someone, then they're "dangerous weapon(s) - a shod foot"


Perhaps some of my milsurp guns were weapons at one time; now they're collectibles. It's an action that makes an item weapon, not the item itself.

Could your EBR be a weapon? Sure. So could a pair of scissors.

 

[xtry51]

I'll say this: of COURSE they're deadly. That's the way I like my firearms, don't know about everyone else.

This.

The entire purpose of a gun is to be deadly. The most effective way to stop a crime is to kill the criminal.

 

[WallHack]

The us military carries the M4 carbine. I'd say it's a weapon of war, it's been developed for the explicite purpose of us bringing it over seas and laying waste to bad guys.

Relevant part in bold. The major hole in this argument is that it assumes wars ONLY happen on foreign (to the US) soil. Shall I make a list of past domestic wars/acts of war, or are we good?

 

[Coyote33]

Oh, I think they get it all right.

+1
Technically, even a brown bess musket is a weapon of war, since it was used by a military in a war. So is every bolt, pump, lever, and semi-auto. So is an axe. "weapon of war" is a meaningless term used to confuse and distract. What they want is all weapons of any kind out of peoples hands.

+2

So by your definition of weapon of war, we should not be able to own any firearms that were used or designed by or for the military. There goes 80% of my guns.

And there goes the "Miller Decision" (requires guns to have a military purpose).

reference:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...cussion-points-linsky-others.html#post3032709

...
I'll say this: of COURSE they're deadly. That's the way I like my firearms, don't know about everyone else.

This.

The entire purpose of a gun is to be deadly. The most effective way to stop a crime is to kill the criminal.

+2 (again!)

 

[roshambo]

This.

The entire purpose of a gun is to be deadly. The most effective way to stop a crime is to kill the criminal.

Exactly. That's why I hate the term assault weapon. Sorry, every firearm is an assualt weapon. Every time I hear some uneducated person say assault rifle, I correct them and say, its a rifle. A rifle, is a rifle, period. An HK91 in 308 will kill you just as dead as a nice woodstocked 308 bolt action. Total media presenation and play on peoples emotions. Drives me bats.

 

[PrimusTactical]

It's not a "weapon" until it's used as such.

If you have a killy EBR, and put holes in targets, it's a target rifle.
If you have a $5000 single-shot specialized Olympic-quality .22 rifle, and shoot a person, it's a weapon.

Your shoes are clothing, until you kick someone, then they're "dangerous weapon(s) - a shod foot"


Perhaps some of my milsurp guns were weapons at one time; now they're collectibles. It's an action that makes an item weapon, not the item itself.

Could your EBR be a weapon? Sure. So could a pair of scissors.

My only gripe is the INTENT when a weapon/firearm is produced. Could a pair of scissors be deadly? Of course. Is it intended by the manufacture of the company and the person ordering it be used as a weapon? No. Guys are honest on here when they say thats why they own these weapons because they are good at what they do. You don't take a .22 bolt action rifle to war because it sucks. You don't load your shotgun with birdshot if your hunting deer, right? There is an INTENT when somethig is manufactured. Again, they use it to cause fear which is not ok. But they are pretty accurate when they say these weapons are designed to hurt people, not put holes in paper. Scissor are designed to cut paper, not humans. CAN they? Sure. The intent of the weapon was assigned to it waaayyyyy before anyone ever carries it or uses it in a wrong manner.... again, they shouldn't fear monger.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

This.

The entire purpose of a gun is to be deadly. The most effective way to stop a crime is to kill the criminal.

Fight fire with fire.

 

[Another_David]

Tell they the National Firearms Act passed and that eliminated military weapons

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Seamsealer]

I think when the police come down the street with muskets, I'll have one too.