testtest

Modern Sporting Rifles as "Weapons of War"?

wmg1299

Custom
I started a thread about Wives Who Carry that quickly morphed into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment in general. I found the many of the comments to be very well-written and I was impressed by many posters' knowledge of the Constitution. Along that line of thought, I wanted to get your thoughts on a strategy to combat the Left's common cries that we need to outlaw "Weapons of War" in our communities.

While it is absolutely clear that no semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is actually a "weapon of war", the left seems to easily get away with repeatedly labeling them as such. While the rifles mentioned above aren't "weapons of war", they are very much "Weapons of Law Enforcement" or "Weapons of Police". I worked my way through law school as a police officer, and am not against any police force that maintains order in society without infringing individual Constitutional rights. However, the lawyer in me feels obligated to use current public perception to make a point.

The very essence of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to stand up to tyrannical government forces. If the left honestly believes that Police are oppressive government forces, why shouldn't we take advantage of this by claiming that we are not asking for citizens to have military grade weapons, we are merely asking to be equally armed as those who are seen as oppressive government forces in our communities? The vast majority of police departments have started issuing AR-15's to officers, all of which are equipped with those evil "high-capacity" magazines.

I am old enough to know better than to be too impressed by my own ideas. Do you guys think referring to AR-15's, or other "Assault Rifles" (whatever that means these days), as "Weapons of Police" or "Weapons of Law Enforcement" is a good idea? Please feel free to point out any potential pitfalls you see that could result from this strategy. I have a thick skin and am willing to accept and learn from most types of criticism.
 

TEXASforLIFE

Hellcat
For those idiots that are not a 2a lover them just don't buy a firearm! Should we start taking away their rights we don't believe in? My wife isn't much in favor of guns, but doesn't hate them. We both believe that some do not need any guns for sure! The A in AR is Armalite anyway!
 

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
Thanks for the information. I am definitely guilty of calling my pistol a "firearm." It is a holdover from my time in the military.
I still use "firearm" also, with no intentions of changing. When distinguishing between the two "styles", I call them pistols or rifles.

Now I'm wondering what the heck John Wick refers to a pencil as. Weapon of writing, weapon of defense, weapon of pointy lead? 🤔

Waaay too early for all of this deep thinking, and I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee. 😨
 

KillerFord1977

Professional
Founding Member
I started a thread about Wives Who Carry that quickly morphed into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment in general. I found the many of the comments to be very well-written and I was impressed by many posters' knowledge of the Constitution. Along that line of thought, I wanted to get your thoughts on a strategy to combat the Left's common cries that we need to outlaw "Weapons of War" in our communities.

While it is absolutely clear that no semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is actually a "weapon of war", the left seems to easily get away with repeatedly labeling them as such. While the rifles mentioned above aren't "weapons of war", they are very much "Weapons of Law Enforcement" or "Weapons of Police". I worked my way through law school as a police officer, and am not against any police force that maintains order in society without infringing individual Constitutional rights. However, the lawyer in me feels obligated to use current public perception to make a point.

The very essence of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to stand up to tyrannical government forces. If the left honestly believes that Police are oppressive government forces, why shouldn't we take advantage of this by claiming that we are not asking for citizens to have military grade weapons, we are merely asking to be equally armed as those who are seen as oppressive government forces in our communities? The vast majority of police departments have started issuing AR-15's to officers, all of which are equipped with those evil "high-capacity" magazines.

I am old enough to know better than to be too impressed by my own ideas. Do you guys think referring to AR-15's, or other "Assault Rifles" (whatever that means these days), as "Weapons of Police" or "Weapons of Law Enforcement" is a good idea? Please feel free to point out any potential pitfalls you see that could result from this strategy. I have a thick skin and am willing to accept and learn from most types of criticism.
With defund the police movement, Left is liable to say LEO agencies dont need them either and push to remove them from all of society. I wouldnt shed light on them for any reason. They are just what they are: “modern sporting rifles”.

remember, the most lives lost involved Fertilizer and Aircraft. Drugs are everyday loss of life over firearms.
 

papa

Professional
Founding Member
A rolled up magazine ( the reading kind ) can be a weapon. MSR = modern sporting rifle.

The biggest problem , we as legal firearm owners have to overcome , is the brainwashing that has most people thinking the anti-gunners are talking about full auto weapons when they are talking about banning the AR 15.

This past Thanksgiving I was at my sister and brother in law's . They are gun owners but don't like the AR style of rifle. We got into a discussion about the ban talk and my sister looked at me and almost hollered , " But why does anyone need a full auto blaster in their home !?" I then explained what was actually being banned and also that full auto is legal in many of the states. I explained that you had to have a $200.00 tax stamp and pay $50,000.00 and up for one . Also that you couldn't buy any full auto made after 1985. Then she said , " Well why does anyone need a 30 round "clip" !? " So we had a talk about that. I even showed them how fast a person can change magazines when one goes empty so having 10 rounds or less doesn't make a real difference.

Now these are firearms owners so how do we get to the people who aren't firearm owners and who listen to all the anti talk through the news media?As far as I am concerned , the news media is in the pocket of the anti-gunners and the only way we can win this is through the court system.
 
The description of something is definitely used based on context. The English language is as simple as it is complex.
Pistol, firearm, weapon are all words and how a word is used is just based on many factors none of which are negative.
 
I started a thread about Wives Who Carry that quickly morphed into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment in general. I found the many of the comments to be very well-written and I was impressed by many posters' knowledge of the Constitution. Along that line of thought, I wanted to get your thoughts on a strategy to combat the Left's common cries that we need to outlaw "Weapons of War" in our communities.

While it is absolutely clear that no semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is actually a "weapon of war", the left seems to easily get away with repeatedly labeling them as such. While the rifles mentioned above aren't "weapons of war", they are very much "Weapons of Law Enforcement" or "Weapons of Police". I worked my way through law school as a police officer, and am not against any police force that maintains order in society without infringing individual Constitutional rights. However, the lawyer in me feels obligated to use current public perception to make a point.

The very essence of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to stand up to tyrannical government forces. If the left honestly believes that Police are oppressive government forces, why shouldn't we take advantage of this by claiming that we are not asking for citizens to have military grade weapons, we are merely asking to be equally armed as those who are seen as oppressive government forces in our communities? The vast majority of police departments have started issuing AR-15's to officers, all of which are equipped with those evil "high-capacity" magazines.

I am old enough to know better than to be too impressed by my own ideas. Do you guys think referring to AR-15's, or other "Assault Rifles" (whatever that means these days), as "Weapons of Police" or "Weapons of Law Enforcement" is a good idea? Please feel free to point out any potential pitfalls you see that could result from this strategy. I have a thick skin and am willing to accept and learn from most types of criticism.
Good post sir.
 

Talyn

Hellcat
Founding Member
Since the 1960's, if not earlier, the left (insert party name/media group) has gunned up terms to describe things they want to control, such as "Saturday-Night Specials, Switch-blades, Assault-weapons (note: insert anything that a certain party wants), etc" to confuse and scam the general public.

And the firearms community has largely adopted their terminology thus going along with the scam. We all need to resist that.
 
Top