wmg1299
Professional
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.
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.