Jump to content

Weapons of War


Illinois Sucks

Recommended Posts

The left's argument continues to be "we don't want weapons of war in the hands of civilians". Why do we always respond with "well... they aren't technically weapons of war" instead why not ask them "Wouldn't a weapon of war be EXACTLY what a citizen militia would need to protect their free state"?

 

I feel like we give their "reasoning" credibility by trying to defend against it rather than shutting it down and getting to the real heart of the matter.

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

You tell me.. what weapon would be best for this? A shotgun? A bolt action rifle? Something concealable with less than 10 rounds... or an M16?

 

Stop letting people steer the conversation!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They are rifles made for civilians. Calling them weapons of war, is lies and propaganda and part of the civilian disarmament conspiracy.

Own it. Shall not be infringed, including weapons of war.

I'm so sick of the stupid term /lisp on modern sporting rifle. Stop Fudding up my AR15, NSSF.

I don't have a problem with it but it's being used for propaganda to disarm Americans. A weapon is a weapon, no such thing as a weapon of war or weapon of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are rifles made for civilians. Calling them weapons of war, is lies and propaganda and part of the civilian disarmament conspi

 

 

They are rifles made for civilians. Calling them weapons of war, is lies and propaganda and part of the civilian disarmament conspiracy.

Own it. Shall not be infringed, including weapons of war.

 

I'm so sick of the stupid term /lisp on modern sporting rifle. Stop Fudding up my AR15, NSSF.

 

 

I agree... I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to own full auto if we were so inclined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also on the topic of "weapons of war" what about 9mm Parabellum. Literally a handgun round called "prepare for war", as in Si vis pacem, para bellum. I mean it's a diminutive handgun round like the 5.56 is a diminutive rifle round but both are used by armies all over the world, yet nobody bat's an eye at 9mm.

 

¥If you want peace, prepare for war", seems like a good motto for responsible gun owners everywhere justifying why we are peaceful but really like our guns.

 

Fudd on/ "This AR15 isn't a weapon of war, it doesn't have select fire, blah blah blah, civilians aren't allowed to own weapons of war for their own good". Uh, what about the M1 Garand right next to it that shot a German or a Japanese, in a war? "That's not a weapon of war, it's not select fire"....

 

I don't have a problem with it but it's being used for propaganda to disarm Americans. A weapon is a weapon, no such thing as a weapon of war or weapon of peace.

Weapon of war shouldn't affect us, the only reason they think it does is because of certain Fudd organizations.

 

These organizations have attempted to fight for our rights under "sporting purposes" which is the same justification every country restricts gun rights, or takes them away altogether. Because many guns they try to claim are for hunting aren't really that good hunting guns. Not to say that an Ar10 isn't a great deer rifle, but I'm not going out in the fields with my AK. Reminds me of the only funny scene in Eddie Murphy's Distinguished Gentleman, because this is literally what the NRA does. https://youtu.be/cSWKL6Li9ng

 

Fudd logic is why we have to fight twice as hard to own our little plastic varmint guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to facilitate self defense or to promote hunting, but to provide citizens with the tools necessary to deter or, if necessary, to put down a tyrannical national government. Unfortunately, any argument based on the text of the 2nd amendment and the writings of the founders will be wasted on someone who does not believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are relevant today in determining the limits of governmental power and whose belief system is founded on the unshakable conclusions that the government is the solution to all problems and that, despite countless historical examples, the government can never be a danger to the individual.

 

You are better off appealing to their emotions. Counter examples of criminals using guns (not gun violence) with examples of a citizen's defensive gun use. Notice how quickly DGU stories fade from the media because they do not fit their narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US v Miller:

The opinion points to whether or not weapons can be shown to be useful in a well regulated militia.

 

No one testified for Miller, whereas a lower court had found the 1934 NFA unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

 

 

 


The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US v Miller:

The opinion points to whether or not weapons can be shown to be useful in a well regulated militia.

 

No one testified for Miller, whereas a lower court had found the 1934 NFA unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

 

 

 

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

What about District of Columbia vs Heller and weapons in common use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also on the topic of "weapons of war" what about 9mm Parabellum. Literally a handgun round called "prepare for war", as in Si vis pacem, para bellum. I mean it's a diminutive handgun round like the 5.56 is a diminutive rifle round but both are used by armies all over the world, yet nobody bat's an eye at 9mm.

¥If you want peace, prepare for war", seems like a good motto for responsible gun owners everywhere justifying why we are peaceful but really like our guns.

Fudd on/ "This AR15 isn't a weapon of war, it doesn't have select fire, blah blah blah, civilians aren't allowed to own weapons of war for their own good". Uh, what about the M1 Garand right next to it that shot a German or a Japanese, in a war? "That's not a weapon of war, it's not select fire"....

I don't have a problem with it but it's being used for propaganda to disarm Americans. A weapon is a weapon, no such thing as a weapon of war or weapon of peace.

Weapon of war shouldn't affect us, the only reason they think it does is because of certain Fudd organizations.

These organizations have attempted to fight for our rights under "sporting purposes" which is the same justification every country restricts gun rights, or takes them away altogether. Because many guns they try to claim are for hunting aren't really that good hunting guns. Not to say that an Ar10 isn't a great deer rifle, but I'm not going out in the fields with my AK. Reminds me of the only funny scene in Eddie Murphy's Distinguished Gentleman, because this is literally what the NRA does. https://youtu.be/cSWKL6Li9ng

Fudd logic is why we have to fight twice as hard to own our little plastic varmint guns.

It's not Fudd organizations or logic, it's the controlled mainstream media that is part of the conspiracy and brainwashes people with anti gun propaganda. A "weapon of war" is best for self defense because it has been proven in battle and should be reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Fudd organizations or logic, it's the controlled mainstream media that is part of the conspiracy and brainwashes people with anti gun propaganda. A "weapon of war" is best for self defense because it has been proven in battle and should be reliable.

The media has always reported negatively on guns. But the Fudds take the bait when they argue what is and what isn't a weapon of war. "That's not a weapon of war, that's a sporting rifle" does us no good.

 

Lawn darts (sporting equipment) was banned with very little resistance. Even though we've lost the right to a few weapons of war it hasn't been lost without a huge fight because the 2nd ammendment protects weapons of war, not sporting equipment.

 

Efforts to outlaw the AR-15 are part of an incremental movement to ban all semi-automatic guns"

 

Good, let them stop drawing the line between an AR and a Browning automatic hunting rifle. Let them call bolt action hunting rifles "sniper rifles". They won't win and we'll wake up a lot more people.

 

Push them to put their full agenda on the table. First they acknowledge that they know exactly what the 2nd means and is meant for, then they agree all guns are deadly, so they admit to wanting an outright repeal.

 

It's the incremental part that hurts us the most, force their hand and end the incremental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want to play the militia card.

 

First of all, SCOTUS has already ruled that the militia clause is separate from, and not required for one to keep and bear arms.

 

The Illinois constitution's definition of militia includes all able bodied persons, so this would presumably exclude those whose physically disabilities would disqualify them from regular military service.

 

Given the opportunity to include militia membership as a requirement for gun ownership in Illinois, they would quickly amend the Illinois constitution to align with Federal law, as it is much stricter, including only able bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as a "weapon of war" by the act of simply existing. A weapon you use while fighting in a war is a "weapon of war". By that logic then a knife, axe, hammer etc. are all "weapons of war".

 

A firearm however is a tool. A tool that we have a right to own as a free American citizen. It has nothing to do with how many rounds per second it shoots, nothing to do with how it looks, nothing to do with how many rounds it holds. Its the person holding it in their hands who makes it what it is.

 

And as someone else noted, by that definition......the correct, logical and factual definition........We all own weapons of peace.

 

 

 

And btw NONE of this definition Olympics debate does anything to further the real conversation.

The one about how firearms in America are actually used. Or more pertinent maybe, how often they are misused, how dangerous are they actually are vs the the general person going about living their life. Etc. Etc Etc....

That the real conversation, that other one is simply nonsense. A buzz word/line of thought that was made up to make you "feel" something and go off on an emotional tangent instead of engaging in a real and factual critical thinking process about an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blogger Kim du Toit this morning, brings up a historical reference.

 

 

 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1789

 

 

http://www.kimdutoit.com/2019/05/03/tell-us-more/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if the gun manufacturers made quality semi autos that look more like traditional rifles than they look like military issue weapons, the media would not say a word. What the ignorant gun haters want is to see military "style" guns banned because they are "scary".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Weapons of war" is just the latest pejorative term used to characterize commonly owned firearms. It should be viewed as the successor to "assault weapons", although the latter term is still in use. The English translation of this term, when used by antis, is "guns we want to ban". What is and is not a true "weapon of war" is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The antis act like AR's were just invented recently. The first AR, an AR-10, was in the trials after which the US adopted the M-14. So was the FN-FAL.

 

That was in 1957, IIRC. The AR-15 came about shortly thereafter from what I've read.

 

Not exactly a terrifying death machine that dropped from the skies the other day.

 

"Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story" seems to be the mantra here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if the gun manufacturers made quality semi autos that look more like traditional rifles than they look like military issue weapons, the media would not say a word. What the ignorant gun haters want is to see military "style" guns banned because they are "scary".

 

I have to disagree with you concerning what a firearm looks like being the issue. It doesn't matter to them what a firearm looks like , they just want all of them taken away from us peons. If a 12 Ga. shotgun loaded with 00 buck had been used to do all the shootings in the last 10 years , they would be shouting from the roof tops that we need to ban 00buck and shotguns.

 

It will never change with the anti's , NEVER. They want all firearms gone and they use any form of accusation they think will do the most good for their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want to play the militia card.

 

First of all, SCOTUS has already ruled that the militia clause is separate from, and not required for one to keep and bear arms.

 

The Illinois constitution's definition of militia includes all able bodied persons, so this would presumably exclude those whose physically disabilities would disqualify them from regular military service.

 

Given the opportunity to include militia membership as a requirement for gun ownership in Illinois, they would quickly amend the Illinois constitution to align with Federal law, as it is much stricter, including only able bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age.

Correct about the militia clause being separate, but incorrect on regulation or definition of "the militia", IE every US citizen, or even the states being able to define who the militia is.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. [O]ur central holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

 

........

 

The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Hellers rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald leave matters open on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: [W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense. Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Manion dissented, reasoning that both the ordinance and this courts opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and Mcdonald. Id., at 412.

 

II

The Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767 769. We excluded from protection only those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that [t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmenteven the Third Branch of Government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted). Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by the political process and scholarly debate. Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that since th[e] case represent[ed] this Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field. 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. Id., at 634635. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms were common at the time of ratification in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. 554 U. S., at 582. The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms. Ibid. But that ignores Hellers fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens not state governments it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

 

Tl;Dr as long as Trump didn't cuck us with another Kennedy our weapons of war will be safe. The anti's can GF'd with their semantics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all we can not fall for their bleating about guns. Gun control has NOTHING to do with guns but control- who gets to tell who what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and what they can not do! AND making sure that you do not have the means to say no and back it up with force! They will use what ever means they have, say what ever it takes, abuse what ever law they can to get to that end.

 

Weapons of war will be what ever you have on hand when the balloon goes up and you gotta do what you gotta do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want one of these weapons of war that I keep hearing about...

 

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/

Weapons of war, get'em while you can, not because they'll be made illegal, but because jerks scalp them on gunbroker. Aught to be a law!!!

 

Also the M1 Garrand rifles have the distinction of the only gun you can still get through the USPS as a non FFL (last I checked unless it's changed). Yup, that's right, the anti's are right, you can get a weapon of war delivered to your door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Weapons of war" is just the latest pejorative term used to characterize commonly owned firearms. It should be viewed as the successor to "assault weapons", although the latter term is still in use. The English translation of this term, when used by antis, is "guns we want to ban". What is and is not a true "weapon of war" is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not Fudd organizations or logic, it's the controlled mainstream media that is part of the conspiracy and brainwashes people with anti gun propaganda. A "weapon of war" is best for self defense because it has been proven in battle and should be reliable.

The media has always reported negatively on guns. But the Fudds take the bait when they argue what is and what isn't a weapon of war. "That's not a weapon of war, that's a sporting rifle" does us no good.

Lawn darts (sporting equipment) was banned with very little resistance. Even though we've lost the right to a few weapons of war it hasn't been lost without a huge fight because the 2nd ammendment protects weapons of war, not sporting equipment.

Efforts to outlaw the AR-15 are part of an incremental movement to ban all semi-automatic guns"

Good, let them stop drawing the line between an AR and a Browning automatic hunting rifle. Let them call bolt action hunting rifles "sniper rifles". They won't win and we'll wake up a lot more people.

Push them to put their full agenda on the table. First they acknowledge that they know exactly what the 2nd means and is meant for, then they agree all guns are deadly, so they admit to wanting an outright repeal.

It's the incremental part that hurts us the most, force their hand and end the incremental.

Incrementalism is the name of their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...