Weapons of War

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Worn, Apr 6, 2018.

  1. Worn

    Worn Constitutional Conservative

    Likes Received:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Northern Arizona
    Since the Florida school shooting, I’ve been hearing more talk about “weapons of war” and less about “assault weapons.”

    “No one should be able to buy these weapons of war.”

    “Why does anyone need these weapons of war?”

    “The AR-15 is a weapon of war and no one should be able to have them.”

    "These weapons of war are only good for killing large numbers of people."

    It appears that “weapons of war” may supplant “assault weapons” and “assault rifles” in the media and modern lexicon. I welcome the change.

    Why do I prefer “weapons of war” over the bogus “assault rifle” terminology to describe the AR-15 moderm sporting rifle? Because it gets right to the heart of the matter. And that is that the Constitution spectifcally protects the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of war.

    At the time of the founding, there was no standing army [1] and the founders did not want a standing army. We the People were the army. If there was a war to fight, the militia was called up and each militiaman was expected to show up with his own musket, powder and ball and be ready to go to war. That is, with his own, personal, weapon of war.

    It was expected that he would be well practiced and accurate (well regulated [2]) with his musket.

    Now, it can be argued that the Second Amerdment is an anachronism. I don’t believe it is, but that’s a discussion for another day. Anachronistic or not, the Second Amendment is still very much part of the Constitution.

    So, unless and until the Second Amendment is repealed, The Supreme Law of the Land protects the right to keep and bear weapons of war. And nothing the federal legislature or the president or the supreme court does can change that. The only thing that laws, regulations and court rulings can do is to infringe that constitutionally-protected right.

    Every time someone mentions weapons of war, we should point out that it is precisely weapons of war that are protected by the Constitution.

    There is still, technically, no standing army. The Constitution states that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use [Armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years…” The legislature continues to appropriate funds at intervals such that we have a standing army in effect, if not technically speaking.

    Remember those old “Regulator” clocks? Regulated means it is accurate and consistent. (Not micromanaged.)
  2. Jamesey


    Likes Received:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Galt's Gulch
    Every type of firearm ever designed since the invention of gunpowder has been used in warfare, therefore EVERY firearm is a weapon of war. Muskets, muzzleloaders, breechloaders, lever action repeaters, revolvers, bolt action, pump action, autoloaders, and, our favorite, gas operated semiautos--ALL OF THEM are weapons of war at least in principle. When someone uses that term they should be reminded that they are talking about ALL guns. WE should remind them, every time.
    Cambo likes this.

  3. DWARREN123

    DWARREN123 Grumpy Old Guy

    Likes Received:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Clarksville, Tn.
    The left is trying to make the AR-15 seem even more dangerous than they see it now.
    Wonder how many who parrot this stuff has even fired one much less been in a assault situation!
    B C, Cambo and orangejeep06 like this.
  4. Dave514


    Likes Received:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Defense against tyranny. Foreign and domestic. That's why I should be allowed to have weapons of war. The Second Amendment decrees it. AR-15s do not qualify and they are, already, a concession.
    Cambo, pgg00 and orangejeep06 like this.
  5. alnicoG22


    Likes Received:
    Sep 29, 2016
    The SA embodies the right to keep and bear the weapon of the infantry soldier.