In Common Use verses Military Weapons of War

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tomh

    Active Member
    Jul 21, 2008
    220
    Would someone more learned than I please explain why the Anti-Gunners are focusing on calling firearms "Weapons of War?" Was there something in a court case that said you can or can not ban weapons in Common Use, verses being able to ban weapons of war?

    I'm confused. It seems to me with more than 8 million AR style rifles out there, they have to be considered firearms in common use. Why are the anti-gunners calling them weapons of war?

    Thanks!

    -Tom-
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    "Weapons of war" and "assault weapons" sound scary and makes it easier to get support for a ban from ignorant people. No military uses semi-auto AR-15 rifles but they look scary and black like real military rifles do.
    Also when our second amendment was written it was automatically assumed that our right to bear arms covered military weapons because during the revolutionary war civilian and military guns were exactly the same thing.
     

    steveh326

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 23, 2012
    1,598
    Mt. Airy
    it's all about optics and selling the concept to the ignorant masses.

    just remember, at one point in time, rocks, sharp sticks, and muzzle loaders were all WEAPONS OF WAR
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    In short it's an optics play for the dimwitted, and yeah they probably spend some cash on focus groups to get the best scary phrase to repeat ad nauseum. Just refer them to United States v. Miller 307 US 174 if someone persists that 2A does not protect the right to own "weapons of war".
     

    Conaso

    Member
    May 17, 2014
    52
    Alexandria, VA
    Would someone more learned than I please explain why the Anti-Gunners are focusing on calling firearms "Weapons of War?" Was there something in a court case that said you can or can not ban weapons in Common Use, verses being able to ban weapons of war?

    I'm confused. It seems to me with more than 8 million AR style rifles out there, they have to be considered firearms in common use. Why are the anti-gunners calling them weapons of war?

    Tom - I think you are missing the point, it is all about naming conventions. If you remember the terms:

    liberal -> PROGRESSIVE
    illegal alien -> UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT
    lazy freeloaders -> LOW-ESTEEM CITIZEN DESERVING of FREE MEDICAL, HOUSING, EDUCATION, SUBSISTENCE, LIVING WAGE, PET OR CHILD ADOPTION ASSISTANCE, etc.
    jahadi terrorist -> MISUNDERSTOOD MUSLIM BELONGING TO MINORITY SECT
    Antifada - FREEDOM FIGHTERS EXPRESSING THEIR 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS
    AR15, bayonet lug, pistol grip, high-capacity magazine, suppressor ->
    WEAPONS OF WAR
    firearm confiscation -> COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE gun safety.
     

    tomh

    Active Member
    Jul 21, 2008
    220
    Tom - I think you are missing the point, it is all about naming conventions.

    I know how liberals speak, I was worried that there was some court case that said there was a difference between Military (Style) weapons and weapons in common use.

    I don't remember the exact court case, but I thought there was a court case that said you couldn't ban weapons that were in common use.
     

    Conaso

    Member
    May 17, 2014
    52
    Alexandria, VA
    Over the past weeks I have been duteously writing my VA delegate, who has voted for all proposed anti-gun and opposed all pro-gun laws. He commented the SCOUS ruled COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE gun regulations were acceptable. I asked where in the 2d Amendment or in the SCOUS's District of Columbia vs Heller decision were the words COMMON SENSE or REASONABLE. I also stated the proponents of "Red Flag laws" were disingenuous when implying the issue was about the risk to individuals and public, while the "at-risk" person was not held for evaluation or able to face his accuser.

    To date - no response.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I know how liberals speak, I was worried that there was some court case that said there was a difference between Military (Style) weapons and weapons in common use.

    I don't remember the exact court case, but I thought there was a court case that said you couldn't ban weapons that were in common use.

    That's US v Miller (1939), said basically that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected as it had no military value (think militia).

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    Over the past weeks I have been duteously writing my VA delegate, who has voted for all proposed anti-gun and opposed all pro-gun laws. He commented the SCOUS ruled COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE gun regulations were acceptable. I asked where in the 2d Amendment or in the SCOUS's District of Columbia vs Heller decision were the words COMMON SENSE or REASONABLE. I also stated the proponents of "Red Flag laws" were disingenuous when implying the issue was about the risk to individuals and public, while the "at-risk" person was not held for evaluation or able to face his accuser.

    To date - no response.

    Just to add.... can an “at-risk” person still buy, rent or possess:
    1) A minivan?
    2) A gas powered chainsaw ( environmental assault weapon)?
    3) An electric chainsaw? (Chainsaw silencer)
    4) A high capacity propane tank?
    5) A Harbor Freight discount card?
    5) Dynamite?
    6) etc.

    They believe taking away a gun is going to turn a dangerous person into a safe person. Huh?

    Those weapons would be easy to “red-flag” and more difficult to argue against on Constitutional grounds. Why not start with the low hanging fruit? Probably because they don’t care about what they say they care about.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    The whole farcking point of the 2a was to ensure "weapons of war" ARE in the hands of the people. However, since this is a rhetorical move by dems to scare people in to giving up rights...it's fun to combat rhetoric with facts. Namely, showing a picture of a weapon that is literally a military issued carbine that has been used in multiple wars, a weapon that's a high-powered magazine fed semiautomatic rifle, and the ar15.
     

    Attachments

    • 20200220_234752.jpg
      20200220_234752.jpg
      97.8 KB · Views: 224

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,810
    The whole farcking point of the 2a was to ensure "weapons of war" ARE in the hands of the people. However, since this is a rhetorical move by dems to scare people in to giving up rights...it's fun to combat rhetoric with facts. Namely, showing a picture of a weapon that is literally a military issued carbine that has been used in multiple wars, a weapon that's a high-powered magazine fed semiautomatic rifle, and the ar15.

    ^^^This

    The AR 15 IS the modern day flintlock-a weapon of war.
     

    WildWeasel

    Active Member
    Mar 31, 2019
    468
    MI>FL>MD
    The AR 15 IS the modern day flintlock-a weapon of war.

    I'd say the distinction for AR-15s (or M1As), while many are the exact same thing as an M4(M14), minus the fun switch and a whole 1.5" of barrel(no change for M14/M1A...), has never been issued to troops or fought in any wars. The same thing can't be said for 1903s or M1 Garands, which are still very popular as hunting firearms, yet were primary issue for 2 separate world wars. M1As and AR15s have never seen war... Just hunting, sporting and competition events(swimming and boating is popular these days... :D), self defense, and collectors items. And being the modern musket; the weapon of the people.

    Of course, now they want to go after more than 3 rounds... It's all media talking points that works for simpletons, but is proof they want all guns. Nothing to do with reason or safety. Just full government control.
     

    Alea Jacta Est

    Extinguished member
    MDS Supporter
    I'd say the distinction for AR-15s (or M1As), while many are the exact same thing as an M4(M14), minus the fun switch and a whole 1.5" of barrel(no change for M14/M1A...), has never been issued to troops or fought in any wars. The same thing can't be said for 1903s or M1 Garands, which are still very popular as hunting firearms, yet were primary issue for 2 separate world wars. M1As and AR15s have never seen war... Just hunting, sporting and competition events(swimming and boating is popular these days... :D), self defense, and collectors items. And being the modern musket; the weapon of the people.

    Of course, now they want to go after more than 3 rounds... It's all media talking points that works for simpletons, but is proof they want all guns. Nothing to do with reason or safety. Just full government control.
    Turns out that guns are “equalizers”. All guns are equalizers. Remember the Samuel Colt quote?

    The weapons of war bs is just that. It’s but one step on the stairway to you and I being disarmed.

    A disarmed citizen is unable to either adequately defend himself and those near and dear or to contest tyrants. That says “we want you IN FEAR”.

    Fear, anger, doubt, lies, etc are the primary tools of the socialists, communists and criminals...did I forget to say politicians? My bad.
     

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,810
    I'd say the distinction for AR-15s (or M1As), while many are the exact same thing as an M4(M14), minus the fun switch and a whole 1.5" of barrel(no change for M14/M1A...), has never been issued to troops or fought in any wars. The same thing can't be said for 1903s or M1 Garands, which are still very popular as hunting firearms, yet were primary issue for 2 separate world wars. M1As and AR15s have never seen war... Just hunting, sporting and competition events(swimming and boating is popular these days... :D), self defense, and collectors items. And being the modern musket; the weapon of the people.

    Of course, now they want to go after more than 3 rounds... It's all media talking points that works for simpletons, but is proof they want all guns. Nothing to do with reason or safety. Just full government control.

    Yes, thanks to NFA of 1934.
    The fact of the matter is, most in theater applications of the M4/M27 are in semi-auto mode. In semi-auto mode, there is zero difference between the aforementioned and the AR 15 in function.

    Literally speaking, you are correct though.

    I'll also add, as per my first post in this thread, the libs prefer the term "weapons of war" because it scares more people.
     

    Piscator

    Member
    Sep 2, 2010
    38
    Columbia Md
    Their whole focus is to drive you to an emotional reaction instead of examining the issue rationally. This is how they approach pretty much everything. And as we see, it actually works.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,539
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom