Let Me Explain Something To My Democrat Colleagues.': Marjorie Taylor Greene Unleashes On Dems

[donnay]

[TheTexan]

Trying to argue that AR-15's can be used in self defense is not an argument worth making, even if it is true.

Personal self defense will almost always be done with a handgun.

AR-15's are weapons of war.

And it is our right to have weapons of war.

[donnay]

Trying to argue that AR-15's can be used in self defense is not an argument worth making, even if it is true.

Personal self defense will almost always be done with a handgun.

AR-15's are weapons of war.

And it is our right to have weapons of war.

But AR-15 are NOT a weapon of war.

War is the operative war they use to get people behind their banning, because most people hate war. It is a psychological word.

[TheTexan]

But AR-15 are NOT a weapon of war.

If we are being honest with ourselves- it is.

War is the operative war they use to get people behind their banning, because most people hate war. It is a psychological word.

Yes - but the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to own weapons of war. That was its intention. The fact that it also protects your right to own warm & fuzzy "self defense" weapons is a byproduct.

[CaptUSA]

If we are being honest with ourselves- it is.

What war was fought using AR-15's? What current army issues AR-15's?

[TheTexan]

What war was fought using AR-15's? What current army issues AR-15's?

We both know that "AR-15" is a synonym for that style of rifle whatever the make/model. So - Do you have a point?

[CaptUSA]

We both know that "AR-15" is a synonym for that style of rifle whatever the make/model. So - Do you have a point?

My point was that the AR that you can buy at a gun store is entirely inadequate as a "weapon of war" - which is why no army would even consider using it. Except maybe in training exercises.

donnay is right - they just use that language because it polls well. The people who call them that have no idea what they're talking about except that it sounds scarier.

[TheTexan]

My point was that the AR that you can buy at a gun store is entirely inadequate as a "weapon of war" - which is why no army would even consider using it. Except maybe in training exercises.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

AR-15 as a platform, is used throughout the military. The vast majority of components you buy off the shelf as a civilian are compatible with military weapons. The parts are mostly interchangeable. You could even slap a M4 upper on an AR-15 lower and it would work fine. Most civilian components are also mil-spec - built to the same specifications as the military versions.

The only difference is the selective fire. For the purpose of AR-15/M4 comparison we can say the only difference is the burst mode. (automatic is not widely used with the M4).

The simple lack of a burst mode in the civilian version of the weapon does not make it "entirely inadequate" as a weapon of war - it is still a weapon of war.

donnay is right - they just use that language because it polls well. The people who call them that have no idea what they're talking about except that it sounds scarier.

The fact that people are scared by the word "weapon of war" is all the more reason we need to stand by it.

The 2nd amendment was intended to protect "weapons of war".

If we decide to give up that argument because it doesn't "poll well" then we've already lost.

[tod evans]

.30 is a "caliber of war"

Is that scary too?

Whaddabout .50?

[TheTexan]

Whaddabout .50?

Home defense caliber IMO

[TheTexan]

The 2nd amendment wasn't added so that you could protect grandma from some dude breaking in your home.

The 2nd amendment was added so that you could kill your government. For warfare. To bring death & destruction in the strongest possible terms.

[69360]

She needs to keep her mouth shut. What she says doesn't help.

[donnay]

She needs to keep her mouth shut. What she says doesn't help.

Conservatives are not second class citizens and it is time to stand up and speak courageously. MTG does that.

[69360]

Conservatives are not second class citizens and it is time to stand up and speak courageously. MTG does that.

Fine, get her a speechwriter then and get her on message. Right now she is a hot mess and making things worse.

[nobody's_hero]

Trying to argue that AR-15's can be used in self defense is not an argument worth making, even if it is true.

Personal self defense will almost always be done with a handgun.

AR-15's are weapons of war.

And it is our right to have weapons of war.

The only reason I have a handgun is so I can get to my rifle. In a situation that I am unable to get to my rifle I will make-do with a handgun (as in when I am in public and it's generally unwise to keep a gun-rack with merchandise on display in the truck window anymore, so unfortunately it stays at home), but if I had a preference it would always be my rifle.

My rifle just doesn't fit in my bedside table drawer.

[donnay]

Fine, get her a speechwriter then and get her on message. Right now she is a hot mess and making things worse.

A speechwriter like all the rest have to make her look more professional with a stiff upper lip. That's not how she rolls. Personally. that is refreshing to see.

[TheTexan]

The only reason I have a handgun is so I can get to my rifle. In a situation that I am unable to get to my rifle I will make-do with a handgun (as in when I am in public and it's generally unwise to keep a gun-rack with merchandise on display in the truck window anymore, so unfortunately it stays at home), but if I had a preference it would always be my rifle.

My rifle just doesn't fit in my bedside table drawer.

If I had a preference it would always be my M249* but it doesn't fit in my bedside table drawer either.

( * that was lost in boating accident sadly )

[Anti Globalist]

I don't think her Democratic colleagues are going to learn the error of their ways.

[Anti Federalist]

.30 is a "caliber of war"

Is that scary too?

Whaddabout .50?

$#@!ing right... .22 caliber popguns have no place on the field of battle.

This is a proper battle rifle:

[Anti Federalist]

The 2nd amendment wasn't added so that you could protect grandma from some dude breaking in your home.

The 2nd amendment was added so that you could kill your government. For warfare. To bring death & destruction in the strongest possible terms.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...33000026603526


This Ryan Busse guy is a gun grabber, but I agree with the following (just not in the way he wants me to):

https://twitter.com/ryandbusse/statu...64506320322561


Here's his entire thread (hidden to save space):

 

https://twitter.com/ryandbusse/statu...64487680864257

To which I would reply with what TheTexan said - all of it:

AR-15's are weapons of war.

And it is our right to have weapons of war.

[T]he 2nd amendment is to protect your right to own weapons of war. That was its intention. The fact that it also protects your right to own warm & fuzzy "self defense" weapons is a byproduct.

The 2nd amendment wasn't added so that you could protect grandma from some dude breaking in your home.

The 2nd amendment was added so that you could kill your government. For warfare. To bring death & destruction in the strongest possible terms.

The fact that people are scared by the word "weapon of war" is all the more reason we need to stand by it.

The 2nd amendment was intended to protect "weapons of war".

If we decide to give up that argument because it doesn't "poll well" then we've already lost.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.

And ditto for terms like "assault rifle" and "assault weapon". Don't try to "ackchyually" them. Don't run away from them. Embrace them - and then throw them back hard in the faces of those who expected to have you cornered, because you were supposed to shy away from them while trying to justify yourself.

The rhetorical tactics of gun grabbers depend critically on putting their opponents on the defensive. So don't be defensive.

[The Northbreather]

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

AR-15 as a platform, is used throughout the military. The vast majority of components you buy off the shelf as a civilian are compatible with military weapons. The parts are mostly interchangeable. You could even slap a M4 upper on an AR-15 lower and it would work fine. Most civilian components are also mil-spec - built to the same specifications as the military versions.

The only difference is the selective fire. For the purpose of AR-15/M4 comparison we can say the only difference is the burst mode. (automatic is not widely used with the M4).

The simple lack of a burst mode in the civilian version of the weapon does not make it "entirely inadequate" as a weapon of war - it is still a weapon of war.




The fact that people are scared by the word "weapon of war" is all the more reason we need to stand by it.

The 2nd amendment was intended to protect "weapons of war".

If we decide to give up that argument because it doesn't "poll well" then we've already lost.

Agree 100%.

People buy guns based on their reliability to perform the ultimate violence if need be.

It is a tool specifically made for this purpose.

Quibbling about whether or not to allow the citizens to own them because they are weapons of war is an obvious straw man and it muddies the water.

[CaptUSA]