 Hey guys, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense, and today we're going to talk about one of my favorite terms that people who hate guns and hate American hate liberty use. And that term, of course, is weapons of war, right? You hear it a lot in the presidential democratic primary debates and discussions and campaign slogans. We need to get these weapons of war off our street, right? That's how it goes. So a couple of things on that. One, it's, of course, a useless made-up term that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything because every weapon has been used as a weapon of war, right? AR-15s and AK-47s and semi-autopistols and revolvers and pump shotguns and bolt action rifles and swords and knives and bayonets, lances, I mean, the list goes on, right? It just depends on how far back in history you want to go. So every weapon, of course, has been used as a weapon of war at some point or another. And so therefore that term is useless, it's stupid, we should just ignore it and kind of roll our eyes. However, there are some people who say, well, an AR-15 isn't a weapon of war. You know, you'd be stupid to go into combat with an AR-15. They don't use an AR-15 in the military, they use an M-16. And look, okay, I understand what you're saying, right? You're saying that an AR doesn't have the full giggle switch, right? So there's just a safe and a fire, right? Isn't it marked on that side of the gun? Yeah, it is, look at that. There's a safe right here, right? No trigger pull and a fire. That's what you're saying. It doesn't go all the way to full auto, which would be over here, right? Or burst fire, depending on which version of the AR or the M-16 you have, right? So they're saying, all right, you know, well, no one will go to combat with an AR-15. That would just be stupid. Okay, I mean, we're talking about one setting, really. I mean, come on. The bolt carrier group's interchangeable. There's a full auto bolt carrier group in that gun, right? I mean, come on, don't be ridiculous. Again, I understand the point that we're trying to make here, but it just makes us sound silly. My thought is this, I mean, first of all, before I can get to that, ask anybody who's actually been to combat, ask them how often they fired their gun on fully automatic if they had an M-16. Because I guarantee you the answer that I've heard pretty much every time was never because they travel with machine gunners whose job it is to fire their guns on fully automatic. So riflemen don't do that. Again, go ahead and check that one out for yourself. But no combat veteran that I've ever met has continually or even that often, if ever, fired their M-16 on full auto. So here's my other thought on that. Of course, it's a weapon of war, and that's why I want it. I want suppressors and squad-mounted, squad-operated machine guns and mortars and 50-cals and the whole nine yards and armored Humvees. Of course I want all that stuff, because that's why the Second Amendment exists. That's why we have it. Guys, it's not about hunting. It's not about self-defense. It's not about competition or sports shooting or yada, yada, yada. All those things are perfectly valid and wonderful and awesome, and we should do them. But that is not why the Second Amendment exists. The Second Amendment makes sure that we, the people, the militia, can be armed and prepared to fight battles. That's why it exists. So therefore, of course I want weapons of war, that's the entire point of the amendment. If you don't believe me, just read a history book. Just one of them. Just anyone. Read some of the Federalist papers. I believe number 42, if memory serves correct, is a very good example of the Second Amendment. So there are weapons of war or they're not. I don't care. It's a stupid term anyway. But yeah, I want weapons of war. That's why the amendment exists. God bless America. Do brave deeds and endure.