Part 6/10:
Veterans argue that equating civilian weapons—like rifles sold commercially—with weapons used in combat zones diminishes the gravity of actual battlefield weapons. Furthermore, they emphasize that weapons used by military and law enforcement serve purposes far beyond civilian firearm ownership, including national security and defense.
In this context, Walt's vague and politically charged use of the term appears more designed to resonate emotionally with constituents rather than accurately reflect military classifications. Many see it as a political stunt meant to attack or defend the Second Amendment without genuine understanding of what constitutes a weapon of war.