It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by Shdak
I'm pretty much in agreement with your opinions, with clarification!
Semi-automatic "Assault type weapons":
What could we agree on or propose as features that sensibly defines the term?
I own a "tactical" ruger 10/22 with bipod, rails and a 25 round capacity factory magazine that "looks like an assault weapon" but it's still just a "black" .22 caliber target/plinking/varmint just-for-fun rifle.
Personally, I have a hard time allowing that weapon to be classified as an assault rifle, especially given there are pistol variants using the same magazines.
Perhaps proposed restrictions based on cartridge size/type/caliber might be in order?
Other than the National Guard, I'm not so sure there are 50 "state militias" - what about local militias? "Private" militias? "County" (or parish) militias? Isn't the concept of a militia basically drawing on every able-bodied man with arms (firearms) - otherwise known as the general public? I don't have any suggestions on this one because I'm in the dark on what states have militias, although we have a local militia unit near here, it's not connected to the "government" in any way.
Please don't take this as a criticism or disagreement, I seek clarification and qualification in order to be able to intelligently agree or disagree. Thanks for your post!
Originally posted by ganjoa
I've heard quite a few people advocating for laws to "secure" or lock up one's guns in a safe when not in use.
But it makes no sense for me to lock my guns up, as I wouldn't be able to use them if it were necessary - a locked up, unloaded gun is useless. I guess you could say my handguns are in constant use in my home. Of course, I have no kids, very few visitors, extensive physical security and DOGS in the compound and several handguns in various rooms - but no gun safe.
This wouldn't be a line-in-the-sand issue for me, I'll buy a safe if required - but it's not going to be used often except for the long guns - and they will not be unloaded.
Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by fossilera
From where I stand, there's only one thing that I find wrong with what you posted, fossilera... there shouldn't be any backlash from the point that you were making.
The choice not to arm one's self is the right choice to make, if that person thinks for even a moment that he or she will be unable to pull the trigger when needed, or if he or she feels uncertain about keeping the safety of non-target others primary in his or her concern. Not everyone is cut out to use firearms for the defense of others or themselves because when split seconds mean the difference between life or death, making the wrong decision can have consequences that will haunt a person forever.
Even still, the conscious decision to not arm one's self, regardless of the reasons behind that decision, is and should always be a personal choice - not mandated by the wills of others. Choosing not to arm one's self doesn't necessarily make that person (such as yourself) "anti-gun" by definition. I don't know you, but I doubt that you would mind too much if someone such as myself were to use a firearm, if needed, in your defense or in the defense of your wife, children, mother, father or some other person that you love and care for. And if I am correct - if you wouldn't mind that someone such as myself saved you or your loved ones from certain death by defending you or your loved one with my firearm - then you are not "anti-gun". You would then only be someone who prefers not to assume the highest level of responsibility measurable in life-threatening circumstances - that responsibility being the decision to kill or be killed.