It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jsipprell
Christ, if I could just get a Howitzer in my front yard, nobody would dare come near my home … or my neighborhood.
Also, those guys in the next town would start to seriously worry about pissing me off.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, any fully automatic rifle is an assault rifle. Semi-automatic is not an assault rifle.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
This idea is something that I would hope both sides of the argument can come together and agree on. No one can have too much training/education, especially if it is an alternative to a flat out ban.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by projectvxn
My position is to not give into hyperbole and to be rational. I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. But I wouldn't disagree with a law that made it necessary to go through specific training to own most firearms. Especially those with the potential for high velocity and penetration rounds.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by projectvxn
You said it eloquently my friend. The key is education. The downfall - and the argument that the folks who want to take guns away will use - is that there are too many unqualified people in possession of said weaponry. People without the training, knowledge, or skills to effectively and safely use those weapons.
That is how they will win the argument.
My position is to not give into hyperbole and to be rational. I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. But I wouldn't disagree with a law that made it necessary to go through specific training to own most firearms. Especially those with the potential for high velocity and penetration rounds.
Those who enjoy liberty need to be smarter than just braying and screaming that guns prevent tyranny. Because, quite frankly, one look at most of the third world - where AK-47's are about as cheap as the cost of a meal and are more common than fleas - pretty much shoots that argument down.
Chance favors the prepared mind - not the loudest voice.
~Heff
That's horsehockey. SWAT teams are a totally different subject. They are highly trained and organized units. Not some yahoo shooting wildly at his front door because he heard a bump in the night.
This thread is specifically about young women and home defense. No? If so then the weapon that most experts would suggest would be a 32 or possibly even a 9mm handgun for that purpose. Not an AR-15.
One of my weapons - the one I'd use to defend my home, is a 12 gauge. I have it loaded with birdshot so that if I did use it, it is highly unlikely that the pellets would penetrate a wall and travel far. The last shell in the feed is a slug.
I beg to differ, I actually do know what I am talking about here.
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."
SHOTGUNS:
Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12
All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by hawkiye
That's horsehockey. SWAT teams are a totally different subject. They are highly trained and organized units. Not some yahoo shooting wildly at his front door because he heard a bump in the night.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Thank you for clearing that up. Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias. Your opinion in the matter is now worthless.
Originally posted by Hefficide
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Thank you for clearing that up. Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias. Your opinion in the matter is now worthless.
Oh this is spiffy. I live for these moments. I really do.
I am a gun owner so the idea of my being biased against them is probably a bit flawed. What I am biased against, as a resident of one of the highest homicide areas in the US is the idea of irresponsible and untrained gun owners creating problems for the rest of us who happen to exercise common sense.
As for my opinion being of merit or not. thank you so very much for appointing yourself arbiter of what does and does not have worth. The membership of ATS thanks you for taking up such a difficult and ardent task.
/sarcasm
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by hawkiye
One that doesn't mention AR-15's
Two that don't
Three.
Another
Another
Another
Another
I could go on, but I have a short attention span.
Oh, and as to my qualifications? I was born on a military base, raised by a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, handled my first gun when I was about 6 or 7 and have spent the forty odd years since in constant ownership of them.
~Heff
As a home defense gun, a properly set up AR-15 is easier to shoot accurately and delivers more firepower than a handgun, is more precise than a shotgun, more controllable than a subgun, and is easily configured with lights, lasers and other accessories to give you further advantages over any uninvited guests who may come calling after visiting hours.
What I am biased against, as a resident of one of the highest homicide areas in the US is the idea of irresponsible and untrained gun owners creating problems for the rest of us who happen to exercise common sense.
Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:
No such class as "assault"
Assault weapon?
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
Source
Originally posted by jsipprell
Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:
No such class as "assault"
I'm guess that you're referring to me because I posted the following:
Assault weapon?
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
Source
You'll notice how I made no assertions regarding the term "Assault Weapon" being technical firearm nomenclature and that the embedded link-quote quite specifically states that the term is defined only in the context of law/political discussions. Thus, like it or not, in a discussion about the future of firearms regulation in the United States (which a portion of this thread is referencing) it is an appropriate term.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by solomons path
Originally posted by jsipprell
Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:
No such class as "assault"
I'm guess that you're referring to me because I posted the following:
Assault weapon?
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
Source
You'll notice how I made no assertions regarding the term "Assault Weapon" being technical firearm nomenclature and that the embedded link-quote quite specifically states that the term is defined only in the context of law/political discussions. Thus, like it or not, in a discussion about the future of firearms regulation in the United States (which a portion of this thread is referencing) it is an appropriate term.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)
Well, since there is no definition to what "assault weapon" means and the fact that they keep expanding what constitutes or falls under "assault weapon", I'd say that it is not an appropriate term.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[3][4][5][6][7] As a political and legal term, it is highly controversial. Critics have asserted that the term is a media invention,[8] or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms.[9]
Original definitions and uses of the term for assault rifles in German, Sturmgewehr, literally "storm" (or assault) "rifle", included capability of fully automatic function. Later definitions from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only specified semi-automatic weapons.[7][12] Actually possessing the operational features, such as full-auto, is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon.[