Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

Kinda like outboard motors. Only the British Seagull was easy to maintain but it ruined your hearing and filled you lungs with soot and oil.

 

It is as clear as day. That’s why we do, always have and will continue to regulate furearms. Look up the meaning of “ infringe”:9
Shall not be infringed means no one “can break a law or agreement.” Zehra it comes to firearm procession It’s obvious that a gun regulation is a “law or agreement,” so, the 2a simply states , we cannot break a law or agreement, even those that pertain to regulations.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t have gun regulations which every state in the country has. The 2a reaffirms gun regulations.

 

It baffles me how someone can possibly conflate shall not be infringed into may be infringed.

You have the meaning of the term "shall not be infringed" as used in the Second, so incorrect it's laughable.

 

Blatant, deliberate dishonesty.

 

And yes, look up the meaning. Infringement is a legal term that applies to laws and agreements. Of course, I don’t expect you to look it up. You guys have your own agenda ., Everyone regulates. Maybe you’re too blind to see that. Name One place in the United States that does not regulate firearms.

 

Only ignorance can ignore that firearms are regulated everywhere in the United States.

 

well I have-a 6 year old kid shouldn't be able to carry a Smith and Wesson 38 concealed at school.

 

“ shall not be infringed”
That’s not a term, it’s a phrase.
If the founders had not meant firearms to be subject to regulation, they would have said that the right to bare arms is ‘ “ absolute”. They did not. They stated that right to bear arms is protected under the law. The word “infringe” is a lawful term In essence, if you abide by a law or regulation, your right to possess a fire arm shall not be “infringed.” If you don’t, your right to possess one is not protected.
I have proof. Every square inch of the United States has a firearm regulation statute to cover it.
To deny that’s how EVERY Supreme Court case has been interpreted, is idiocy.

 

Then you want no infringements. Six year olds with concealed guns.....right?

 

So by your logic, the government can pass any gun control law they wish to?

 

Unless he's a ninja... in which case, the gun is the least dangerous part about him.

 

Your incomplete reference to “ the government” with out being specific makes your question, illogical. All governments, federal state or local carry the same constitutional requirements. If not, their regulation is subject to challenge in a higher court and ultimately the SC.

Just by you asking if a government can pass “ any’ Law you’ve already admitted that firearms rights are not absolute and at least some regulation is acceptable. By doing that, you accept that “shall not be infringed” only applies to those with lawful possession .

 

Exactly.....we DO infringe upon the right to posses a firearm if possession is unlawful. The “gun dude’s” totally nonsensical proclamation that “ shall not be infringed “ means that firearm possession is absolute is itself , unconstitutional.
“ shall not be infringed” only applies to lawful possession.

 

They cant have it both ways. Either no infringements or it is open to almost anything

 

I'm not saying that some regulation is acceptable. I will say that under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that the federal government was not given any enumerated power to restrict the rights of the individual in regards to firearms in any way. That the federal government has assumed the power without the authority goes without saying. Under the 14th Amendment, the states should have lost any power to restrict the rights of the individual with regards to firearm access and ownership, but it wasn't until McDonald that SCOTUS affirmed that the protections of the Second Amendment should be extended to the states.

Yes, states and the feds regulate guns. That power was assumed, not granted. Several SCOTUS decisions have noted that the right is not absolute, but those same SCOTUS decisions have set limits on what the federal government and the state governments can impose as regulations on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Those regulations are unconstitutional.

 

My problem with revolvers is that they're heavy, and aren't real conducive to concealed carry. The ones you CAN conceal carry, like a snub nose, aren't great options unless you're at near contact distance.

Carrying reloads presents another issue with revolvers.

If you have a good gun belt and OWB them, they're fine for that role (or a chest/shoulder harness).

 

I don’t disagree with most if what you say except the bolden . The power to regulate is not assumed anywhere in the constitution . The right to legislate and make any laws is well defined. In the case of the 2a, it’s no different. Infringement can apply if a law has been broken. Otherwise, our founding fathers would have said the right is absolute. Infringement is protected agaisnt by lawful possession. . Every gun regulation challenged has upheld the constitutionality of firearm regulation. It’s not assumed.

 

You approach the issue the wrong way.

The state may regulate guns in whatever way the relevant constitution allows, so long as said regulation does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Not allow children to buy guns? Children do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is infringed.
Not allow felons to have guns? Felons do not have the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is infringed.
Not allow people to have nukes? Nuclear weapons are not 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd, so no right is infringed.
Etc.

 

Just curious...for those who say "shall not be infringed"...do you believe ANYONE of ANY age should be able to legally own a firearm?

 

Well I see no age restrictions written into the second amendment

 

The right to keep and bear arms is totally deoendent upon the regulation. It always has been. If the regulation includes an age limit, felony conviction etc, your right to bear arms, no longer exists. Your exemption from any infringement, no longer exists. “The gov”. can take your firearm or fine you whatever the penalty is.

 

innovation will always be a step ahead of legislation


this is effectively a 'muzzleloader'

 

Because engineers and gunsmiths are smarter than liberals, especially liberal politicians.

 

No reason to legislate agaisnt this weapon. It’s self limiting.
Many people lost their faces and hands shooting black powder muzzle loading revolvers because the ignition gas from the cylinder barrel gap ignited the rest if the rounds in the open chambers. Put wax plugs in all the cylinders which is the safe thing to do, and you can forget about speed loading,

Not your best conceal carry choice either.

 

Revolvers are natural aim while most pistols are not.

Revolvers rarely if ever have a stoppage (jamming)

Revolvers don't scare snowflake liberals as much as a black pistol.