Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

The rifle on the left in an 'assault weapon'.
The rifle on the right is not.

 

Only a fool ( gun nut) would use this weapon for anything but a prop. The reason is black powder revolvers were notoriously useless and dangerous...to the shooter. That’s why there are few regulations on them. But go for it. We’d be happy to let any felon shoot these as much as possible at the range.

 

No it's not.

Sight alignment is the most important thing when it comes to gun control.

BRASS

Breath

Relax

Aim

Sight

Squeeze

 

Yeah. That....and handgun laws

 

this is a pump action AK

to acheive this, the gas port in the barrel is filled in (silver solder meets ATF reqs) and a handle slid onto the barrel pushes the piston instead of the gas

to un-acheive this, the silver solder is drilled out and the rifle becomes semi-auto again.

 

Same with a rifle if you are going for one shot...one kill.

 

A lot of false assumptions. Here’s a liberal that doesn’t make those false assumptions. The military went to autos because they were less prone to jamming in combat. Drop both guns on a concrete floor and you’d much rather trust your life to a well designed auto. Drop both into mud then try to cycle the cylinder of a double action revolver vs a Glock. I like revolvers for home defense, and clean carry and novice civilian carry .....but thats about it. Police and combat, autos all the way.

 

Infringed and infringement are to different terms.

Infringed, to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

Get it now?

 

Yes, good on you for recognizing that the vast bulk of gun related violence is perpetrated with handguns.

Unfortunately (for gun control) handguns are the most popular firearm among democrats and progressives. The movement focusses on semi-auto rifles because the CCWers on the left wont support handgun restrictions.

 

if the parts including the stock and barrel are interchangeable, they’re both assault weapons.

 

The movement? Hilarious.

Handgun control is the key to effective gun control

 

The two terms have the same root meaning.....

 

Drop the military's early automatic the 1911 muzzle down on a hard surface and it will fire upon hitting that surface, the same applies to many other semi-auto firearms that lack a firing pin lock interfaced with the trigger.

As for mud, get silt into a Glock bolt and you will have a non-functioning firearm.

 

I have the 626 .44 Magnum Mountain Gun and it shoots .44 Special. I saw a video of a guy shooting both out of the 4" magnum and he was more accurate with the .44 Special. Go figure.

I like the .44 Special and have a Rossi 720 in 44 special I like that looks like this.

 

In the context of the Second, they do not.

 

So if "lawful possession" is defined by some left-leaning state as owning a single firearm, capacity less than seven rounds, caliber 9mm/.38 caliber or less, barrel length 16" or greater, and only after a four week training/certification course and $1000 license, then the right to keep and bear arms still would not be infringed?

 

A buddy has the Mountain Gun, and he was very happy that I showed him that .44 Special existed.

 

Wouldn't mind having the S&W one myself.

 

The federal government doesn't have any rights. It does have enumerated powers. The federal government does not have the authority to "make any law".

 

Less prone to jamming than bolt action rifles?

 

Have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

If you went through Marine Corps boot camp at either MCRDPI or MCRDSD during the "Old Corps" you were taught the history of handguns in the military and particular the Colt M-1911A1.

FYI:
During the Vietnam War the handgun of choice by U.S. Navy SEAL's was the S&W .357 Mag revolver.

The Colt M-1911-A1 was intended for the U.S. Calvary (horse cavalry) and is why M-1911's have a grip safety and a lanyard ring.
(Nothing will turn a cavalry trooper into an infantryman faster than shooting his own horse by accident.)

 

No, we’ll never understand a gun nut whose

find me a place in the US where a person’s firearm rights cannot be infringed if they don’t abide by a regulation....then you might be believable. Get it.

 

Yah...were talking reliability not safety.
Your saying you’d rather have a revolver then a Glock for reliability in bad conditions ? Hmm.

 

Another canard.....how about a single shot shot gun.

 

You made reference to the military changing to semiautos for less jamming. Does that claim hold true for the move from the M1903 to the M1 Garand?