Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

The regulation can be the infringement.

 

Well, at least we’ve reduced to debate to “the federal govt does not have the authority to make laws that gun nuts don’t like. “
To be clear, you and I are not the SC and they're the sole arbitor on the constitutionality of any law, not the NRA.

 

There is no such thing as either a "right to legislate" or a "right to make any laws" as is being claimed on the part of yourself.

 

The point is that a ~20 shot revolver isnt out of the question. If they could make one 100 years ago, imagine what they could make today, if (for example) revolvers became the only legal semi-auto-style firearm.

Just about anything can be concealed in suitably baggy clothing.

Banning certain firearms will only prompt manufacturers to find a workaround or a loophole.

 

Well, at least we’ve reduced to debate to “the federal govt does not have the authority to make laws that gun nuts don’t like. “

 

Not can be....they all are

 

Muzzle loader black powder revolver In any n7mber of rounds you want...they'd be huge. ? They’re all yours. No one has come up with a safe one that doesn’t take a day and a half to reload safely.
I’m a revolver fan but black powder ( even pyrodex) is regulated very minimally for good reason.

 

And what has SCOTUS said about gun restrictions? Let's see: The Second Amendment protects "all firearms" (Caetano) "in common use for lawful purposes" (Heller) or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (Miller), and extends those protections to the states (McDonald). SCOTUS also said "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress".

 

Yourself at the end of a sentence is worrisomely shaky English for a self proclaimed legal authority. Just say “ you” .

 

Sounds like a lot of verbiage that supports regulation.

 

That would make every semiautomatic pistol an "assault weapon".

 

What can't the federal government do with regards to regulation? What are their limits, according to you?

 

Since you decided to go personal, I will accept that as a you don't have a clue as to what you are proffering.

Florida.

 

Dont be rediculous. Combat situations vs civilian are totally different. The interchangeability of fewer parts by soldiers in the field make the long term reliability inherently better with an auto then a revolver. My basic training and service was during a real shooting war,not reduced to reading history from a book.
The Seals and the .357. They were minimally used by tunnel rats for their short them reliability and Knock down.....for no more reason. We didn’t have the sidearm that compared. It was used by default.

 

Here you go again with more insults, why do you find that to be necessary, do you lack the ability to debate without childish name calling?

 

We don’t know according to Scalia. He always advised congress to enact legislation then challenge if need be.

 

That's right. Make the laws and let scotus decide

 

For reliability I would prefer a 1911 over a Glock any day.

 

Of course it was dear.

 

And right on queue, here comes Vegas with another witty one liner, how predictable.

 

Where? I don't see it.

 

I see you have no response. Right on cue as usual.

Now...go for the personal attack

 

Right. The whole "in common use for lawful purposes" means nothing.

 

Yeah I missed it too

 

Florida has no gun regs ? Interesting and false.

Be our guess.