Revolvers included in gun ban language?
- Thread starter sidneyhop
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
mkk41
US Veteran
Some of the ones going around want to ban ALL handguns.
Does feinsteins ban include them? It seems like that one may gain the most traction.
All my pistols are magazine fed and Ive been looking at revolvers for a while.
If they likely will be banned then Ill save myself the painful breakup and $ loss. If not then Im guessing the prices on them will bubble up like those of the pmags and the time would be now to buy one.
PA Guns & Ammo
Member
Revolvers are not part of the bill.
Sebago Son
Member
It doesn't make any difference. This is the fight of our lives and we need to all be on our toes, giving it our best, not thinking "oh it's only semis, I'm safe".... They may come for the self loaders tomorrow, but they'll be backaround for the revolvers later.
JOIN THE NRA.
We hang togeather or we hang seperately.
JOIN THE NRA.
We hang togeather or we hang seperately.
agreed 100%.
Sebago Son
Member
Every person of this forum should be a member and proudly display the NRA badge next to their name....
"We hang togeather or we hang seperately..."
"We hang togeather or we hang seperately..."
HotRoderX
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 717
- Reaction score
- 348
If anything like her bill passes then yes revolvers will be banned sooner or later also. Basically she wants all guns banned think Great Britain or Australia.
When I think about them country's and there gun laws I cant help but think. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
When I think about them country's and there gun laws I cant help but think. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
kbm6893
Member
I know they would LIKE to ban them all, and i am sure something is coming, but the reality is that not a whole lot is going to happen. 300 million guns in this country. Many not registered. No manpower to round them up, not to mention the bloodshed that would surely follow. Cops don't have the manpower to arrest those they find with them IF they are banned. Courts don't have the room on the docket to prosecute them, and prisons don't have the room to house them. Not to mention the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in legal costs the states would accrue fighting the MILLIONS of lawsuits.
Another AWB is coming. it will be bigger than the first, meaning that they'll up the "allowable characteristics" from 2 to 1, meaning they're gonna have to dump either the external magazine or the pistol grip. Mags over 10 rounds will be banned, but guns and mags bought before the ban will be grandfathered, just because they can't collect them all or prosecute those they find with them.
If anything, they'll go after ammo and componets and tax them, which would have meant nothing to these mass killers. How many rounds were fired in Aurora? 120? Newtown? 100? Think somebody bent on doing something like that can't come up with the scratch to pay the tax on the ammo? Cigartte smokers somehow find the cash to pay the high taxes on their cigarettes.
Somebody else posted a topic for a Million Man March on DC for gun owners. That would help.
Another AWB is coming. it will be bigger than the first, meaning that they'll up the "allowable characteristics" from 2 to 1, meaning they're gonna have to dump either the external magazine or the pistol grip. Mags over 10 rounds will be banned, but guns and mags bought before the ban will be grandfathered, just because they can't collect them all or prosecute those they find with them.
If anything, they'll go after ammo and componets and tax them, which would have meant nothing to these mass killers. How many rounds were fired in Aurora? 120? Newtown? 100? Think somebody bent on doing something like that can't come up with the scratch to pay the tax on the ammo? Cigartte smokers somehow find the cash to pay the high taxes on their cigarettes.
Somebody else posted a topic for a Million Man March on DC for gun owners. That would help.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sebago Son
Member
Not sure I agree....
Respectfully, and after careful thought about the rest of what you said, I'm not willing to take the chance.
I will not let my guard down.
I intend to continue to energize my fellow gun owners and keep them in the fight.
If we slack off, they will get around us.
Respectfully, and after careful thought about the rest of what you said, I'm not willing to take the chance.
I will not let my guard down.
I intend to continue to energize my fellow gun owners and keep them in the fight.
If we slack off, they will get around us.
bp231986
Member
Sir i am working on it, tight budget and my car just broke down...i know excuses excuses but give me a little bit and i will have that logo for suporting the NRA.
Bryan
rdcl
Member
They'll even go after the single-shot Contender at some point in the future.
Then muzzleloaders. Although I'm not a black-powder shooter, I'm suprised that we can still .......in these modern
times.......order a cap & ball revolver right from our computer and have it shipped directly to our front door. No FFL required.
(not sure about NYC & Chicago, however!
)Mark my words! One day in the future there will be a rush on muzzle-loading guns because of impending legislation in the same way there is a rush on AR's today. Right now, even in todays political climate, muzzle-loaders are the safest bet as far as firearms from being banned that there is.
.....that'll change one day.....not in my lifetime perhaps.....but it'll happen.
Yep!
Notice how the MSM is backing off slightly with their "coverage" or rather "programming" and focusing on other fluffy nonsense. Think the 'lawmakers' are backing off as well? Don't count on it! They love to pass tyranny under the doldrum of distraction!
In the '90s, Senator Feinstein was quoted as saying if she could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for a total ban she would have done so. Her quote was "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them ALL in!"
This is the same person who had a very hard to get carry permit when she was Mayor of San Francisco. Another example of our "leaders" having a different set of rules for themselves.
The anti-gunners have tried and tried to ban guns totally. I have a lot of old American Rifleman magazines. There are several articles in the '60s and '70s about bills introduced in Congress to ban all guns, or ban all handguns completely. They failed, The anti-gun forces got smarter, now they do it a bite at a time.
Let's keep fighting.
JOIN THE NRA!!!
Jim
This is the same person who had a very hard to get carry permit when she was Mayor of San Francisco. Another example of our "leaders" having a different set of rules for themselves.
The anti-gunners have tried and tried to ban guns totally. I have a lot of old American Rifleman magazines. There are several articles in the '60s and '70s about bills introduced in Congress to ban all guns, or ban all handguns completely. They failed, The anti-gun forces got smarter, now they do it a bite at a time.
Let's keep fighting.
JOIN THE NRA!!!
Jim
Backlighting
Member
I put nothing past this government. They forced their health care scam on us, what kind of autos will be made, what kind of toilets and light bulbs can be used, etc. They're all about control.
CoachWillyT
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Amen and Amen.
sps282
Member
The anti gunners will never give up, they will just keep chipping away at the 2nd ammendment until they reach their goal. We must fight against them with the same resolve if we are to maintain our rights granted by the Constitution---we have already given up too much!
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
Various terms are thrown around by anti-gun activists. "Assault weapon" might mean any weapon capable of taking a large capacity magazine, any weapon with design features similar to military weapons (pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, folding stock) etc, etc, etc.
"Legitimate sporting purpose" is another handy term. If a rifle is not capable of a high degree of accuracy, it obviously has no "legitimate sporting purpose". Of course, if a rifle is capable of a high degree of accuracy, then it is a "sniper rifle" (especially if equipped with a telescopic sight).
"Military weapons" is another handy euphemism. Any weapon that has ever been used by military forces will be argued as unsuitable for civilian uses or ownership. This creates perhaps the broadest net for the gun-banners because, at one time or another, our miliary forces have used single-shot rifles and multi-shot rifles, all manner of shotguns, rimfire and centerfire weapons of all types, handguns including revolvers and semi-autos, breech-loading and muzzle-loading weapons, easily concealed weapons as well as crew-served weapons, just about everything from slingshots to cruise missiles can be described as "military weapons".
A number of other countries ban civilian possession of any weapon chambered in "military calibers". This easily provides another avenue for the gun-banners. At one time or another military forces have used every conceivable caliber of muzzle-loading weapons from 5mm to .75 caliber or larger. Rimfire cartridges from the .22 Short through 9mm and larger were specifically developed for military arms. Centerfire cartridges that have been used by military forces include at least 75% of all such cartridges ever produced.
Just in my lifetime I can recall just about every category of individual weapon having some role in military use, including pistols and revolvers in .22, .38 Spl, .357 magnum, 9X19mm, .44 magnum, .45ACP, .45 Colt, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, .30-06, .30 Carbine, .276 Pedersen, .50BMG, 7.62 Russian, 7.62X39mm, 5.45mm, 6mm, 7mm, 7.35mm, 7.65mm, 7.92mm, 8mm, multiples of 9mm cartridges (all developed for military weapons), 10mm, 11mm, 12mm, 12.5mm, and others.
Revolvers? No doubt about it. The ubiquitous S&W K-frames derived from the 1895 model, which was known as the Military & Police model for decades. Colt O-frames developed from the 1890's "Army" and "Navy" revolvers and include the newer Official Police, Trooper and Python series. The S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum (with multiple modifications) saw limited service in Vietnam for clearing bunker and tunnel complexes. The Colt Single Action Army revolver was specifically developed for the US Army in 1873, so just about everything that followed that general pattern can be lumped in.
The Remington rolling block single shot rifles and pistols were military arms, widely distributed and used throughout the world.
During WW2 the US sent many Remington "Rangemaster" .22LR match rifles to the Soviet Union, intended for riflery training but used to great effect as urban sniper rifles.
One of the key US Supreme Court cases involving the 2nd Amendment established essentially that since short-barreled shotguns had never seen significant use for military purposes, therefore were not subject to protections for civilian purposes and properly banned by the National Firearms Act. Since then, however, US armed forces have made wide use of very short-barreled shotguns (Remington 870 variants) for breaching doors and barricades, so it would appear that this position is open for reinterpretation.
Literally every type of firearm, and every caliber of ammunition, was either developed for or derived from military applications. Those who seek to infringe 2nd Amendment guarantees via "reasonable restrictions" can support just about any infringements on these types of arguments.
No firearm is safe or immune from the zealots.
"Legitimate sporting purpose" is another handy term. If a rifle is not capable of a high degree of accuracy, it obviously has no "legitimate sporting purpose". Of course, if a rifle is capable of a high degree of accuracy, then it is a "sniper rifle" (especially if equipped with a telescopic sight).
"Military weapons" is another handy euphemism. Any weapon that has ever been used by military forces will be argued as unsuitable for civilian uses or ownership. This creates perhaps the broadest net for the gun-banners because, at one time or another, our miliary forces have used single-shot rifles and multi-shot rifles, all manner of shotguns, rimfire and centerfire weapons of all types, handguns including revolvers and semi-autos, breech-loading and muzzle-loading weapons, easily concealed weapons as well as crew-served weapons, just about everything from slingshots to cruise missiles can be described as "military weapons".
A number of other countries ban civilian possession of any weapon chambered in "military calibers". This easily provides another avenue for the gun-banners. At one time or another military forces have used every conceivable caliber of muzzle-loading weapons from 5mm to .75 caliber or larger. Rimfire cartridges from the .22 Short through 9mm and larger were specifically developed for military arms. Centerfire cartridges that have been used by military forces include at least 75% of all such cartridges ever produced.
Just in my lifetime I can recall just about every category of individual weapon having some role in military use, including pistols and revolvers in .22, .38 Spl, .357 magnum, 9X19mm, .44 magnum, .45ACP, .45 Colt, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, .30-06, .30 Carbine, .276 Pedersen, .50BMG, 7.62 Russian, 7.62X39mm, 5.45mm, 6mm, 7mm, 7.35mm, 7.65mm, 7.92mm, 8mm, multiples of 9mm cartridges (all developed for military weapons), 10mm, 11mm, 12mm, 12.5mm, and others.
Revolvers? No doubt about it. The ubiquitous S&W K-frames derived from the 1895 model, which was known as the Military & Police model for decades. Colt O-frames developed from the 1890's "Army" and "Navy" revolvers and include the newer Official Police, Trooper and Python series. The S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum (with multiple modifications) saw limited service in Vietnam for clearing bunker and tunnel complexes. The Colt Single Action Army revolver was specifically developed for the US Army in 1873, so just about everything that followed that general pattern can be lumped in.
The Remington rolling block single shot rifles and pistols were military arms, widely distributed and used throughout the world.
During WW2 the US sent many Remington "Rangemaster" .22LR match rifles to the Soviet Union, intended for riflery training but used to great effect as urban sniper rifles.
One of the key US Supreme Court cases involving the 2nd Amendment established essentially that since short-barreled shotguns had never seen significant use for military purposes, therefore were not subject to protections for civilian purposes and properly banned by the National Firearms Act. Since then, however, US armed forces have made wide use of very short-barreled shotguns (Remington 870 variants) for breaching doors and barricades, so it would appear that this position is open for reinterpretation.
Literally every type of firearm, and every caliber of ammunition, was either developed for or derived from military applications. Those who seek to infringe 2nd Amendment guarantees via "reasonable restrictions" can support just about any infringements on these types of arguments.
No firearm is safe or immune from the zealots.
YET. .....in the 1980's in CAL. prop. 13 wanted to outlaw hand guns. semi auto and revolver. Give them an inch and they will be happy to take a mile.
